The Fantasy Hall of Fame

Tools    







Kiki's Delivery Service
(1989)
Directed by Hayao Miyazaki
nominated by @ahwell

A coming of age story for a young witch, Kiki, and the mishaps that come with becoming an adult. Kiki leaves home at the age of 13 to spend one year away to learn more about being a witch. Kiki befriends a woman named Osono, an artist named Ursula, and a young boy named Tombo. Kiki looks for occupation and decides to be a delivery person. Her second delivery has a few hiccups but she overcomes them. Things don't always seem sunnier on the other side of the lake and Kiki learns this. She loses her best friend, a black cat named Jiji, to a white cat he meets. At this point of the story, Kiki can no longer understand Jiji, who she would have conversations with. Each witch must have their own familiar, a black cat. Other bumps come along and Kiki learns sometimes you need to stop and focus in another direction to move forward in life. .

It was a good movie. I asked my daughter, who has seen most of Miyazaki's films if I would enjoy it and she said "yes'". Well, yeah I did enjoy but I wouldn't say it's my favorite. That belongs to another fantasy film, "Spirited Away". Would I watch again, I'm not sure, perhaps but it would not be the first choice over his films.

Barsa reminds me of Grandma Sophie from "Howl's Moving Castle".




I'm not planning on watching it. In fact I'm saving The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) until last, as I'm going to wait for HollowMan to complete the HoF. Hope he does, but not holding my breath either.
While he hasn't posted in the thread since the reveal, he did respond to the PM I spent on Friday asking if he had seen MG's original nomination. If he doesn't make an appearance by the end of the week I'll send him a message to make sure he's still in.

I'm saving the LotR films for last, primarily due to their length, but also because I think they'll make a nice, epic finale to the Hall of Fame. As soon as Raul nominated Fellowship, I knew I was probably going to end up watching the entire trilogy regardless haha.

Maybe I'm just too detached from normal people, but I don't see it especially offending film and it wasn't in any way a trollish choice like Child Bride may have been.
I think it's worth noting that Tideland is by a well-known and beloved fantasy director. It's not some random D-list direct-to-video film someone found in a bargain bin. It's not a questionable nomination in any way.

Obviously not everyone is going to enjoy it, but I think the problem is that even Gilliam's most popular work can be quite divisive. Tideland in particular is not a film that's going to appeal to a large audience, and Gilliam himself admitted that many people will likely hate the film.






Dragonslayer (1981)

Well this was a nice little surprise, Dragonslayer tells the story of an apprentice wizard who upon the death of his Wizard mentor goes on a quest to kill a dragon. Well it basically did everything right that DragonHeart did wrong...the lead actually bothered to match his accent with the rest of the cast. The set pieces still felt like they followed basic laws of physics, and the tone was consistent throughout the film. I number of the magic tricks done during the film are very basic but it doesn't matter because it feels real for the story. The puppets looked great, the film goes with a less is more approach and I prefer that in my films.

But it's not a perfect film, the pacing is a little clunky it feels like we get extra acts that stall the flow of the film, we don't get a good climax so we end up with two average ones to pad out the run time. I also liked the actors but we were missing stars the two leads weren't really leading actors in my eyes. I also wish that the side dialogue had a bit more to offer from a philosophical point of view. This is a film which should be a morality tale at it's heart but I don't think it really has a solid one. The script was a little weaker than the production, I don't see this as a winner but I didn't feel like it wasted my time.



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





On a side note I watched this on The Ovation channel which ran ads throughout the entire film including popup messages from Martin Luther King and other historical African American figures. I can't think of anything that ruins a film experience more than a popup political messaging.


E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)


Been a while since I watched this film, it's basically a parrell story of a pair of little boys, one that had been abandoned physically (ET) and the other one who was abandoned emotionally by his parents divorce. I like that this is very much a story of a middle child, one of the things I like about Speilberg is he allows for you to feel for a specific type of child.



The story plays in really two acts...ET with the family and ET home sick. I don't think I really understand why ET got sick stuck on Earth and by not giving us those answers I think it enhances the film a bit. But the question is, is this film on theme because it does feel grounded in science fiction. We don't get the evil government as a matter of fact the government is treated humanely which is interesting to say the least. Henry Thomas nails Elliott pity he didn't make the Best Actor cut because this is as much his film as it's ET. Dee Wallace is also very good her reactions are very different than what you would expect from a typical mom in these films. ET ended up winning four Oscars and it's definitely better than Gandhi in pretty much every way. This might also be the best score John Williams ever did.


Great nom happy I watched it...just wish it wasn't on Cable

I'm glad you loved E.T. I've always thought of E.T. as a fantasy movie, and as I pointed out to CR (our host), there are reviews all over the internet that clearly call this movie a fantasy. It's not about the allien coming from outer space. It's about the friendship, and the bond formed between Elliot and E.T., and that (IMO) makes it more fantasy than sci-fi.




The Lord of the Rings:
The Fellowship of the Ring

(Peter Jackson 2001)

That big guy was my favorite creature and my favorite scene. I almost hated to see him get killed. He reminded me of a Ray Harryhausen creation. Harryhausen knew how to take his stop-motion creatures and give them a personality of their own...I didn't feel a lot of personality coming from the creatures here.

The movie is made perfect for those who are already familiar with the story. It functions like a beautiful illustration to the Lord of the Rings novel...effectively providing a visual & auditory journey to the beloved story by J. R. R. Tolkien.

But I've never read Lord of the Rings...and after spending 3 hours with the movie I still didn't feel any magic. I wanted more of the personal tale, more about their hopes & fears and more character interactions. The movie functions as an abridged version of the novel where all the scenes are pared down to the briefest moments and relies on visuals to do the storytelling. I get that it's necessary for a director to do that when bringing a long and popular novel to the screen. The same thing happened with David Lynch's Dune (1984). The Dune novel is long and intricately involved, so that when made as a movie it had to quickly tell each scene with visuals, without spending much time on exposition or side stories. To Peter Jackson's credit he was apparently true to LotR novel, where as Lynch altered the Dune novel for film and thus pissed off the fans.

Objectively: The Fellowship of the Rings is near perfect as it delivers what it intended to do and fans of the novel seem to love it.

Subjectively: I was bored with the lack of exposition and felt I never was invested enough to care about what was happening on the screen. It didn't help that I couldn't make out 1/3rd of the dialogue, thanks to the sound mix being extremely heavy on the score. The endless creepy creatures and sword fighting did little for me. While I was amazed at the sheer spectacularness of it all, I struggled to have any connection to the actual story.


.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	ERQcJovW4AEConO.jpg
Views:	544
Size:	134.6 KB
ID:	66040  



I was bored with the lack of exposition
It's so strange to read this line, because most people I know hate large amounts of exposition, and vastly prefer the "show, don't tell" approach.



@Citizen Rules

read through the body of your post.

Peter Jackson? He's the director. You put Peter Finch.

The Lord of the Rings movies, like the Hobbit movies are epic movies. Sometimes after watching it 5 or 6 times, they do become a bit boring. I recently watched them but I haven't seen them in many many years. That's how anyone should.



The trick is not minding
Gotta agree with Moviegal here. It’s like any epic film approaching 3 hours, you can’t watch it Every year. Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia, Schindler’s List. I watch those every handful of years.





La Belle et la Bête (2014)
Directed By: Christophe Gans
Starring: Léa Seydoux, Vincent Cassel, André Dussollier

Though there are many adaptations of de Beaumont's classic tale, each one I've seen offers something different that distinguishes it from the others. While they share the same basic elements, the filmmakers approach the story from different angles, or choose to focus on certain aspects, and those decisions ultimately make for unique experiences. So my disinterest in Disney's animated classic, and my appreciation for the aesthetic of Jean Cocteau's 1946 film didn't ultimately have any impact on my enjoyment of Christophe Gans' La Belle et la Bête.

In this adaptation, attention is shifted away from Belle's relationship with the Beast, and we instead spend additional time with her family. It was refreshing to see more about her father's situation and what lead him to the abandoned castle in the first place, and the visions of the Prince's former life and the circumstances surrounding his curse were also a welcome addition. My only problem was that devoting so little of the film to Belle's time with the Beast makes her eventual declaration of love seem ridiculous and completely unwarranted.

Where La Belle et la Bête really succeeds is in its visuals. Viewers are treated to fantastic landscapes, with contrasting imagery that really makes the village and castle grounds feel like they're from two separate worlds. The difference between the father's experience of the forest at night and how Belle sees it upon her arrival alters the tone in a wonderful manner. Some of the CG work is distracting at times, but it didn't prove to be much of an issue as overall it was fairly impressive. It was an interesting film with solid performances that I was happy to have experienced.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	labelle.jpg
Views:	304
Size:	318.1 KB
ID:	66054  



It's so strange to read this line, because most people I know hate large amounts of exposition, and vastly prefer the "show, don't tell" approach.
Maybe I'm not using the word exposition correctly? What I meant was, it needed more 'middle parts' of the scenes, that would explain the why and hows. An example is the confrontation between Gandalf and the other wizard (I didn't catch his name but he was played by Christopher Lee)...they met in a cool set piece, there's a brief dialogue between them about evil, they fight, then next we see that Gandalf is apparently imprisoned on top of a tower (another cool set piece)..then a big bird comes and he's free. The scene is like an outline. I want to know more about these people and what drives them. That's what I meant by exposition.

@Citizen Rules

read through the body of your post.

Peter Jackson? He's the director. You put Peter Finch.
I had Peter Jackson under the movie title but as I was typing my brain told me Peter Finch. I made the change to the review, thanks.



If someone has watched a movie 5 or 6 times, then they really like it and have thought about it in detail between viewings. And while thinking about the movie, they can create their own internal narrative for the movie. Which adds much depth to the story.

I've done that with Star Trek. I just rewatched ST Voyager and swear that there was missing scenes in some of my favorite episodes. Only I realized I had created in my head additional scenes that were never there. My version was better too! Does anyone ever do that?



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Some great reviews over the weekend and VERY HAPPY to see GBG make it official with her nomination; ET vs Ma Bell
Haven't seen this since the late 80s, early 90s so it'll be a very welcomed revisit. I did originally see this in the movie theater which was an ideal way to see it and will be intrigued to see how it feels or if I get teary along with the very young Drew Barrymore does in the film.
__________________
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




Beauty and the Beast (2014)

1946. 1962. 1976. 1978. 1987. 1991. 1992. 2005. 2009. 2017.

What do all these years have in common? An adaptation of Beauty and the Beast was released in each of them... which leads me to wonder why on earth we need yet another retelling of the classic tale.

I actually quite like the 1991 Disney Beauty and the Beast. The animation is beautiful, and the voice acting is fantastic. The music is absolutely wonderful, and while it's not my favorite Disney movie, it's a truly magical adaptation.

I'm left wondering, after seeing the 2014 Beauty and the Beast, if anything new was brought to the table. Of course, there is the argument that new doesn't inherently equal good. And trite doesn't necessarily equal bad. However, in this case I can't cite the 2014 adaptation as an example. It's not only cliche, but it's not as purely well made as the 1991 version, animated or not.

And the most bizarre thing to me is why both Belle's and the Beast's characters are made utterly unlikeable. Belle seems moodier and more prone to anger than in the 1991. The Beast is somehow even more of an *******, and it makes me cheer for Belle's siblings at the end :/

The music is also a HUGE step down. I mean, that's not too much of a criticism, but the most stereotypical and cliche musical score was used, and for a magical story like this, I think it deserves a bit better.

It's the type of the movie that is colorful and often beautiful looking, but also fake looking and in many ways extremely bland. I appreciate fantasy movies that can go out on a limb and try something new - explore the genre of fantasy. This 2014 Beauty and the Beast doesn't seem to qualify, unfortunately. But I'm still I glad I watched it!


-
__________________
Lists and Projects
Letterboxd



You are comparing an English Disney version to a more adult French version. You know Disney does soften the blow on their fairytales to films. Come on, the Little Mermaid never wins the prince in Hand Christian Andersen's version. She dues a agonizing death. I would never compare a French or any other language fairytale to anything Disney does. With Disney, its all about the money - merchandising, large audiences with children, etc.

I love the 1946 French version as Cocteau's directing is uncompareable to any. This is very close in my opinion. I love the fairytale Beauty and the Beast. Have seen almost every film and read several versions of the story., even the one that takes place in Saxon England.

In this version compared to the others, the prince is changed for a different reason but his motives were similar. A greedy prince who wants what he should never have.



We're nearly at 40 reviews now. Considering we're not even two weeks in, that's pretty impressive!

We're also a single film away from having all of the nominations reviewed at least once.



You are comparing an English Disney version to a more adult French version. You know Disney does soften the blow on their fairytales to films. Come on, the Little Mermaid never wins the prince in Hand Christian Andersen's version. She dues a agonizing death. I would never compare a French or any other language fairytale to anything Disney does. With Disney, its all about the money - merchandising, large audiences with children, etc.

I love the 1946 French version as Cocteau's directing is uncompareable to any. This is very close in my opinion. I love the fairytale Beauty and the Beast. Have seen almost every film and read several versions of the story., even the one that takes place in Saxon England.

In this version compared to the others, the prince is changed for a different reason but his motives were similar. A greedy prince who wants what he should never have.
I like Disney , and really enjoyed their Beauty and the Beast. To me it wasn't a cash grab at all. And also, the score and songs were amazing!!

Sorry I didn't love it, but it was a good nom anyways, thank you for choosing it!!





Excalibur
(1981)
Directed by John Boorman
nominated by @Citizen Rules

Everyone knows the story of Arthur, son of Uther and Igraine. During the time of unrest after the Romans deserted Britain, the people were looking for a king. Uther, with the help of the Druid Merlin, begot the sword Excalibur and became King of all Britain. Because of Uther's lust for Igraine, Merlin took the child from them. Shortly after, Uther was murdered. Arthur was fostered by one of his knights. And it seems that Britain would not have their king as Uther, before death, thrust Excalibur into a stone. Legend told of only the one true king could release Excalibur and would bring peace to a country again at war. Arthur being that one true king. Arthur married Guenivere, created his fortress Camelot and had his knights of the round table. It was round so everyone would be considered equal as there was no beginning and no end. Guenivere fell in love with Arthur's most chivalrous knight, Lancelot. Lancelot being a faithful knight to Arthur, his king, he spurred Gueniever away. Arthur's half-sister, Morgan, became an apprentice to Merlin to learn the mystical arts. Arthur catches Lancelot and his wife Guinevere in a romantic embrace. Morgan cast a spell on Merlin and trapped him in a cave, she cast a spell over her half-brother and they create a son, Mordred. Mordred, with the help of his mother Morgan, brings destruction to Arthur and Camelot. The rest is of Welsh mythology.

I have seen many versions of this on celluloid and have read many versions on paper. I seen this movie back in the mid-'80s when it was released on cable tv. I feel the film has aged. There is to much shiny armor and swords. Even Camelot glowed above all. Some of the dramatic scenes were over dramatized. I had to chuckle about it at times. I didnt hate it but it was just there. One thing I did like was.....

WARNING: "My spoiler" spoilers below

Patrick Stewart as Leondegrance

Liam Neesom as Gawain and Ciaran Hinds as Lot

but my favorite was


Gabriel Byrne as Uther.


Here are some historic places in South Britain.


Merlin's Cave, Cornwall



Tintagel Castle, Cornwall, which the birthplace of Arthur.



Glastonbury, Somerset, believe to be where Avalon existed.


There is even a burial site for Arthur and Guinevere.



I even own this book.

for those interested, more reading material

https://www.glastonburyabbey.com/king-arthur-avalon.php
https://kingarthursknights.com/





La Belle et la Bête (2014)
Directed By: Christophe Gans
Starring: Léa Seydoux, Vincent Cassel, André Dussollier

Though there are many adaptations of de Beaumont's classic tale, each one I've seen offers something different that distinguishes it from the others. While they share the same basic elements, the filmmakers approach the story from different angles, or choose to focus on certain aspects, and those decisions ultimately make for unique experiences. So my disinterest in Disney's animated classic, and my appreciation for the aesthetic of Jean Cocteau's 1946 film didn't ultimately have any impact on my enjoyment of Christophe Gans' La Belle et la Bête.

In this adaptation, attention is shifted away from Belle's relationship with the Beast, and we instead spend additional time with her family. It was refreshing to see more about her father's situation and what lead him to the abandoned castle in the first place, and the visions of the Prince's former life and the circumstances surrounding his curse were also a welcome addition. My only problem was that devoting so little of the film to Belle's time with the Beast makes her eventual declaration of love seem ridiculous and completely unwarranted.

Where La Belle et la Bête really succeeds is in its visuals. Viewers are treated to fantastic landscapes, with contrasting imagery that really makes the village and castle grounds feel like they're from two separate worlds. The difference between the father's experience of the forest at night and how Belle sees it upon her arrival alters the tone in a wonderful manner. Some of the CG work is distracting at times, but it didn't prove to be much of an issue as overall it was fairly impressive. It was an interesting film with solid performances that I was happy to have experienced.

CR2, you are a fan of the fairytale as well right?

@Mr Minio shared this with me.. so my turn to pass on. The Russian version...




The trick is not minding
I love the pictures of the historic sites you posted. I love visiting these types of ruins, and Merlins Cave is simply amazing.
The history behind it all would leave me in awe.