The Fantasy Hall of Fame

Tools    





You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
ET is one my favorite movies of all time, and considering I have already seen the majority of these films, with the exception being Kwaidan and Beauty and the Beast, I’m fairly certain this is my front runner.
Of course, my final ballot all depends on how I view the entire nominations

E.T. is one of the few movies that when I first saw it in the theater, I loved it so much that I immediately went back in to see it again. I've seen it numerous times over the years, and i just love it more and more each time.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.





Lord of the Rings:Return of the King (2003)

2003 was a weird year...Marvel came out with Hulk, the first and best Pirates movie came out...Rob Zombie started his filmmaking career and Return of the King swept the Oscars.

It's kinda crazy how parts are almost exactly lifted from Two Towers...Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith battles are very similar just one is done at night while the other at day. Watching the film again my thoughts are...it's well kinda uneven. Sean Astin, Elijah Wood, and Andy Serkis are really strong in this, the scene with Shelob is for my money the highpoint of the series. The spider moves well, the fantasy effects are really good and Sam's fight is just great. Sam really is the hero of the story and that's been made abundantly clear to me doing the rewatch.

I also enjoyed how in the first film the violence was always cut away but Return of the King literally opens up with a beating and strangulation that is incredibly graphic for a PG-13.

Some of the stuff hasn't aged well, the elephants look fake and the army of the ghosts would have been much effective had they moved like the Wraiths in Season 1. They have a cartoony feel to it and you don't want that in your climax. It's also kinda weird how Eowyn is given this larger than life character arc and yet they basically disguard Arwen and Galadriel. The message of female empowerment sticks out like a sore thumb when you really just have that one scene and then you marry her off to lesser-Boromir.

Also 12 hours later and I still don't get how the Ring is more powerful than your average Wizard.

Anyways good nom happy to finish this journey into classic Tolkien



Why did Sam call Frodo "Mr. Frodo" in this movie? I don't remember him calling him "Mr." in the first movie. Did I just not notice that, (because it annoyed me in this movie)?
He does call him "Mr." in Fellowship, but he does drop the title when he's scared. It has to do with their social standing back in the Shire. Needing to show respect is so ingrained in Sam that he keeps it up throughout their entire journey. Hopefully it doesn't annoy you too much going forward, because you'll hear a lot of it.

I thought Gollum/Sméagol was kind of creepy, but he's also one of the most interesting characters in the movie. I loved his split personality, and the way he would talk to himself. It was easy to see why nobody trusted him, but there's a big difference between not trusting him, and beating him up. Why was everyone so mean to him? Did I miss something here too?
Early in Fellowship, while he was held captive in Barad-dur, Gollum revealed to Sauron that Bilbo had the ring. While he only spoke under duress, he was still responsible for the Ringwraiths hunting for the ring in the Shire. So I imagine Sam and Frodo held some resentment for him over that.

Also 12 hours later and I still don't get how the Ring is more powerful than your average Wizard.
It's almost entirely symbolic. It's more about the corrupting influence of power than any physical ability.

When I first saw the films I found that a little disappointing because I wanted to see some obvious, magical powers haha.

Warning: Potential Spoilers for Return of the King below.
I also enjoyed how in the first film the violence was always cut away but Return of the King literally opens up with a beating and strangulation that is incredibly graphic for a PG-13.
In the extended edition there is an additional scene with the Mouth of Sauron at the Black Gate. Aragorn just blatantly cuts his head off. After the gates open, the Mouth's tarry black blood is visible on his sword, even in the theatrical cut. When I first saw it, I wondered why that scene was removed, but if the strangulation is a bit graphic for the film's rating, the beheading was likely a bit unnecessary as well.



Warning: Spoilers for The Two Towers below.

At one point, it looked like the Uruk-hai army blew up part of the fortress, but they didn't get in. Then they seemed to be going over the walls, but somehow they still didn't get in.
This has to do with the design of Helm's Deep. While that long wall is a primary part of the fortress' defence, the keep itself is set back against the mountain on the right side. While the Deeping Wall is breached by the stream's grate, it doesn't immediately provide access to Helm's Deep's interior.

I couldn't find a good screen cap from the film itself that shows the fortress' layout, but this image (with a cross section showing the inside of the keep) might help.







La Belle Et La Beast (2016)


Often times CGI will take me out of a film, it's a modern trick that becomes dated as each year passes. You know how movement works or what a human really looks like and you can always tell when a vista is completely remade by a computer. But this is a different type of movie, one that truly embraces the medium of CGI to create a vision of a story so grand that almost everything else is lost in it's path. And I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. This is a movie that embraces it's excesses and while the characters are incredibly foreign still I was sucked into the different representations of the characters.


Vicent Cassel is the lead beast, starting off as an aristocrat he morphs into less of a beast and more just a pure bred kitty cat. What's also strange is how the last two Belle's have becoming increasing unlikable...though Seydoux has her charms and doesn't illicit the same smugness that crippled Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Still it's an emotionally strange film when the plot is centered around a favorite child as opposed to an only child



It's almost entirely symbolic. It's more about the corrupting influence of power than any physical ability.
It's not only symbolic. Sauron created the ring and part of him is in the ring. It's a bit like Horcrux in Harry Potter, I suppose, and Sauron can't be truly defeated while the ring exists. Will of the ring is the will of Sauron. It's not a weapon in the sense men seem to think in the film (I honestly don't know what they'd be able to do with it), but an extension of Sauron.

And about @Siddon 's comment about an average wizard. You need to understand that Gandalf, Saruman and the other three wizards not in the films aren't "average" in any way. They're more like demigods (or angels and demons, if you prefer) that have helped in the creation of the world (like Sauron, too). They pre-date all races of Middle-Earth. In Christian terms, Sauron is the first among the followers of Lucifer (Melkor/Morgoth who's imprisoned in the void) and the five wizards belong to the same level in this "pantheon".
__________________





Still it's an emotionally strange film when the plot is centered around a favorite child as opposed to an only child
See the original version of the story I know, Belle had two sisters just like this film. Both are self-centered and greedy. Both are plain in looks, where Belle had a natural beauty. Both asked their father to bring them back only material things. Belle, all she wanted was a simple and pure rose. She had a giving and carefree heart. That is why she gave herself to the beast in the place of her father. Disney softened the story up to meet the expectations of a 5 or 6-year-old.

Fairytales were never originally for children. After reading a biography about Hans Christian Andersen, which is one of my favorite writers of these tales, he told his stories at dinner parties. Back then, dinner parties started around 9 or 10 pm with a dance at the beginning and dinner did not start until around midnight. At that time of the day, children were in bed asleep.

This film does give a different backstory of why he was changed into the Beast. In the original story, just like Belle's sisters, the prince was self-center and cold at heart. But through Belle's ability to look deep inside someone, he changed, he softened and began to see his faults which opened his heart to others. In this film, he is punished by nature for a similar type of greed as the original story.




E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
(Steven Spielberg 1982)


Some movies are best left in the past where they live with fond memories & rosy accolades...and for me that movie is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

I watched this first run at the movie theater and like most people who saw it back in 1982 I really liked it. Then a few years ago I decided to re-visit this old favorite, only I found out I no longer cared for it.

So I watched this yet again last night. If anything my opinion solidified that this is Spielberg's cash cow...The product placements in the film are heavy and so is the syrupy sentimentally. I like sentimentally when a movie earns it, here the overpowering score and Spielberg's close up reaction shots, tells the audience just what they should feel. I couldn't escape the duel feeling that I was being manipulated by the movie and that the film existed to sell products.

I did like the movie at times, but never bought into the story, too many plot holes. First we have intelligent aliens who can build a spaceship and travel from a nearby star system. They're apparently xenophobic because as soon as humans arrive they flee. They flee so quickly that they leave behind a crewman. If they're so scared of first contact then why land in a patch of woods right by one of the largest cities in the world? Maybe the aliens could've just shut off some of those bright lights that make their ship lite up like a Christmas tree.

So then E.T. is separated and alone, does he hide in the woods waiting to be rescued, no he heads down to a housing area where 1000s of people are. But you know E.T. has the power to levitate himself high off the ground, so why didn't the ship just hoover in the air and he could have safely floated up to it? Hmm?


Dee Wallace was good in this, but she's one bad movie mom! She lets underage teens smoke in her house. She then leaves a grade school age Elliott home alone when she believes he has a fever. And at one point she even leaves little Gertie, who's about 4 years old home. I'm calling child protection services and reporting her

Oh, the main theme of the movie is E.T. Phone Home...we hear that over and over E.T. Phone Home. E.T. Phone Home....But wait! don't the other aliens in the spaceship already know that E.T. is stuck on Earth??? Yes this is clearly a fantasy, cause as sci fi it just doesn't work.

The two kid actors: Henry Thomas (Elliot) & Drew Barrymore (Gertie) were good, though Elliott gave me a headache in the living room/IC unit, when he's screeching at the doctors to stop.

Little Drew Barrymore had the best lines, especially when she first meets E.T. and screams...and he screams....and she screams again and again. That was a funny moment, and she had others too. But those moments were too few and too far between to hold my interest.


Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	realet.jpg
Views:	272
Size:	48.9 KB
ID:	66283  



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Alas, when I begin my journey, it seems I will be alone.
It’s ok......I’m a level 10 fighter.
You won't be entirely alone. . .
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio





The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Directed By: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen

When I saw The Fellowship of the Ring in theatres, I was drawn in from the very first words uttered in the prologue. My captivation was immediate, and lasted until the end credits rolled. Never before had I been so fully engrossed in a film. I knew practically nothing about the source material, because at that point I had not read a single word written by Tolkien. It's been nearly 20 years since then, and in the time that has passed, I've only read a chapter or two from The Hobbit. So my love for this motion picture trilogy is wholly rooted in the films themselves, and nothing else.

This production was a massive undertaking, and the more I learned about the making of The Lord of the Rings, the more impressed I became. The pure ingenuity that went into creating this version of Middle Earth is unbelievable. These films are a great example of how practical and digital effects can work together to create something truly breathtaking. Howard Shore's score is quite unforgettable as well, and not just because the music is often twice as loud as it needs to be, but because it captures the spirit of each scene almost perfectly.

I watched the theatrical cut for the first time in what felt like ages, then followed it up with scenes from the extended edition in order to more accurately compare the two. I stand by my previous assertion that the additional content in Fellowship is overall the least important to the trilogy as a whole. However, it is a little more successful at showing the progression of time, which was something I found lacking in the theatrical cut. The extended scenes obviously offer a fuller picture of the fellowship's journey, but their overall impact is quite minimal. Both versions provide an excellent start to a fantastic trilogy of films.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	fellowship.jpg
Views:	265
Size:	157.6 KB
ID:	66304  



With that, we have 52 reviews posted for the nominated films, as well as 4 additional write-ups for our detour into The Two Towers.

Also, every single nomination has been watched and reviewed at least once.



With that, we have 52 reviews posted for the nominated films, as well as 4 additional write-ups for our detour into The Two Towers.

Also, every single nomination has been watched and reviewed at least once.
I think I have 5 films left. Hope to get two this weekend but with whats going on, I'm not sure.

I have seen all 5 but its been a long time for Kwandian and ET.



I might actually finish this weekend. I just watched The Two Towers, and will rewatch the extended parts tomorrow afternoon. That gives me tomorrow evening and Sunday to get through Return of the King.

I'm not yet mentally prepared to organize my list though haha. Speaking of lists, if anyone wants to include where they would theoretically place The Two Towers had it been nominated, I wouldn't mind seeing how it would have fared.



I might actually finish this weekend. I just watched The Two Towers, and will rewatch the extended parts tomorrow afternoon. That gives me tomorrow evening and Sunday to get through Return of the King.

I'm not yet mentally prepared to organize my list though haha. Speaking of lists, if anyone wants to include where they would theoretically place The Two Towers had it been nominated, I wouldn't mind seeing how it would have fared.

Yeah I think I might end up reviewing some other versions of these films, my queue is running a little dry right now.




The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

I will admit that I actually expected to like The Return of the King the least out of the three movies. Because throughout the series, the moments and scenes that stick with me the most were the intimate character interactions; Sam and Frodo; Aragorn and Arwen; Legolas and Gimli even, in some ways. The scenes where both characters feel so much hurt, and they can only look to one person to share their pain. In short, I expected The Return of the King to be heavy on the "epic battle" side of things and not so much on Frodo and Sam pouring their feelings out to each other.

Well, I was wrong. The Return of the King is somehow both the most intimate and epic of the three films. It does not rush slower moments. It does not make fast moments drag. It makes us hold our breaths and literally pray while Frodo and Sam (and Gollum) reach the top of that mountain. I'm not kidding when I say there are few scenes in film history that are more emotionally complex than Frodo, Sam, and Gollum on the mountain. Ok, maybe quite a few, but still, that's more a testament to the amount of amazingly crafted films and less an understatement of how perfect this film is.

Every character is not only "wrapped up", but they are given new adventures and choices. The story doesn't end here. We're left wanting so much more, but in the best way possible; we're left caring about the characters and what they do. What did Frodo see in his journey? How is Sam doing in the Shire? What about Aragorn? All of these people I have come to care so much about, and even though I don't want a sequel, I love each character to death.

So here is how to get a film series right. Truly - the music is exceptional, perhaps my favorite film score of all time; the cinematography is gorgeous; there are scenes where I'm left wondering how on earth Peter Jackson did it. It's filmmaking of the highest order - completely and utterly perfect in it's imperfections. It made me cry at least five times in the last forty minutes. It made my heart throb, first with pain, and then with immense joy.

In short, ****ing thank god we have Lord of the Rings. Even if this was my first time watching the final movie, it's an experience to last a lifetime.


+
__________________
Lists and Projects
Letterboxd



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
(Steven Spielberg 1982)


Some movies are best left in the past where they live with fond memories & rosy accolades...and for me that movie is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

I watched this first run at the movie theater and like most people who saw it back in 1982 I really liked it. Then a few years ago I decided to re-visit this old favorite, only I found out I no longer cared for it.
I'm sorry that you didn't like E.T.. Sadly, it sounds like you're just reading too much into it. For me, it's the type of movie that you need to just sit back and enjoy, without picking it all apart. (But I feel that way about most movies, not just this movie. Movies should be enjoyed, not dissected. )


So I watched this yet again last night. If anything my opinion solidified that this is Spielberg's cash cow...The product placements in the film are heavy and so is the syrupy sentimentally. I like sentimentally when a movie earns it, here the overpowering score and Spielberg's close up reaction shots, tells the audience just what they should feel. I couldn't escape the duel feeling that I was being manipulated by the movie and that the film existed to sell products.
The only product placement that stands out for me are a couple of products that help to move the story along. The Reese's Pieces, (which were supposed to be M&M's, but they turned down the request to be used in the movie), were used to lure E.T. into Elliot's room, and the Speak & Spell was used to teach him how to talk.

If you want to see a movie with way too many product placements in it, watch Return of the Killer Tomatoes.


I did like the movie at times, but never bought into the story, too many plot holes. First we have intelligent aliens who can build a spaceship and travel from a nearby star system. They're apparently xenophobic because as soon as humans arrive they flee. They flee so quickly that they leave behind a crewman. If they're so scared of first contact then why land in a patch of woods right by one of the largest cities in the world? Maybe the aliens could've just shut off some of those bright lights that make their ship lite up like a Christmas tree.
Maybe they didn't have a map?


So then E.T. is separated and alone, does he hide in the woods waiting to be rescued, no he heads down to a housing area where 1000s of people are. But you know E.T. has the power to levitate himself high off the ground, so why didn't the ship just hoover in the air and he could have safely floated up to it? Hmm?
He probably went down into the town because he was looking for food and shelter until he was rescued.


Dee Wallace was good in this, but she's one bad movie mom! She lets underage teens smoke in her house. She then leaves a grade school age Elliott home alone when she believes he has a fever. And at one point she even leaves little Gertie, who's about 4 years old home. I'm calling child protection services and reporting her
Many of Spielberg's movies feature families that are broken in some way, and the parents are shown as the cause of the problem, and we see the effects of it on the children.


Oh, the main theme of the movie is E.T. Phone Home...we hear that over and over E.T. Phone Home. E.T. Phone Home....But wait! don't the other aliens in the spaceship already know that E.T. is stuck on Earth??? Yes this is clearly a fantasy, cause as sci fi it just doesn't work.
I always assumed that E.T. is trying to contact the other aliens because they don't know that they left him behind. That's why he has to find a way to tell them to come back for him.


The two kid actors: Henry Thomas (Elliot) & Drew Barrymore (Gertie) were good, though Elliott gave me a headache in the living room/IC unit, when he's screeching at the doctors to stop.

Little Drew Barrymore had the best lines, especially when she first meets E.T. and screams...and he screams....and she screams again and again. That was a funny moment, and she had others too. But those moments were too few and too far between to hold my interest.

It's a shame that you didn't find enough of those moments in the movie. For me, they were throughout the movie, all the way through until I cried at the end.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.


The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Directed By: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen

I watched the theatrical cut for the first time in what felt like ages, then followed it up with scenes from the extended edition in order to more accurately compare the two. I stand by my previous assertion that the additional content in Fellowship is overall the least important to the trilogy as a whole. However, it is a little more successful at showing the progression of time, which was something I found lacking in the theatrical cut. The extended scenes obviously offer a fuller picture of the fellowship's journey, but their overall impact is quite minimal. Both versions provide an excellent start to a fantastic trilogy of films.


So are you saying that I watched the long version of this movie for no reason? I could have watched the shorter version and basically not missed anything important?



Glad you enjoyed RotK ahwell!

I always assumed that E.T. is trying to contact the other aliens because they don't know that they left him behind. That's why he has to find a way to tell them to come back for him.
We see one of the aliens anxiously waiting on the ramp for him though. Their heart begins to glow, then E.T.'s does, so I assume the other alien was calling out to him. The aliens had to have known they left him behind. I assumed they thought he had been captured by the humans.

So are you saying that I watched the long version of this movie for no reason? I could have watched the shorter version and basically not missed anything important?
I could have told you that before, had you asked.

As much as I keep waving off the importance of Fellowship's extended edition, I do think it is the better version of the film. It just doesn't change enough to impact anything major in the sequels, so both versions are an equally good a starting point to the trilogy.

Without giving any spoilers, I'll say the extended edition you don't want to skip is Return of the King, as the theatrical cut does not give any closure to a certain character who played a major role in the first two films. For those who prefer all loose ends to be tied up, rather than explained away in a single line of dialogue, the absence of this character will seem like a glaring omission in the theatrical version.





The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Directed By: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Andy Serkis

Where The Fellowship of the Ring spends time early on providing a calm, light-hearted start in the Shire, The Two Towers maintains a significantly more sombre tone from beginning to end. There is the occasional comedic relief provided by Gimli or Smeagol, but overall the atmosphere is quite serious. Also unlike Fellowship, which really felt like an epic journey, the second film isn't as grand in its scope, instead focusing on the build up to a major battle between Rohan and Isengard. The pacing feels less rushed because of that.

Attention is shifted away from the hobbits somewhat, in favour of Aragorn and the Rohirrim. Since Aragorn is by far my favourite character in the series, this change is one of the reasons why I prefer The Two Towers over Fellowship. The tragic nature of Théoden's story, and his people's impending destruction at the hands of Sarumon is more compelling to me than how close to Mordor Frodo is able to carry the ring. After having only a minor appearance in the first film, the proper introduction to Gollum and Smeagol, played perfectly by Andy Serkis, is one of the best moments in the entire series.

When I claim that The Two Towers is my favourite of the trilogy, that assertion is based on the extended edition of the film. This was my first time watching the original edit since its theatrical run, and I did honestly find it a little lacking, especially when viewed immediately after Fellowship, rather than a year later. While I wouldn't call it essential material to viewers who are primarily interested in Frodo's journey, the additional content does much to enhance the story in Rohan. The flashbacks featuring Boromir explain his brother's behaviour, and shed light on his own actions in the first film as well. For those interested in character development, the extended edition is the better choice.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	towers.jpg
Views:	221
Size:	170.5 KB
ID:	66320  



I'm sorry that you didn't like E.T.. Sadly, it sounds like you're just reading too much into it. For me, it's the type of movie that you need to just sit back and enjoy, without picking it all apart. (But I feel that way about most movies, not just this movie. Movies should be enjoyed, not dissected. )
Usually I don't go into plot holes and character flaws in my movie reviews. But I did this time as I thought you'd find it interesting as I've read your past HoF reviews and you seem to talk about plot holes and character flaws at times.

I have my own script change idea, that IMO would've fixed a lot of the issues with E.T.

In the opening scene: we see the aliens outside of their ship in the forest, gathering plant samples. As the aliens are collecting, they find a patch of night blooming flowers that fascinate them. They all gather together to have a closer look at the exotic flowers. With their backs to the ship...a half grown alien, a child alien (E.T.), wonders out of the ship unseen and follows a cute bunny into the woods, away from where the adult aliens are.

Then the rest of the movie plays the same, humans arrive the aliens flee, not knowing that one of their offspring has wandered away. That then makes E.T. a child alien and explains why he behaves child like and has wondered down the hillside to where the humans live. It also makes the bond between the human and alien children stronger in the audiences eye as they are both children of different species. During the movie there would be two short scenes of the aliens re landing in the woods trying to find their lost child. This would add more tension and emotion: will the alien child be reunited with his parents or captured by the humans? To me that fixes a lot of the problems with the movie, without really changing the overall story.