TGP,

Can't argue with you there. I think I'll probably find it a little bit cheezy now, but all I remember is that it had a great theme song and the movie was such a adventure for me when I saw it many years back.

But I think I might read the book sometime.

I LOVE "Brazil." And I agree with you that it defies categorization. Modern fantasy satire, maybe?

A few years ago a reader took me to task for not liking "Willow" as much as he did, but I still think it's a good traditional fantasy film. And, of course, both Cocteau's and Disney's "Beauty and the Beast," most Disney cartoons, in fact, and....

Come to think of it, there haven't been many traditional fantasy movies that have been all that successful, have there? I liked "Excalibur," but didn't care for "Dragonslayer." "Conan the Barbarian" is fun, but not "Dungeons and Dragons" or "The Dungeonmaster." Some of Ray Harryhausen's work is delightful, too, like "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad," "Jason and Argonauts," etc. I dunno. Hard to beat "HP" and "LOTR" in my book, though.

John

I don't think these fantasy movies are BETTER, but they are very good:
Ladyhawke
The Dark Crystal
Labyrinth
Brazil (if you consider that fantasy)
Legend

I never got into anime or japanimation, so I don't like any of those, but the above are great movies. "Brazil" is the only one that may be better than LOTR. There are other good fantasy movies but these are the only ones I remember.

I just saw the trailer on the site... and I have to agree with you Eddie... it looks AWESOME! I don't know why it's so easy to get engrossed in these movies that are obviously a focus towards a younger audience... but it is! J.K. Rowling is brilliant. I love all of the books, and the movies so far.

TGP,
I'm not sure exactly how you can compare LOTR and Harry Potter. While I love both movies (and books) for what they are, they're apples and oranges (for lack of a better cliche'). How can you directly compare a movie that's family oriented, versus a movie thats SO incredibly adult? They're two completely different genre's! As far as being aimed at childhood audiences, I think that was J.K. Rowlings goal. If you remember back when Harry Potter And The Sorcerers Stone (the book) was first released, it was in the "Childrens" catagory. Only after it had been out for a while did the adult audience get hooked, and turn it into the Potter phenomenon that it is today. It's kept less dark and less "edgy" so that kids don't come out of the theaters traumatized. While the books are more extreme in some cases than the movies (for instance the character Mr. Dersley) I think the reason being is, it's harder for a child to imagine horrible and disturbing imagery in their mind than to bear witness to them via hollywood gore effects, and shocking imagery on a 30 foot screen. I just like both movies for what they are. I think they're both incredible in their own rights. I just don't think they should be compared as one better than the other.

- Josh

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Apr 1, 2004]

I'm with John on this.

Actually, Night Creature touched upon something that really puts things in perspective. When people read the "Harry Potter" or the "LOTR" books, their reading levels and maturities determine what their minds visualize. On the other hand, when the same people see a movie, they only visualize what is being given to them. Personally, while I agree that the "LOTR" movies are technically better accomplished than the "HP" ones (it's no contest between Gollum and Dobby, with the former winning), the "LOTR" series became rather soulless after "LOTR 1". This isn't a problem with the "HP" movies since each one is self-contained (of course, this would fall under the "apples vs. oranges" thesis that Night Creature also raised).

I'm perplexed that some have cited the "children's bent" of the "HP" movies as a negative. What is inherently wrong with addressing younger audiences? Being "kids" movies did not hurt "Babe", "The Secret Garden" (1993), "Little Women" (all versions), "Kiki's Delivery Service", etc. On the other hand, something distinctively geared towards adults ("Showgirls") can be ****. It's not the age thing--it's about quality.

I don't think, Eddie, that anyone is disagreeing that the "Potter" films are well made, fun, and enjoyable, no matter what a person's age. It was your comment that they were "better and much more enjoyable than the 'LOTR' ones" that prompted my own reaction. They are better for you, no doubt; but not for me.

John

Is there anybody else out there in the world who thinks that both Harry Potter and LOTR series movies suck? Because I hate to argue on my own.

No, you're the only one.

Seriously, I would imagine there are a lot of people who didn't care for either of these movie series. Both of them are rather dark and bizarre and maybe a little too silly, violent, far-out, or nonsensical for some viewers' tastes. I enjoy sci-fi and fantasy and think these two movie series are among the best-produced examples of the fantasy genre I've seen, but everybody is different in their tastes.

Are there any fantasy movies you'd propose as better than these? We'd like to hear your opinions, even if you are alone in them. There are no right or wrong answers here, so everyone's comments are as welcome as another's.

John

I just wish someone would make a film of Clive Barkers "Imagica". Now, that would make a very cool fantasy movie!

;)8)