The Fantasy Hall of Fame

Tools    





Ok, in all seriousness, while I do agree that she is fetishized in it, I think a simple roll in the hay and buns in the oven being baked might be taken out of context here.
Think Occams Razor.....



Seriously, though, I do somewhat agree with @Siddon. Maybe he sees too much symbolism in the film, but the sexual awakening of a pubescent girl is definitely there as a theme. I'm just a little confused about the tone of the discussion as, to me, it seems to imply that quite a few of you think there's something inherently wrong with sexuality in coming of age stories.
I'm ok with that. I just didn't see the film as @Siddon did.



The Franchise (1944-2020) R.I.P.
Add me to the list of people who didn't see Kiki's Delivery Service the same way @Siddon saw it.

I know that I have a tendency to miss the more complex side of some movies, but I think he may be reading more into the movie than what's there. (The movie is rated "G", not "R", "NC-17, or "X".)
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



Seriously, though, I do somewhat agree with @Siddon. Maybe he sees too much symbolism in the film, but the sexual awakening of a pubescent girl is definitely there as a theme. I'm just a little confused about the tone of the discussion as, to me, it seems to imply that quite a few of you think there's something inherently wrong with sexuality in coming of age stories.
I don't see a sexual awaking of Kiki. Of course she is pubescent as she's suppose to be a young witch who's 13 years old and going out into the world for the first time. It's an adventure story. And of course she is interested in adult things, like earning a wage, making a career for herself and yet she's still young enough to roll in the hay too...but by herself!



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
Finished Dragonheart last night and The Dark Crystal tonight, should have both up by the weekend along with perhaps another film. Not sure which though.
__________________
They say: that after people make love there's a kind of melancholia, the petite mort, the little death. Well, I'm here to tell you, after a romantic night with yourself there's a very acute sensation of failed suicide. ~Dylan Moran



Dragonslayer

Dragons are an interesting type of creature. They range from malevolent (Smaug), to the benevolent (Draco). Sometimes they’re depicted as slaves intended as a form of test (see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) or Guardian (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows).
They’re a staple in fantasy films. Here we have Verminthrax. The best creation of all dragon in terms of special effects.
The story starts off simple enough. Wizard is hired to slay a dragon, where a crude lottery is set up to sacrifice a young lady to appease its appetite. Wizard dies. Apprentice takes his place. This happens quickly, but really the story is just dressing. It isn’t deep but it works. The special effects is the main drive here. And boy does it deliver.
The sound also is amazing. As the apprentice enters the cave the first time around, you can hear the bones crunching under his steps, the water dripping at the entrance.
The movie plays out like a religious allegory. The dragon lives down a pit with a lake of fire that brings seems like Hell. It’s visage calls to midnight satan with his horns, and even is referred to as Lucifer. The wizard returns to life and stands on a cliff almost God like standing amongst the clouds hurling lightning at it. All while the townspeople pray.
And of course the dragon.....seemingly brought to life, her eyes full of hate. But also, full of sorrow when her eyes fall upon the lifeless bodies of her young. It’s a testament to how old school special effects,before CGI became rampant, could hold such wonder.





Alice (1988)



In honor of Tideland I decided to pick up a different interpretation of Alice in Wonderland, Alice, it blends live action practical effects with stop motion animation to tell of the story of a little girl who follows a white rabbit down a hole.


both films actually have a similar carcas scene..in Tideland with the father and with Alice her double.



Pretty cool makes me wonder if it was in the books. It's not as good as Black Moon which is the high water mark for Alice in Wonderland adaptations...the film does drag and annoy at points. But their is a creepiness to many of the set pieces. It shocks you with it's artisanal aspects of the story as opposed to Tideland which tries to shock you through exploitation.



The Franchise (1944-2020) R.I.P.


Alice (1988)



In honor of Tideland I decided to pick up a different interpretation of Alice in Wonderland, Alice, it blends live action practical effects with stop motion animation to tell of the story of a little girl who follows a white rabbit down a hole.


both films actually have a similar carcas scene..in Tideland with the father and with Alice her double.



Pretty cool makes me wonder if it was in the books. It's not as good as Black Moon which is the high water mark for Alice in Wonderland adaptations...the film does drag and annoy at points. But their is a creepiness to many of the set pieces. It shocks you with it's artisanal aspects of the story as opposed to Tideland which tries to shock you through exploitation.

Tideland is an interpretation of "Alice in Wonderland"?
I definitely missed that.



Tideland is an interpretation of "Alice in Wonderland"?
I definitely missed that.

That's what Gilliam was going for



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tideland

Tideland is the third published book by author Mitch Cullin, and is the third installment of the writer's Texas Trilogy that also includes the coming-of-age novel Whompyjawed[1] and the novel-in-verse Branches.[2]



The story is a first-person narrative told by the young Jeliza-Rose, detailing the summer she spent alone at an isolated, rundown farmhouse in Texas called What Rocks. With only the heads of old Barbie dolls to keep her company, Jeliza-Rose embarks on a series of highly imagined and increasingly surreal adventures in the tall grass surrounding the farmhouse.[3]



Tideland was first published in the United States in 2000 by Dufour Editions.[4] The book received major notices upon publication, including a review from New York Times Book Review[5][6] which wrote that the novel was "brilliant and beautiful." Some have favourably compared the book to earlier Southern Gothic American literature such as To Kill a Mockingbird and A Rose for Emily,[6] while others, including Terry Gilliam and film producer Jeremy Thomas, have called the book a modern hybrid of Psycho and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.[7] A subsequent United Kingdom paperback edition followed in 2003 from Weidenfeld & Nicolson, with Gilliam's infamous blurb on the cover: "F*cking wonderful!"[8] Other editions have since been published in the Netherlands,[9] Japan,[10] France,[11] Greece,[12] Italy,[13] Poland,[14] Russia,[15] Turkey,[16] and Korea.[17]



In 1999, Cullin sent a pre-publication galley to Gilliam for a cover blurb, but Gilliam so liked what he read that he optioned the book with an eye to direct.[18] The controversial film version was produced by Gabriella Martinelli and Jeremy Thomas for Capri Films and Recorded Picture Company, and was directed by Gilliam and shot in Canada in 2004. Cullin was given a brief cameo in the movie and contributed lyrics to the soundtrack,[19] and the name "M. Cullin" appears on the mailbox at the farmhouse where much of the film takes place.[20] The script adaptation was written by Gilliam and screenwriter Tony Grisoni.[



I'm not saying that Gilliam didn't mean Tideland to be an interpretation of Alice in Wonderland (I have no idea what his intentions were), but to base such claim on that wiki article requires quite radical, eh, interpretation. According to that article, he said that the book is a hybrid of Psycho and Alice, that's all. I don't understand how you can extrapolate his intentions for the film from that.
__________________



I'm not saying that Gilliam didn't mean Tideland to be an interpretation of Alice in Wonderland (I have no idea what his intentions were), but to base such claim on that wiki article requires quite radical, eh, interpretation. According to that article, he said that the book is a hybrid of Psycho and Alice, that's all. I don't understand how you can extrapolate his intentions for the film from that.
I don't see it as being that radical, I think if I cared to revisit Tideland again I could likely draw each of Alice's chapters and the influences on the action.

Down the Rabbit Hole - Journey to Texas
The Pool of Tears - The Flood
Mad Tea Party - The Dinner with Dickens and Dell
Mock Turtle - Noah's Preservation
Trial - Train Wreck

Also...it's not like I'm the only one who saw the Alice influences....

In addition to the obvious Alice in Wonderland references, I saw two major influences in this film; The Reflecting Skin and Poison for the Fairies (both of which I happen to love, so it's no wonder I enjoyed this one as well). It's visually gorgeous (like Gilliam's films usually are), and the combination of childish innocence, disturbing events, escapism, and adaptation creates quite a unique blend. One of the better Gilliam films, in my opinion, but sadly the public has largely forgotten it.
Everyone lived in a fantasy here. Jeliza-Rose did reference Alice in Wonderland during the beginning of the movie and even talked to a firefly, calling it Titania, who is Queen of the Fairies.



I think that there's a difference between saying a film or novel is an interpretation or adaptation of another work vs a film or novel being inspired by something else.

Tideland clearly draws inspiration from Alice in Wonderland, with many references throughout the film, especially considering the fact that Jeliza-Rose even falls down a rabbit hole at one point. However I don't personally think that it's meant to be interpreted as an adaptation of Lewis Carroll's narrative.

While they're both coming of age stories, their focus is quite different. Alice matures during her time in Wonderland, and is better prepared for the adult world as a result. That central journey is a primary component of the Alice in Wonderland story, and it's completely missing in Tideland. Jeliza-Rose does not have that same arc, as she is using her imagination to deal with increasingly traumatic events. Her story is intrinsically tied to escapism, rather than the acceptance Alice finds.



I don't see it as being that radical, I think if I cared to revisit Tideland again I could likely draw each of Alice's chapters and the influences on the action.

Down the Rabbit Hole - Journey to Texas
The Pool of Tears - The Flood
Mad Tea Party - The Dinner with Dickens and Dell
Mock Turtle - Noah's Preservation
Trial - Train Wreck

Also...it's not like I'm the only one who saw the Alice influences....
I'm sure you understand the difference between a viewer and a director, or influence and interpretation, or even a book and movie.

I wasn't (quite obviously, I think, as I mentioned Alice in my review) trying to say that there aren't Alice in Wonderland influences in the film. That's quite far from your initial claim that Gilliam went for an interpretation of Alice in Wonderland, though, especially considering that the proof you provided was Gilliam's description of the book as a hybrid of Alice and another novel.

So, there are similarities and influences. How much of them are from the novel and how much by Gilliam, I have no idea as I haven't read the book. I'm quite sure that Gilliam went for an interpretation of Tideland, though, and I'd suppose that majority of the influences are already in the book (as implied by Gilliam's description).



I think that there's a difference between saying a film or novel is an interpretation or adaptation of another work vs a film or novel being inspired by something else.

Tideland clearly draws inspiration from Alice in Wonderland, with many references throughout the film, especially considering the fact that Jeliza-Rose even falls down a rabbit hole at one point. However I don't personally think that it's meant to be interpreted as an adaptation of Lewis Carroll's narrative.

While they're both coming of age stories, their focus is quite different. Alice matures during her time in Wonderland, and is better prepared for the adult world as a result. That central journey is a primary component of the Alice in Wonderland story, and it's completely missing in Tideland. Jeliza-Rose does not have that same arc, as she is using her imagination to deal with increasingly traumatic events. Her story is intrinsically tied to escapism, rather than the acceptance Alice finds.

Eh I don't know about that I think Alice is more on an adventure and journey through a series of allegorical adventures. Perhaps she's better off for it...though that is more of an interpretation of the work. I think Alice is a passenger in both of her stories similar to Jeliza-Rose. Alice doesn't even get herself out of Wonderland her sister wakes her up..similar to how Jeliza-Rose is saved at the end by the nice lady in the train wreck.



Dragonslayer (1981)

I saw Dragonslayer the first time in my early teens. Like most fantasy films, I loved it back then. Fortunately, it's one of those rare exceptions that have retained its appeal over the years.


The first thing that amazes me today is the grey-and-gray morality of the film. There's no way Disney would make something like this now. The king sacrificing virgins to the dragon has merely chosen the lesser evil, Galen is driven primarily by his pride in the beginning, and even the dragon isn't purely evil. Everyone has understandable motives instead of acting only out of virtue or malice.

The plot is a basic fantasy trope: a monster is demanding bi-annual sacrifice, and the suffering villagers seek out a hero to put an end to its reign. Believable characters, satisfyingly grim world, beautiful settings, and a surprisingly cynical picture of Christianity for a film like this raise it above the mediocrity. I also like how the film flirts with horror in many scenes involving the dragon. With all this, I can almost forget the issue of the girls retaining their virginity in the prevailing circumstances.

Speaking of the dragon, Vermithrax is absolutely gorgeous. Some of the scenes show their age, but in general, the dragon here looks much better than Draco in DragonHeart. It's less bulky and the way it flies doesn't look like a crime against physics. I do like how it moves like a bat when grounded instead of having separate front legs.

Dragonslayer should be one of the great fantasy classics but I have an impression it's more like a forgotten gem. It's not the very best in the genre but would certainly make my top-25 if we'll ever make a Fantasy countdown.



I also watched La Belle et la Bête today so I only need to watch Excalibur and then I'm done. I'll probably postpone it a bit and watch a few films for 23rd before finishing this.

P.S. I didn't hate La Belle et la Bête but I didn't find it especially entertaining either. More about that in a few days.



La Belle et la Bête (2014)
aka Beauty and the Beast

I'm not very familiar with the original fairytale, but I read its plot description from Wiki. To me, the original story seems better, and the changes were made only to make the ending happier, and Beauty's family more likable.


The first thing that bothered me immediately was the age of Belle and her siblings. Why are all these adult sons and daughters of a wealthy merchant still unmarried at their age? And why is Belle treated like a child when she's a grownup woman (the actress is 29). I hate it when the roles are written for children or teens, and then cast with adult actors.

The visual style of the film has its pros, but as a whole, it leaves a flat and lifeless impression. The CGI terrain looks like a video game texture that's a bit blurry and has too low contrast. The liquid mirror in the dream sequences is quite good, though. The giants in the final act looked decent but felt weightless, and the spreading vines were bad. Sea sequences, in the beginning, looked beautiful.

Belle falling in love with the beast is not properly played out and feels too sudden. The money lending gangsters are unnecessary. The beast's background story is a bit silly. As odd as it sounds, I would have preferred a less action, more romance approach with a stricter focus on the relationship of titular characters.

La Belle et la Bête doesn't seem to trust its source enough. It adds too much fluff and ends up leaving the core too weak. It's visually ambitious but can't pull it off technically.



The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Directed By: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Directed By: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Andy Serkis
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Directed By: Peter Jackson
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin
This is entirely irrelevant, but I was double checking that the links in the second post were correct, and noticed that I inadvertently staged my own "return of the king".