# Your favorite fantasy movie of all time?



## Roc

My favorite fantasy movie, by far, is The Lord of the Rings, the Return of the King?

What's yours?


----------



## Ireth

Same as yours, Roc.


----------



## Flemming Hansen

LOTR is probably the greatest, but I still absolutely love Willow from 1988. I'd just like to kick George Lucas in the backside, so that he could make the sequel.


----------



## Androxine Vortex

Return of the King. My favorite movie actually =)


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Oh, please.

_The Princess Bride_.


----------



## Shanatos

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Oh, please.
> 
> _The Princess Bride_.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

^^ Technically not a movie....


----------



## Zophos

All time: Wizard of Oz

Recent: Pan's Labyrinth


----------



## J.P. Reedman

LOTR (oh, how boring I am.)
I also like Excalibur, and indeed many of the 80's fantasy films, although a bit naff in many ways, are guilty pleasures.


----------



## J.P. Reedman

Oh, I must say something for the original 1981 Milius Conan. Although not a big fan of RE Howard, or Arnie, the cinematography was stunning (filmed in Spain), and it was actually a pretty decent depiction of a bronze age Europe if you take away the overt fantasy elements. A lot of care and attention to the scenes and sets; for instance at one point Conan falls into an Atlantean burial chamber. Most movie makers would have just made it some kind of a cave but in Conan it looked like a proper megalithic chamber-tomb with a standing stone marking it on top. The soundtrack is really outstanding as well, very primal.


----------



## ALB2012

Hmm toughy.

LOTR, probably return of the King. 
Stardust
Willow

I like King Arthur too, although it was a bit dubious
I like 300
Oh and 9


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Yeah, loved LOTR - all three movies. And Willow beats the crap out of most others. But in the end there can still be only one - Highlander. (Which of course makes Highlander two and three the worst movies of all time!).

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Zophos

If I had to pick an LOTR it would be Fellowship. If not alone for the Moria scene, for the sheer excitement that surrounded its release. It was probably as anticipated as Star Wars I and without the sucking chest wound that followed the release of that abomination. Although, SW I did give rise to Fan Boys, which might have actually made it worth the trouble.


----------



## Reaver

NO...Star Wars IV, V, & VI WERE GREAT MOVIES until that human paraquat sell-out decided to change them.

Episodes I, II & III DO NOT even qualify to TRUE fans.

George Lucas will rot in HELL.


Sorry for the rant. My favorite fantasy movie of all time? THE DARK CRYSTAL.


----------



## Zophos

Reaver said:


> ....My favorite fantasy movie of all time? THE DARK CRYSTAL.



Good choice, but I was always turned off by the Pufnstuf-esque goblins and the floaty flowery things in every scene.


----------



## Reaver

Zophos said:


> Good choice, but I was always turned off by the Pufnstuf-esque goblins and the floaty flowery things in every scene.



Hey..it's not for everyone. But I respect your opinion. I'm just waiting for someone to say that *THE NEVERENDING STORY *is their favorite.


----------



## Zophos

Reaver said:


> Hey..it's not for everyone. But I respect your opinion. I'm just waiting for someone to say that *THE NEVERENDING STORY *is their favorite.



Naw, don't get me wrong, I dug it. It just had some dings. The dark lord costume is peerless in film, in my mind.  The use and presentation of the unicorn in a way that didn't just come off as completely weak and puerile or some version of a My Little Pony is outstanding, as well.


----------



## Reaver

Zophos said:


> Naw, don't get me wrong, I dug it. It just had some dings. The dark lord costume is peerless in film, in my mind.  The use and presentation of the unicorn in a way that didn't just come off as completely weak and puerile or some version of a My Little Pony is outstanding, as well.



It's cool Zophos. As far as I know, there has yet to be a movie, book, or any form of media that everyone likes for ecxatly the same reason...but good Lord man, could you imagine how great it would be if that did exist and you were its creator?


----------



## Mindfire

Reaver said:


> NO...Star Wars IV, V, & VI WERE GREAT MOVIES until that human paraquat sell-out decided to change them.
> 
> Episodes I, II & III DO NOT even qualify to TRUE fans.
> 
> George Lucas will rot in HELL.
> 
> 
> Sorry for the rant. My favorite fantasy movie of all time? THE DARK CRYSTAL.



Someone's hilariously narrow-minded. xD I loved the Star Wars prequels. They were worth it for the Yoda fight scenes alone. I also loved your use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Favorite fantasy film is the Lord of the Rings trilogy hands down. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe would be a worthy runner-up however.


----------



## Zophos

Mindfire said:


> ...I loved the Star Wars prequels....



Oh boy. I can see this puppy going 10 pages, at least. 

*Things I "liked" about the prequels:*
Amidala bobbing her gun up and down like a flamenco dancer's noggin,
The reveal on Darth Vader actually being a descendent of Dark Helmet,
The inter-galactic cross between Mushmouth and Dumb Donald (of Fat Albert fame) we got in Jar Jar,
The wookie hugfest with Yoda,
Metachlorians...I especially liked Metachlorians.


----------



## Mindfire

Zophos said:


> Oh boy. I can see this puppy going 10 pages, at least.
> 
> *Things I "liked" about the prequels:*
> Amidala bobbing her gun up and down like a flamenco dancer's noggin,
> The reveal on Darth Vader actually being a descendent of Dark Helmet,
> The inter-galactic cross between Mushmouth and Dumb Donald (of Fat Albert fame) we got in Jar Jar,
> The wookie hugfest with Yoda,
> Metachlorians...I especially liked Metachlorians.



All of those things were outweighed by the cinematography, effects, and awesome fight scenes. I didn't think the story was too bad either.

Also, I'm a 90s kid who grew up with the prequels, so I don't have this built-in anti-prequel bias that all you 70s/80s people who saw the originals when they were released have.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Mindfire said:


> All of those things were outweighed by the cinematography, effects, and awesome fight scenes. I didn't think the story was too bad either.
> 
> Also, I'm a 90s kid who grew up with the prequels, so I don't have this built-in anti-prequel bias that all you 70s/80s people who saw the originals when they were released have.



Go watch the *Plinkett/Red Letter Media reviews of the prequel trilogy* and then tell us that you still think they're still good movies.


----------



## Mindfire

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Go watch the *Plinkett/Red Letter Media reviews of the prequel trilogy* and then tell us that you still think they're still good movies.



I never said they were perfect. But I found them very enjoyable and not nearly as bad as everyone over the age of 20 seems to think. I'd rate them above the first Transformers film (which I also loved).

And I'll do you one better. I've seen the Distressed Watcher's reviews of them and I still think they're good. Seeing Yoda fight Emperor Palpatine makes everything forgivable. Everything.


----------



## Zophos

Mindfire said:


> ...Also, I'm a 90s kid who grew up with the prequels, so I don't have this built-in anti-prequel bias that all you 70s/80s people who saw the originals when they were released have.



We shouldn't completely derail the thread so I won't go into much detail....

But, I don't think I came in with a predisposition against the prequels. Quite the opposite, I expected too much. For me, the real harm in the prequels was they weakened the originals. They brought to light the story-telling flaws in the extant works. It was as much selection of actors + characterization as it was plot + narrative. The technical acumen was still there, but the rest of the aspects of good film-making were near abominable.


----------



## Reaver

Zophos said:


> Oh boy. I can see this puppy going 10 pages, at least.
> 
> *Things I "liked" about the prequels:*
> Amidala bobbing her gun up and down like a flamenco dancer's noggin,
> The reveal on Darth Vader actually being a descendent of Dark Helmet,
> The inter-galactic cross between Mushmouth and Dumb Donald (of Fat Albert fame) we got in Jar Jar,
> The wookie hugfest with Yoda,
> Metachlorians...I especially liked Metachlorians.



Let me add to this list:

Hayden Christiansen's stellar acting,

Natalie Portman's attempt to keep a straight face in every scene while simultaneously trying to not look at the camera,

Jake Lloyd's Special Jack imitation

Jar Jar's "Meesa..Yoosa..Thissa..Thatsa..Weesa..ad naseaum"

A Sith Lord being cut in half by a Padawan

An eight year old "accidentally" blowing up a space station

R2-D2's jet packs

Anakin Skywalker creating C-3PO

I won't even get into how Lucas defiled Episodes IV, V & VI...

@Mindfire: Narrow minded? Please. And the "Scotsman fallacy"? *A TRUE FAN *_would_ be offended by what Lucas did.


----------



## Mindfire

Reaver said:


> Let me add to this list:
> 
> Hayden Christiansen's stellar acting,
> 
> Natalie Portman's attempt to keep a straight face in every scene while simultaneously trying to not look at the camera,
> 
> Jake Lloyd's Special Jack imitation
> 
> Jar Jar's "Meesa..Yoosa..Thissa..Thatsa..Weesa..ad naseaum"
> 
> A Sith Lord being cut in half by a Padawan
> 
> An eight year old "accidentally" blowing up a space station
> 
> R2-D2's jet packs
> 
> Anakin Skywalker creating C-3PO
> 
> I won't even get into how Lucas defiled Episodes IV, V & VI...
> 
> @Mindfire: Narrow minded? Please. And the "Scotsman fallacy"? *A TRUE FAN *_would_ be offended by what Lucas did.



None of those things utterly break the movies as you seem to think. Again, seeing Yoda fight Palpatine makes *everything* forgivable. And unless you're being facetious, your "oh please" response is the definition of narrow-minded. And you continue to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. And what's more you fail to justify it. A true fan would be offended because the creator whose IP they're a fan of decided he wanted to change it, which is completely within his rights to do? What is that logic? I'd almost swear you thought YOU somehow owned and had rights to Star Wars instead of Lucas!


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Mindfire said:


> None of those things utterly break the movies as you seem to think. Again, seeing Yoda fight Palpatine makes *everything* forgivable.



Man, when I saw Yoda whip out his lightsaber in Episode II and go toe to toe with Dooku, _I lost my freaking mind_. The whole audience went berserk; you couldn't even hear the sound effects over the screaming. And seeing him fight again in Episode III was still pretty damn cool... at the time. Yet even then I knew that there were major problems with these movies.

You seem to have decided that people hate the prequel trilogy just because they're old. I think it's more that we understand that something isn't awesome just because it touches our inner fanboy nerve ("Wouldn't it be awesome to see Yoda fight the Emperor?!"). I saw _The Phantom Menace_ on the big screen _thirteen times_ over the course of six months (it was still playing in _October_), and I was 21 years old at the time. I still have the ticket stubs paper-clipped together; they're sitting on top of my desk about two feet from me. I really enjoyed it every time I saw it. Partly because I was still in a place, at that age, where I truly loved Star Wars and was willing to overlook glaring flaws _just because it was a new Star Wars movie_.

Even by the time the trilogy ended with _Revenge of the Sith_, I was still in the "Yeah, the prequels clearly aren't as good as the originals, but they've got their good points" camp. But my eyes have since been opened by the very strong cases made for why the prequel trilogy just aren't very good movies. The fact, for example, that _The Phantom Menace_ has no protagonist; there's nobody for the audience to relate to. We don't meet Anakin for 45 minutes, and he's annoying and has basically no understanding of or control over what's happening. Qui-gon is a boring cipher; even Obi-wan spends large parts of the movie in the background, complaining.

But just because something shiny and cool happens in a movie does not excuse or forgive the ineptitude. Sure, it was pretty neat to watch Yoda fight the Emperor... but in all three movies, the dialogue is almost uniformly boring and stilted; the characters are not relatable and frequently do inane or stupid things; the acting is wooden; the plot _makes no sense_ in about fifty different ways; the tone shifts wildly in places (e.g. the entire opening sequence of _ROTS_). Yes, there's some cool visuals (Lucas was definitely pushing the boundaries of what you could do in terms of building environments with CGI, I can't argue that); that's about all the prequel trilogy has going for it.


----------



## JonSnow

Yoda with a lightsaber was the only redeeming factor (well, except Natalie Portman with a torn shirt) of episodes 1-3.

Now, back to fantasy... Lord of the Rings stands alone for movies. Fellowship is my favorite of the 3... RotK was my least favorite, though still great. But the best book-to-screen adaptation has been Game of Thrones, bar none. As much as I loved Lord of the Rings, I am a fan of the more brutal, unforgiving nature of Martin's world. The blurred lines between good and evil make for more dynamic, interesting characters. And, of course, the directing, writing, and acting are all fantastic.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

JonSnow said:
			
		

> Yoda with a lightsaber was the only redeeming factor (well, except Natalie Portman with a torn shirt) of episodes 1-3.
> 
> Now, back to fantasy... Lord of the Rings stands alone for movies. Fellowship is my favorite of the 3... RotK was my least favorite, though still great. But the best book-to-screen adaptation has been Game of Thrones, bar none. As much as I loved Lord of the Rings, I am a fan of the more brutal, unforgiving nature of Martin's world. The blurred lines between good and evil make for more dynamic, interesting characters. And, of course, the directing, writing, and acting are all fantastic.



Although its not a movie, and therefore not an equal comparison, I agree with you Jon.

Even GRRM said GoT couldn't be done as a movie. It's too broad in its scope, too much of an epic. TV adaption was the only way to tell such a long, involved story in visual media. Because of this, it's unfair to compare a 2-3 hour feature film to, what will amount to 80 hours of television, once completed.


----------



## Reaver

Mindfire said:


> None of those things utterly break the movies as you seem to think. Again, seeing Yoda fight Palpatine makes *everything* forgivable. And unless you're being facetious, your "oh please" response is the definition of narrow-minded. And you continue to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. And what's more you fail to justify it. A true fan would be offended because the creator whose IP they're a fan of decided he wanted to change it, which is completely within his rights to do? What is that logic? I'd almost swear you thought YOU somehow owned and had rights to Star Wars instead of Lucas!



Do I think that I own the rights to Star Wars? Of course not. What a positively mundane thing to say.  I'm not alone in my belief that the first three movies are just plain terrible and a little CGI yoda doing blackflips is not good enough to save any of it. Hmm...you say that I don't justify the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? How about the fact that I used to be a fan of George Lucas until he became a money grubbing whore and changed everything good about IV, V & VI?  But you know what? This is a stupid argument to be having anyway. We both have our opinions and if you like crap movies then that's certainly your right.
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Well while we're discussing the Star Wars trilogies, any thoughts on whether the third trilogy is going to be made at some stage, and if so, what's it going to be like? Personally, being of the seventies and eighties movie goers I loved the first (middle) trilogy, and thought the second (prequil) trilogy suffered by comparison. Yeah they ramped up the special effects but also made it too childreny for me. And also at the back of my mind I was always thinking that that Annakin kid's going to end up bad! It made it hard for me to root for him. I'd be sort of worried that they'd do the same for the third one.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## robertbevan

"willow" was pretty much everything i feel like a fantasy movie should be.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Well while we're discussing the Star Wars trilogies, any thoughts on whether the third trilogy is going to be made at some stage, and if so, what's it going to be like? Personally, being of the seventies and eighties movie goers I loved the first (middle) trilogy, and thought the second (prequil) trilogy suffered by comparison. Yeah they ramped up the special effects but also made it too childreny for me. And also at the back of my mind I was always thinking that that Annakin kid's going to end up bad! It made it hard for me to root for him. I'd be sort of worried that they'd do the same for the third one.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



If they ever do make any more Star Wars movies, I hope to Godzilla that George Lucas isn't involved.


----------



## Steerpike

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> If they ever do make any more Star Wars movies, I hope to Godzilla that George Lucas isn't involved.



He says he't not doing any more, so I suspect we won't see any until after he's dead, if at all.


----------



## Kevlar

I've never been the biggest Star Wars fan, in my opinion it's okay leaning toward good. I was born in 1995, so that might skew my perception, and I'm about to get a lot of flak for this: I like the prequel trilogy more. I saw the orginal first. But I like the prequel more. Let me justify it by sating the two reasons why: more moral ambiguity and less clichÃ©s. Some of the clichÃ©s of the original were, of course, a little less popular back then, but nonetheless, many of them I find to be the most annoying clichÃ©s. The story hasn't aged well, in my honest opinion. Also the acting in both trilogies is bad, comparing one to the other is like comparing a kettle to a kettle: they might differ in shape or colour, but they're still the same thing.

Anyway...

The worst I've ever seen is Dungeons & Dragons. Even at six years old I couldn't force myself to watch it. It's also quite a stain on Jeremy Irons, though his role was the only quality part and then only because of the unintentional hilarity.

I hated Highlander. I've seen parts of Dune (I think) and it couldn't hold my attention. Eragon was really bad, even when I was an immature enough reader to like the book (I found myself caring less and less as the series went on, and couldn't make it thirty pages into the last one). Harry Potter was... okay, I guess. Like with the books I cared less as it went with a peak for the third and quite a dip for the fifth. And like the books the farther it went the more I hated the main character, the weakest character in the series. I can't bring myself to watch the old Conans because Arnie was a horrible casting choice starting with appearance and is a horrendous actor to begin with. 

 I haven't seen a whole lot of fantasy movies. I've never seen Willow or The Princess Bride, though I've kept my eye out for both over the past couple years. I can't use internet to see them either. Of what I have seen Lord of the Rings is the best, and probably will be for a long time. Each has its particular high-points and low points, but The Two Towers gets a huge penalty for the elves at Helm's Deep.

Pan's Labyrinth I didn't love quite so much as a viewer, but as a writer it was breathtaking, quite masterful.

Of course, when I was little the Black Cauldron was my favourite cartoon, so that might explain some of my preference.

Oh, and if this also included TV series I would say Game of Thrones, Season 1. Season 2 left a bad taste in my mouth, so I hope season 3 brings mouthwash.


----------



## Arreth

It's not my absolute favourite (and it's not strictly in the genre) but I thought I'd throw in a good word for King Arthur. It was bagged a fair bit but the combat is good, I liked the characters and soundtrack (Hans Zimmer) and visuals are good one for stirring up the fantasy writer in me. P.S. See the Director's Cut - makes much more sense.


----------



## Pyrsa

Ladyhawke! Love that Alan Parson's Project soundtrack.


----------



## Ireth

Pyrsa said:


> Ladyhawke! Love that Alan Parson's Project soundtrack.



The soundtrack was the one thing I didn't like about Ladyhawke. XD That movie is awesome.


----------



## J.P. Reedman

I was never sure about the soundtrack to Ladyhawke--sometimes liked it, sometimes didn't. Beautifully filmed movie, though.


----------



## Pyrsa

yeah, it's very inyaface eighties isn't it, that soundtrack. But what can I say, I'm a sap.


----------



## Wynnara

Hard to pick one... 

Stardust, Willow, and The Princess Bride would all be competing for the top of my list.


----------



## CupofJoe

I'd like to put a vote in for Night Watch ["A fantasy-thriller set in present-day Moscow where the respective forces that control daytime and nighttime do battle."]
Night Watch (2004) - IMDb
perhaps not the best film ever made but I still like it.
There is a sequel movie "Day Watch" and both were made from books [of which there is now a third, fourth and fifth planned if not written].
And for anyone who has never seen The Princess Bride all I have to say is "Inconceivable!"


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Army of Darkness. Easy.

Second place goes to Princess Bride.

Highlander and Conan the Barbarian share third, I guess.

What else... Do we count Star Wars? Because while I thought the originals were incredibly boring, the three newer ones are amazing.


----------



## Steerpike

Evil Dead 2 > Army of Darkness (though both are great).


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Steerpike said:


> Evil Dead 2 > Army of Darkness (though both are great).



Eh. *wiggles fingers* Evil Dead 2 is fun in its own demented kinda of away, but Army of Darkness has swordfights and an awesome score. And I really can't say no to swordfights and an awesome score.

Speaking of which, whoever said "Stardust" gets a high-five. I thought the movie was way better than the book, and that's _Niel Gaiman_ for goodness sake.


----------



## Steerpike

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Eh. *wiggles fingers* Evil Dead 2 is fun in its own demented kinda of away, but Army of Darkness has swordfights and an awesome score. And I really can't say no to swordfights and an awesome score.
> 
> Speaking of which, whoever said "Stardust" gets a high-five. I thought the movie was way better than the book, and that's _Niel Gaiman_ for goodness sake.



I'm probably a bit partial to ED2 because I saw it in the theater (they wouldn't let people under 17 years old in, which is funny now). That one will always be my favorite of the series, though I really love Army of Darkness as well.

I agree that Stardust is good. I also liked Dark City, though I wouldn't say it is among the foremost of my favorites. 

Someone may have mentioned Let the Right One In. One of my favorite vampire stories (book and movie both).


----------



## Hogin Yodeler

Lord of the Rings and The Princess Bride. Rather generic choices, but I love those movies.


----------



## Reaver

Anders Ã„mting said:


> What else... Do we count Star Wars? Because while I thought the originals were incredibly boring, the three newer ones are amazing.



I can only respond to this in the voice of Jar Jar Binks: * MEEESA AMSA THINKSIN YOUSA BOM BAD OUTTA YOUSA MIND!*


----------



## Mindfire

Reaver said:


> I can only respond to this in the voice of Jar Jar Binks: * MEEESA AMSA THINKSIN YOUSA BOM BAD OUTTA YOUSA MIND!*



No, he's probably part of a younger generation than you. I notice most people who hate the prequels are mid 20s and older, while younger people seem to be more forgiving. Personally, I like both the originals and the prequels. However, the new ones do have better fight scenes, which is what I think Anders was getting at. The originals have aged fairly well, but we expect different things from our action scenes now. We expect them to be flashier and more epic. The prequels provide that. The originals don't because they were the product of a different time.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't 'hate' the prequels, but I didn't think they were great, either. The originals, particularly the first two, were far superior in my view.


----------



## FireBird

I have mixed opinions on the prequels because I loved Revenge of the Sith. The first prequel was absolutely terrible. Yeah, lets have a ONE HOUR SIDEPLOT about podracing! Couldn't the writers have them just buy Anakin and move on? Jar Jar doesn't exist, tell me otherwise and I'll put my fingers in my ears and pretend I can't hear you. The Darth Maul fight was awesome though. And Liam Neeson as a Jedi? How can you NOT go wrong with that.

The second movie was more focused but was barely better. Hayden Christensen was an abysmal actor in this one. Since such a big part of the movie was focused on him it sort of ruined it for me. The movie was largely set-up for the third one so it suffered from the middle of the trilogy syndrome.

I loved Revenge of the Sith. Grevious was a bit much and the writing for Akakin and Padame was borderline terrible but still! Everything came together and it was a great movie. I also like comparing Anakin's seduction to the dark side with Luke's. Which one was more believable? Ewan McGregor was wtf awesome as Obi-Wan in all the movies too.

However, the one fact in all of this is Empire Strikes Back> ALL.


----------



## Hogin Yodeler

StarWars? Hmm . . . I was born in the 90s, but I grew up on the original trilogy. I never saw a Starwars movie in theaters, but watched our ancient collection of the original trilogy while all the other kids were going out to see the new movies. I enjoy the old ones much more than the prequels. I remember immensely enjoying the prequels (and the original trilogy) as a little kid, but then I went back to watch the movies again when I was older, and the prequels just didn't seem that good anymore. The prequels just have flashier effects and action scenes.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Reaver said:


> I can only respond to this in the voice of Jar Jar Binks: * MEEESA AMSA THINKSIN YOUSA BOM BAD OUTTA YOUSA MIND!*



Heh, I always liked that guy.

Also, may I compliment you on your maturity and tact? I can see why they made you a mod.



Mindfire said:


> No, he's probably part of a younger generation than you. I notice most people who hate the prequels are mid 20s and older, while younger people seem to be more forgiving.



Actually, I'm 29. Not quite old enough to have seen the originals in the theatre, but I still grew up with Star Wars.



FireBird said:


> I have mixed opinions on the prequels because I loved Revenge of the Sith. The first prequel was absolutely terrible. Yeah, lets have a ONE HOUR SIDEPLOT about podracing! Couldn't the writers have them just buy Anakin and move on? Jar Jar doesn't exist, tell me otherwise and I'll put my fingers in my ears and pretend I can't hear you. The Darth Maul fight was awesome though. And Liam Neeson as a Jedi? How can you NOT go wrong with that.
> 
> The second movie was more focused but was barely better. Hayden Christensen was an abysmal actor in this one. Since such a big part of the movie was focused on him it sort of ruined it for me. The movie was largely set-up for the third one so it suffered from the middle of the trilogy syndrome.
> 
> I loved Revenge of the Sith. Grevious was a bit much and the writing for Akakin and Padame was borderline terrible but still! Everything came together and it was a great movie. I also like comparing Anakin's seduction to the dark side with Luke's. Which one was more believable? Ewan McGregor was wtf awesome as Obi-Wan in all the movies too.
> 
> However, the one fact in all of this is Empire Strikes Back> ALL.



Okay, I'm completely serious now: I _really _don't get why people hate on the first movie so much. Revenge of the Sith is clearly the best of the three, but I did think Phantom Menace was just a bundle of fun, from start to finish.

Attack of the Clones, on the other hand, was kinda mediocre - I consider it the weakest of the prequels. It's not my least favourite Star Wars movie (that would be A New Hope) but mostly because of Christopher Reeve. Count Dooku was the best sith, and that's really all there is to say on the matter.


----------



## Reaver

> Originally Posted by Reaver
> I can only respond to this in the voice of Jar Jar Binks: MEEESA AMSA THINKSIN YOUSA BOM BAD OUTTA YOUSA MIND!






Anders Ã„mting said:


> Heh, I always liked that guy.
> 
> Also, may I compliment you on your maturity and tact? I can see why they made you a mod.
> .



Oh come on now. Really? Did you really take that post seriously?


----------



## Philip Overby

Okay, I'm completely serious now: I really don't get why people hate on the first movie so much. Revenge of the Sith is clearly the best of the three, but I did think Phantom Menace was just a bundle of fun, from start to finish.

You should watch Red Letter Media's reviews of the prequels.  Then you'll know why people hate them.  

Mostly people hate Phantom Menace for these reasons:

1.  Jar Jar
2.  No characters to connect with in any way
3.  Mido-chlorines (or however you spell it)
4.  Taxes
5.  Senators talking about trade

Other than the pod-racing stuff, which was OK, and the battle with Darth Maul (which could have been better), the movie was just kind of there.  The dialogue seemed forced or really dry.  There was no one really to connect to in anyway (though I guess it was Anakin since this is supposed to be a kids' movie with lots of action, silly characters, and talk about...trade federations?)  

Red Letter Media makes a great point.  I'll paraphrase below:

"They should have taken Obi-wan Kenobi and Qui Gonn Jin(sp) and made a new character named Obi-wan Kenobi."

Anyway, if people like those movies, fine.  But I would say that the prequels are as divisive among fans of Star Wars as talking about Twilight can be here.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Phil the Drill said:


> You should watch Red Letter Media's reviews of the prequels.  Then you'll know why people hate them.



Thumbs up for the RLM reviews. They put into (hilarious, profane, serial-killery) words all the vague negative feelings I had about the prequels but couldn't express.

*Episode I review*

*Episode II review*

*Episode III review*

Lest you think I only hate them because I'm older: I saw Episode I _thirteen times_ in the theater and enjoyed it every time. It wasn't until later that I began to understand its problems. I enjoyed Episodes II and III, but still, when their problems were made clear (specifically, by RLM) it was as if a veil had been lifted from my eyes.

It's still fun to watch certain parts of them—the Anakin/Maul duel in TPM thrills me every time—but I can also recognize the immense structural, story, and character flaws in the movies.


----------



## cris2507

Although I adore all three LOTR films there is one film which holds a very special place in my affection. That is a film called Mirrormask which I found by accident in a local shop that sells 2nd hand films. It is an astonishing film and I do urge you to give it a look. It also has a fairly stellar cast which includes a number of comedy stalwarts such as Stephen Fry, Rob Brydon, Lenny Henry and Andy Hamilton but it is not basically a comedy film. 
Also, visually, the second Hellboy film, the Golden Army, has some sequences in it which are visually stunning, such as the Angel of Death and the Trolls Market.


----------



## Jabrosky

It depends on how you define fantasy, but sticking to movies with a strong element of the undisputed supernatural, I nominate _The Scorpion King_ as my favorite. It's sword & sorcery like _Conan the Barbarian_ but with a pseudo-Egyptian backdrop and a more multiracial cast, and it's a lot of fun. The Rock is awesome as the hero!

I actually couldn't sit through any of the LotR movies. I don't know why, honestly; it would be easy to attribute it to their long running times, but then _King Kong_ was approximately as long as each LotR installment and yet I enjoyed it far more (then again, gorillas and dinosaurs make everything better).


----------



## cris2507

Hi Jabrosky
I agree that there will be varying definitions of fantasy. Personally I would say the setting is more important in the definition of fantasy than the content. So, for example, I could easily define a tale or film as fantasy that had no supernatural content. For me the essential in fantasy is an alternative, absorbing and convincing reality, an otherness that draws me in. 
How do folks feel about that other label used to cover fantasy, sci fi and other similar genres - "speculative fiction"?
When you say you couldn't sit through any of the LOTR movies, may I ask if you are a fan of the books? I ask mainly because I have friends who are so attached to the books and have such a vivid internal vision of the story that they did not want the films (one person's visualisation of their beloved tale) to "spoil" their private imagining of the story.


----------



## Jabrosky

cris2507 said:


> When you say you couldn't sit through any of the LOTR movies, may I ask if you are a fan of the books? I ask mainly because I have friends who are so attached to the books and have such a vivid internal vision of the story that they did not want the films (one person's visualisation of their beloved tale) to "spoil" their private imagining of the story.


I've never read the books.


----------



## Mindfire

Jabrosky said:


> I've never read the books.



Then maybe something about LOTR in general just doesn't sit well with you. Philosophical differences? The plot doesn't agree with you? Don't care for the setting? Too many white people? Why have you never read the books?


----------



## Jabrosky

Mindfire said:


> Then maybe something about LOTR in general just doesn't sit well with you. Philosophical differences? The plot doesn't agree with you? Don't care for the setting? Too many white people? Why have you never read the books?


It's probably because of the trilogy's sheer scale. Each book by itself looks gigantic, never mind when they're all added together.

Just so you know, I'm a Nordic-looking white guy, and while I have always gravitated towards the more "exotic" civilizations like the Egyptians and Mayans, I'm not totally close-minded as to avoid any books with white people.


----------



## Roc

I also love a lot of the Hayao Miyazaki movie.

You don't even have to pay attention, they're simple and they're moving.


----------



## thedarknessrising

I'm going to go with the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy.


----------



## Lucipher

EASILY lotr...it's just so epical


----------



## thedarknessrising

I watched Prince of Persia yesterday, and that was pretty awesome. Never played the game though.


----------



## Aravelle

I need to see Willow...

I adore Pan's Labyrinth and Stardust, but will forever love The Last Unicorn. [I haven't seen the last 2 LOTR movies yet.]


----------



## Wolfram

LOTR trilogy. it could have been done so badly, but it turned out so well, beyond my expectaions.


----------



## Aravelle

Can I change my vote?
Princess Mononoke please AND The Last Unicorn please... okay maybe add Spirited Away to the mix.. Miyazaki makes it so hard to pick  favourite... okay I go with Mononoke and TLU.


----------



## Steerpike

Aravelle - don't forget Kiki's Delivery Service.


----------



## bjza

I'm glad to see Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, The Last Unicorn, Princess Bride, and Ladyhawke get mentions.

Dark Crystal had long been my favorite. I'm sure as a teenager that I watched the documentary "The World of the Dark Crystal" as often as the film itself. The plot is a little lacking, but the setting and visuals are fantastic. The set and costume detail and the creative movements for each species put so many computer-driven films to shame.


----------



## SilentWatcher

Mine would be Fellowship of the Ring, not only because of personal preference but largely because it led me to read the books, which in turn led to me writing high fantasy. The amount of work that was put into the films was amazing too.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

SilentWatcher said:


> Mine would be Fellowship of the Ring, not only because of personal preference but largely because it led me to read the books, which in turn led to me writing high fantasy. The amount of work that was put into the films was amazing too.



Same for me. I'd count the entire trilogy as my favorite because it is one story told with three films, and that is my favorite fantasy story brought to the screen. 

Fellowship was, however, perhaps the most memorable and important cinema experience of my entire life. It's tied with another film that you can probably infer from my username and avatar.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Sheriff Woody said:


> It's tied with another film that you can probably infer from my username and avatar.



Unforgiven?


----------



## Feo Takahari

If we're allowing anime, then I'll nominate Paprika. It's the sort of thing Philip K. Dick might have written if he was on even more drugs than usual, and I still don't understand every story element after two watchings, but I dearly love it anyway.

Also, it resulted in the creation of this.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Unforgiven?



Haha, nope...but Unforgiven is very high up on my list. What a great film that is! The final 30 minutes are beyond brilliant.


----------



## stevefrank

LOTR is a very interesting movie.


----------

