Your favorite fantasy movie of all time?

[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 Ämting]

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 Ämting]

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]

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]

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]

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 Ämting]

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.

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.

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!

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]

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]

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.