Ten Deep 12.03.08: Greatest Fantasy Films #50-#41!

Posted by Lucas Huddleston on 12.03.2008

We start the countdown to Lucas Huddleston's greatest Fantasy films!

Hello, and welcome to Ten Deep: Week Eleven! Due to various unavoidable occurances over the past few days, I'm running desperately short on time for this week, so, sadly, no comments, which sucks because there was a few I really wanted to respond to...like the Richard Pini one, if it really WAS Richard Pini. Anyway, the reasoning is that I had to take my mother to the hospital (which was nothing serious) and my grandmother's failing health (which is). So my apologies. Sorry, but no space for Honorable Mentions or Ramblings. Suffice to say that Fantasy is the presence of the magical/mystical/supernatural...the short, short version!

THE TOP FIFTY: #50-#41

50. The Hobbit (1977):



Some of my earliest memories as a child was the customary story-time that nearly all children are blessed with having, with their parents reading them stories in order to get their children to go to sleep; obviously, for me, this was no different. When my mother would lay me down for beddy-bye time, she would read to me from those little Golden Books; if you don't recall what those were, they were little books in the shape of almost perfect squares and about ten-to-fifteen pages in length (if that), mostly dealing with cartoon characters, replete with colorful pictures that seemed ripped straight out of the television. However, whilst my mother was pumping my head full of stories such as Donald Duck's Birthday Party, my father had seemingly long-since decided to recant to me other tales. So it is that J.R.R. Tolkien's was one of the very first stories that was related to me when I was a child, as my father would tell me the tale of a Hobbit's holiday from what he could pull from his own memories of the book he had read and loved as a young man. Those early bed-time stories that my father would tell me fueled my interest in Tolkien and the type of Fantasy that his genius spawned, a thought that wasn't really truly realized until I took it upon myself in fifth grade to finally pick up and read my father's old, yellow-paged copy of The Hobbit. However, between the times of being read bed-time stories and the moment that I opened the book for the first time with the intention of reading it, I had THIS movie to carry the light of Tolkien's imagination within my own.

It truly hurts my heart a tad that this little film is here in the very last possible spot on the Top Fifty, but it was unfortunately unavoidable; it became more than apparent that after I had ultimately decided to expand these Fantasy lists to be more all encompassing (rather than just covering the more traditional wizards-and-warriors type of Fantasy), that this film would unfortunately have to pushed back quite a bit. Not that the film itself is a horrible slice of garbage that I've attached myself to for the mere reason that it harkens back to my childhood, when the concept that is The Hobbit was fresh and new in my imagination…far from it, in fact. For those who don't know much about this film, it was originally an animated made-for-TV adaptation produced by Rankin/Bass, which aired in 1977. Overall, the movie is truly one of the better adaptations of a classic work of literature out there; sure, there are certain characters and scenes that have been omitted from the film (Beorn, for instance, plays no role in the movie, and he's perhaps the biggest the omission), and for other scenes there are some changes (example: rather than tricking the Trolls into arguing with each other until daybreak when they turn to stone, Gandalf causes the Sun to rise). Of course, the changes are somewhat small, and only serve the purpose to streamline the plot of the film for the constrictions of the television time-block, and changes should be expected (it's only when they're to the extreme or unnecessary that changes to the original source material bother me personally). But what is spot on about this film is this – it shares, and is in perfect harmony with, the heart and spirit of the book. Tolkien had a tendency to create song lyrics/poetry in his vaunted Middle-Earth works, and this movie takes those words and applies them to actual music (in what I've always thought was a sweet, little touch). Nearly everything in the book in lively and lighthearted fun, and this film embraces those aspects quite well, I think. By and large, this film captured nearly flawlessly what it was that I envisioned in my head as to the visualizations of the story that was told to me by my father, and it even continued to do so even after I had read the book itself.

Perhaps The Hobbit's inclusion on this list could very well be construed as a bit of nostalgia guiding my thoughts, though I myself really don't think so; though, truth be told, it does indeed hold a very, very special place in my heart. I love everything about this film, from the animation (though the Elves do indeed look a bit…strange, as they're all tall and lanky, as well as having dull, gray skin and looking to be severely malnourished) all the way to the great songs and music…and yes, I really DO think that the songs and music in this movie is fantastic. With due respect to Ian McKellen and his great turn as Gandalf in the Jackson's films, John Huston's voice will ALWAYS be the voice of Gandalf that rings in my head when I read the books. And, of course, the centerpiece of the film itself, the meeting with Smaug, is something that will forever be burned into my memory; the image and voice of Smaug (voiced exquisitely by Richard Boone) still remains to be fantastic in my eyes, and by-and-large was instrumental in not only causing my great affection for the great wyrm Smaug himself, but for dragons themselves. Overall, I can see why many people today may indeed dislike this film, as it is a bit on the corny side; in fact, it's probably less spectacular to most than I personally think the film happens to be, despite my feelings for it. But that matters little to me, as I will always love it.

49. Merlin (1998)



Way back when, in the mid-to-late 1990's, the Hallmark Company had grown a bit of a reputation for producing some truly quality films, most of which (if not ALL of which) aired on television as various mini-series. If I remember correctly, the very first film that they produced in this vein around that time was an adaptation of Jonathan Swift's classic Fantasy tale, Gulliver's Travels, which starred Ted Danson. The film aired on NBC (as I think that all of Hallmark's presentations did back in those days), and, when all was said and done, ended up being one of the most acclaimed and celebrated mini-series films of its day. Quickly, as in within the next year, Hallmark followed up on the over-whelming success of Gulliver's Travels by producing and airing another mini-series based on classic literature -- The Odyssey, starring Armand Assante as the hero Odysseus, with a screenplay adapted from Homer's epic poem (of course!). Whereas Gulliver's Travels had been one of the truest adaptations of Swift's classic story set to film, The Odyssey was a rather loose adaptation, dropping out scenes and occurrences within the poem quite liberally, while also adding in bits and pieces of Virgil's Aeneid and Homer's other timeless poem, The Illiad. However, once again Hallmark had a hit film on their hands, and much like Gulliver's Travels before it, The Odyssey was lauded by many and was the recipient of several awards. So it was that by the time 1998 had rolled around, it had very nearly become customary for Hallmark to parade out another relatively top-dollar three-hour film on NBC; seeing as how I was (and still am) not only a fan of the previous two Hallmark efforts that had aired successfully on NBC for the two prior years, as well as a fan of Arthurian legend, it should come as little surprise as to the amount of anxiousness I had built up inside me as I awaited for Merlin to air. In truth, after I had seen the various advertisements for it on television, I had little-to-no reason to believe that the film wouldn't be every bit of awesome.

For those who has never seen the film, suffice it to say that story of the movie gives the telling of Arthur and Camelot and all that through the eyes of Merlin the Wizard; of course, that's not all that the film is about, as the plot relates the life of the famous wizard, from his birth and childhood, through Merlin's adulthood, and on up to his wizened elderly days. Now, as anyone who's even remotely versed in the many tales of Arthurian legend could probably tell from just that above statement, this film does indeed take some liberties within the age-old legends themselves, which, honestly, is where nearly all of the faults of the film shine through at. Of those faults, you'll find within this film new characters previously unknown in the legends are added, recognizable characters that have been present in the legends since possibly even before the days of Sir Thomas Mallory have been made nearly unrecognizable, and certain iconic scenes and situations have been changed entirely: Queen Mab and her imp-servant Frick (both played quite well by Miranda Richardson and Martin Short, respectively) both make their Arthurian ‘debuts' here, but both are by-and-large good characters…in particular Mab, who exists as the series' villainess, yet her actions are justified by her own need for self-preservation and not necessarily acts of pure evil; Helena Bonham Carter takes on the pivotal role of Morgana le Fay, a normally powerful character in the legends, yet here she's regulated to being Mab's pawn and an blithering idiot, who speaks like Elmer Fudd; and, again contrary to the normal legends, Merlin stays with Arthur and Camelot until the bitter end, rather than being frozen in a boulder or tree as he is in many of the legends. And yet, apart from the whole le Fay ordeal, not one of the other discrepancies has ever really bothered me…not in the least.

Nearly all other aspects of the film are indeed great. A majority of the performances, headed up by Sam Neill as the titular wizard, range from great to solid, with a fairly strong cast placed in well-suited roles. Of the many performances in the film, I can truly only think of three that came across as being bad: le Fay (through no fault of Carter's own); the guy who played Uther Pendragon (as when he goes mad with lust and power, his acting takes a turn for the worst); and the guy who played Mordred, who just really wasn't all that great. Nearly all of the special effects in the film except for one (that being the CGI used on the dragon) came across as exceptional back in its day, especially for a made-for-TV film…and, indeed, many of those same effects in the film hold up quite well even by today's lofty standards. The cinematography is also exquisitely done and imagined, which all leads to what I believe to be one of the greatest television mini-series of all time, and Hallmark's true masterpiece.

48. The Black Cauldron (1985)



More often than not in my life, I've found myself cursing the Disney Company and they're damned Vault…ah, see there, I did it again. I just can't help myself. The very first time that I ever got the notion that this film even existed was sometime in the late 1980's, though not through any type of advertisement that I'd seen on the television. My cousin had been given a computer game called The Black Cauldron for his birthday, one of those old-school type of games that was played via floppy discs and typing in some kind of a passcode before you could actually played. The game looked like and seemed to play similar to another game that my cousin had, one called King's Quest 4…and, of course, I say ‘seemed like' because I was never actually allowed to play the thing. Most times I merely sat and watched him play, while ogling the art on the game-box, thinking to myself how awesome the game was and how much more awesome it would be if it were indeed a movie. Naturally, I couldn't miss the words, ‘Walt Disney Presents…' that lingered directly above the words The Black Cauldron, and I knew (like most kids) what Walt Disney entailed, but still…I'd never heard of the film. The questions raised by the game, coupled with the enigmatic air that I had built around the film that may or may not have existed (this would be a good time to note that in this period of time I also thought that Dragon's Lair was a movie as well as a game), caused a certain mystique to pervade my mind whenever I thought on The Black Cauldron, a mystique that would continue up until sometime in my pre-Junior High days, when my mother took me to a certain used book store. That book store is long gone now, but suffice it to say that it was in those days owned and operated by an elderly woman, who just happened to love Fantasy books, and thus had the largest collection of Fantasy books that I had ever seen, a collection that rivaled even the largest collections that a mega-store like Barnes & Noble can muster; on the particular day in question, as I perusing her vast keepings of Fantasy, I stumbled upon a little paperback novel titled, oddly enough (or so I thought at the time), The Black Cauldron. I immediately slipped it from the shelf, and to my surprise, there on the cover rested the very same artwork that had adorned my cousin's old computer game. Of course, I couldn't help but notice the little ‘#2' that sat quietly in the upper-right corner of the book, as well as on the spine, and I glanced back up at the rack from where I had pulled the novel from, only to notice a handful of books that had flanked The Black Cauldron on either side, with similar numbers on their spines, running in the order of 1, 3, 4, and 5. Seeing as how they were only fifteen cents apiece, I scooped them all up and took them to my mother, begging her to buy them for me, which she did; in return, I wasted no time in cracking open that first little book that was emblazoned with the number 1, being the The Book of Three. Eventually, long after I had read the books and by the time I had come into ownership of my first movie-book, one written by Leonard Maltin, I finally, FINALLY learned that The Black Cauldron had indeed been made into film by Disney, and even though words like ‘unmemorable' were used, the film never lost its mysterious appeal to me as I waited patiently for the day that I'd finally be able to watch it…and that day came in the late 90's, when Disney finally released the movie on VHS for the very first time.

Firstly, if there has been ANY under-utilized and under-appreciated film that Disney has ever chose to create and then neglect, it's this very film right here. As you can probably tell from the little story that just related to you there, it seems as though this film was created and released theatrically by Disney, only to then be shunted away inside their Vault to never see the light of day (or even spoken of by the company, it seems) for the next fifteen years or so. Perhaps that would've led some people to believe that the film probably wasn't very good, given Disney's seemed to have disowned the film…but not me, however, as the mystique that began with Disney's own neglect for the movie fueled the film to be all the more magical for me, even without ever having seen it. By the time the movie had become accessible and I had watched it…I loved it. Now, for those who don't know, the film is based on part Lloyd Alexander's venerable Chronicles of Prydain series of children's Fantasy novels, of which there are five: The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, The Castle of Llyr, Taran Wanderer, and, finally, The High King. However, contrary to seeming appearances, the film The Black Cauldron is NOT particularly taken from the novel of the same name…and I use the words ‘not particularly' in the sense that it is, but it isn't at the same time. Rather, the film itself is a kind of meshing of the plots for the first and second books in the Prydain series, a move that very well could have been flirting with disaster, naturally…

As far as the plot for the film goes, it deals with Taran, a resident assistant pig-keeper for the wizard Dallben (though that's unknown, as the magical abilities of Dallben is never really stated or shown), charged with looking after Dallben's oracular pig (meaning he can read the future, or find things that are hidden in the world, etc.). Hen Wen, said oracular pig, proves to be quite a bit for Taran to handle, as, despite Dallben's warnings to look after Hen Wen closely due to the Horned King's interest in the pig, as the evil ruler wants the pig in order to find the titular object in question (the Black Cauldron) so that he can raise an army of the dead. Dallben orders Taran to take the pig far away and the two set off, but Hen Wen is able to escape from Taran as the two make their way to the secret hideaway where the Horned King won't be able to find them. No sooner does Hen Wen scramble away from the clutches of Taran, than does one of the Horned King's dragon-like Gwythaints come along and scoop Hen Wen up in its claws and off towards the Horned King's abode. Taran, whose dreams is to become a valiant hero, naturally sets off after Hen Wen in order to save her, meeting along the way a small, furry creature named Gurgi that leads the Assistant Pig-Keeper into the Horned King's realm and right up to his gates. After Taran braves the castle alone and is captured, he's thrown into the dungeons, where he meets and is saved by a princess named Eilonwy; when the two descend deeper into the dungeons beneath the castle, Taran happens upon an ancient blade with a mind of its own, one whose magic is so strong that it causes whoever to wield it to be a great warrior almost by default. Along the way, the two meet up with another captive of the Horned King's, a bard by the name of Fflewddur Fflam, and ultimately meeting back up with Gurgi and some elves, before setting off to find the Black Cauldron before the Horned King does…

Now then, as I pointed out, the plot for this film is an amalgamation of the plots of the first two books in the series, as the film intertwines the two liberally. Obviously, this leads to some fairly major omissions by way of characters dropped from the film, such as Prince Gwydion and the evil enchantress Achren. In fact, in the first novel of the series, The Book of Three, it's in Queen Achren's castle that Taran meets up Princess Eilonwy, though he does indeed discover the magic sword (called Dyrnwyn) in the Black Cauldron novel…but he's unable to wield it until the fifth book when he's finally proven his noble worth. In the BC novel, the Horned King plays no part, as he's featured in the first book, but as a warlord and is slain in battle at the end of the book when Gwydion speaks his true name. In fact, the film version of the Horned King is actually kind of a mixture of three villains from the books: the Horned King (obviously); Queen Achren; and Death-lord Arawn, who's pretty much the ultimate villain throughout the course of the series itself. Also, in the books, there's no need for anybody, whether good or evil, to search for the Black Cauldron, as it's ALREADY in the possession of Arawn, who has likewise already raised an army of undead. And there's more discrepancies between books and film…lots, LOTS more. Yet, it's never really bothered me when it comes to this film, as opposed when the same is done to such an extreme as it pertains to other film adaptations of books that I like.

For me, first and foremost as to the whys of it not bothering me, is because the film carries with it much of the feel and themes of the book (or in this case books). The main development for the primary characters remains intact: Taran, whose main drive and dream is to become a hero, learns along the way that being a hero isn't as easy as merely gaining glory on the battlefield; Eilonwy learns to grow up, in a way, from her spoiled and pampered attitude; Fflewddur discovers how to be responsible for people other than himself; and Gurgi discovers friends and the sacrifices it takes to save what he cares about. As for the villain, the Horned King proves to be perhaps the most visually terrifying baddie of quite nearly ALL Disney villains, before or since, as well as perhaps being the ruthless and evil…a shame that he was hidden away from the forefront of Disney for so long. Perhaps one reason why this film has been chosen to be largely ignored by Disney is because it represents a change in the annals of the company…a change that, by and large, failed. The film was intended by Disney as an effort to reach out towards the more ‘mature' teenage crowd of the 80's, hence some of the more horrific imagery of the shuffling re-animated dead warriors, as well as the darker overall tone of the film. There's nary a song to be found here, an atypical breakaway from the Disney norm as it pertains to their usual animated feature films. And what's more is that many of the stock audio samples and such that Disney had been incorporating in their films for most of the lifetime of the studios were out the window, replaced with new samples. Of course, in the end, perhaps that's why the film was largely unsuccessful, as it wasn't the normal fare for what the masses typical know as Disney films. In fact, the head of Disney at the time ordered several scenes to be cut from the film, for fear that said scenes would be too frightening for younger children…which catering to the younger crowd would seem to me as counter-productive towards the goal of gaining a more mature audience. For me, I loved it, as when I was at last able to watch it, I had reached that fickle age where I was reluctant to watch Disney films as they were considered ‘kiddie' and ‘lame' by a lot of my friends at the time, so The Black Cauldron was a refreshing blast of air for me when I finally had the film in my hands. For me, it was pretty much everything that I had built up in my mind from the mystique of the film that at one time may or may not have existed, and it has since became one of my all-time favorite Disney films.

47. Sleepy Hollow (1999)



There was a period of time when I was child that I was somewhat obsessed with Washington Irving and his short story, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. My mother had ordered it for me in a book club when I was in grade school, and it came by way of a teeny-tiny book that doubled the tale with Irving's other well-known piece, Rip Van Winkle. A relatively short tale and an all-around easy read (even for me as a child, way back then), I read the thing countless times throughout my childhood, clearly envisioning the scenes where Ichabod Crane is chased through the woods by the Headless Horseman, and soaking every bit of it up, as (if you remember my stories about all things Horror and my childhood…) it was a Horror story that my parents actually allowed me to enjoy. It was probably around this time that Disney re-released on VHS their own classic short-film adapted from Irving's story, and while I did indeed like that particular cartoon, it failed to hold even near the weight with me as the actual short-story did; to me, the story itself had always been more-than-a-bit terrifying, and the word ‘terrifying' was a far cry from what I would call the Disney film. Now, when I was a child, there was a movie in the local movie-rental place that was based on the story, a live-action film starring Jeff Goldblum; however, since my mother deemed it as looking ‘too scary', I was never allowed to watch it (and still haven't, as I've never found it anywhere else since that place closed down). So it was that in 1999, Tim Burton, whose work I've always enjoyed, released his take on of my own personal favorite stories…and this time my parents would have no say in forbidding me to see it, as I was no longer a child. I missed out one, I'd be damned if I was going to miss out on another.

To say that the film's plot is loosely adapted from Irving's original short story would be the understatement of the century. In truth, just about the only things that carried over are the Headless Horseman himself, the apparent love affair between Ichabod Crane and Katrina Van Tassel, and the town of Sleepy Hollow itself (the film did also include an homage of sorts to the scene from the cartoon where the Horseman throws an enflamed pumpkin at the camera). Nearly just about everything else in the film differs a great deal from the original story, as Ichabod isn't a teacher in this film, he's a police constable from New York City who's sent to Sleepy Hollow in order to investigate the Horseman's murders. The Horseman himself isn't merely a specter who's seemingly resurrected by way of his own bloodlust, he's a pawn controlled by the hand of a vengeful and greedy witch; in fact, witchcraft plays quite a heady part in the proceedings here, as the ‘dark arts' and magic underlie nearly everything that happens in the film. As for listing the remainder of the departures that the film transgresses against the story, there's far too many to count…and to be honest, I've never really cared to, as I've never really cared about those differences. With the original short story being how it is (namely, short), I went into the movie EXPECTING there to be quite a few additions and subtractions from the story in Burton's movie, something that I think everybody should've recognized. Apart from that, Burton brings his typically inventive and imaginative mind to the film, as the sets and scenery are fantastic, ably applying themselves quite well to the atmosphere of the movie, if not adding a great deal more to it, such as when you see the Tree of the Dead, you can really imagine it being the gateway to Hell itself. The cast is wonderful, as you'd expect from the likes of Depp, Miranda Richardson, Michael Gough, and countless other character actors who appear in the film, some (like Martin Landau and Christopher Lee, appear in cameos). Also, Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman automatically makes this film a must-see, due to the flashback scenes which feature him going all barbarian in the few battle sequences (I think that his only lines are ‘AAAHHHH!'). As far as I'm concerned, this film ranks as one of Burton's absolute best pictures, and more than worthy of appearing on my list.

46. Beowulf (2007)



Ah, Beowulf. I can distinctly remember when I was around the ninth grade or so, many of classmates groaned at the task of reading the timeless epic poem. They failed to recognize the importance of such a work, and how the passages contained within the poem lent us threads into a world and culture that, without the poem, might have been lost to us in the spiraling webs of time; to my classmates, it was just old and boring. I loved reading it, even to the point that I actually stole the little book that had been assigned to us for reading (I told the teacher that it'd been stolen out of my locker, probably by somebody who lost theirs and needed one), and have read it several times over the years. Now, I'm not really one that reads through Beowulf, intensely studying all the little intricacies and nuances of the poem as I go; I've always read it the same way that I read any kind of story that intrigues me to no end – for the adventure. To me, nothing could ever beat the battles waged between Beowulf and Grendel in my mind, nor could anything ever hope to capture the climactic struggle between man and dragon as my imagination had. So it was that, throughout most of my life, I almost entirely avoided any and all adaptations of the epic poem that crossed my path, such as the 2005 film Beowulf and Grendel…actually, beyond that, I'm not really all that sure of very many Beowulf adaptations. Suffice to say that the only one that I ever truly enjoyed was The 13th Warrior, and that's not so much of an adaptation as much as it's a reimagining of the timeless tale. None had ever really garnered my interest…until I saw the previews for this movie. Upon first glance, I thought that the film was a live-action picture, featuring a cast with the likes of John Malkovich, Anthony Hopkins, and Angelina Jolie…and it was fairly obvious to me that that's who was in it, because there they were, right there on my television screen. However, something seemed…different, and it wasn't until I watched the advertisements just a little bit more intently that I realized that the film was actually entirely computer animated. Needless to say, my interest had very much indeed been garnered.

I'm sure that the first thing that crosses anybody's mind when they think of this film is the computer animation itself. By and large, I think that it's safe to assume that the CGI contained within are arguably the best that's ever done. The Anthony Hopkins that I so readily recognized in the previews was indeed merely a computerized image of the man, yet, at just a quick glance, it could easily be mistaken to be the actual man. In fact, every one of the relatively major stars in the film is dutifully recreated to appear as they do in real life, with the exception of two: Ray Winstone as the titular character, and Crispin Glover as Grendel. Winstone, who's a bit tubby in real life, is completely re-built via computer to be the most ripped guy in the world, it seems, and while Winstone's body may not have been ideal for the character, his voice surely seems to be, as it fits suitably well with the character of Beowulf in the film. As for Glover as Grendel…well, what can you say, really? The character on screen wouldn't begin to be even remotely construed as being relatable to Glover…and neither would the voice-work. In the film, Glover speaks entirely in Old English, a language that, while being completely alien, comes across as being strange, yet somewhat understandable. The action and battle sequences in the film are suitably violent and bloody, much as how I imagined them to be when I read the poem, and much as how I believe battles would have been back in that ‘uncivilized' era. And, of course, the dragon – while it may not have lived up entirely to what I had built up in my mind, it's a more than suitable climactic ending for the film, in my opinion. In the end, there seems to be quite a bit of hatred out there for this film ever since its release, and in some cases I can see the arguments; however, I found the film to be thoroughly engaging, and by far the best direct adaptation of the epic poem that has been produced in film.

45. Krull (1983)



For those who haven't seen this film, suffice it to say simply this: this movie is almost unmistakable ‘80's fare. Given my father's own interest in all things Fantasy and the fact that this movie stood as a relatively big-budget Fantasy undertaking for its time, it should come as no surprise that I was exposed to this film at quite an early age. As such, I should note that, interestingly enough, I really didn't like Krull too much back in those early days, and it all came down to pretty much one particular reason – the film kind of terrified me back then. Not that anything within the movie is overtly horrific or frightening, but still, some of the visuals and character designs lingered in my mind and scared the hell out of me. Of these, there were three things specifically that had that affect on me: the changling that takes on the form of the old seer, with its long fingernails and black, pupil-less eyes; the Widow of the Web, a creepy, elderly woman (as sometimes old ladies can be a bit creepy…); and, above all else, Rell, the Cyclops. Of course, I did indeed realize that Rell was one of the good guys and a hero (perhaps the greatest and most heroic of all within the group of heroes), yet his one eye, sitting right smack dab in the middle of his forehead, with all of its moving around and what-not, completely freaked me out as a child. I suppose that you could say that what they were trying to accomplish with the Cyclops in regards to presenting him realistically was successful; though, since the character and the film overall pretty well unsettled me and such, I refused to watch Krull during most of my childhood, leaving our old VHS copy of the movie sitting apart from other Fantasy films from the ‘80's that I loved. As such, it wasn't until I was in the early years of my twenties before I finally decided to revisit the movie…

The film opens with a narrator relating to the audience a bit of the underlying prophecy that sets the plot in motion, dealing with a king and a queen who would go on to rule the planet Krull, and their child would ultimately rule the entire galaxy. So it is that the villain of the film, called simply the Beast, lands on Krull…and yes, he does indeed land on the planet, as he seems to be an extra-terrestrial whose spaceship is in the form of a great, black mountain, hence the name that the peoples of Krull come to call it by (the Black Fortress). Throughout the years, the Beast and his minions wreak havoc on the planet as he tries to bend its habitants to his will, while many of the armies of the world stand against him. Enter Colwyn, a prince of one of the realms of Krull and a brave and stalwart warrior in the struggles against the Beast, and the future king that the prophecies of old foretell. However, on the night that Colwyn is to be wed to the Princess Lyssa, the Beast's minions attack the ceremony, stealing Lyssa away and wiping out every other fighting man that was in attendance, except, of course, for Colwyn, though he's badly injured. An old seer who has foretold the happenings that are in motion aids Colwyn back to his health and wits, and the two set off on a quest to rescue the princess and defeat the Beast once and for all, gaining a hardy group of adventurers and a legendary weapon along the way…

For me personally, once I had watched Krull a little later on in life, and with a few more movies under my belt than I had when I was a child, I came to appreciate it all the more than when I was a child; in regards to Krull, it seemed to me that the film harkened back to a simpler time of fantastical adventure films, the likes of which a name like Harryhausen would have been attached to. For example, the similarities in plot and tone to something like Jason and the Argonauts (and no, I'm not saying that Krull is to be spoken in the same reverence as that film) or Clash of the Titans rest in place, as the film exists as a series of somewhat episodic-feeling encounters that all tie together and lead towards the ultimate goal, which in Krull's case would be finding the Beast, killing the Beast, and saving the girl. So it seems to me that, when taking into account the dangers faced during the journey, the seemingly boundless energy of the film, and the monsters (Cyclops included, of course) that lay in wait interspersed between the beginning and end of the movie, Krull feels as though it's the ultimate homage to a seemingly near-dead type of film. While some aspects of the film may have terrified me as a child, now-a-days when I watch the movie it takes me back and makes me feel like I'm a kid again, watching those old Harryhausen Fantasy pictures, and, as such, it's relatively easy for me to overlook some of this film's shortcomings…of which the most disappointing offender would have to be the final confrontation with the Beast, as after being built up quite solidly throughout the film is a bit of a letdown when he finally appears on-screen (if only because he's supremely indistinct, visually wise – as in you can't really see him all that well). However, in the end, this film is fun to watch, and really, could you ask for anything more?

44. The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008)



When first I seen the trailers for this particular film on television, I'd be lying if I said that my curiosity hadn't been suitably piqued by what I had seen; granted, the film did indeed seem as though it could've been little more than your average children's Fantasy adventure and that the movie didn't seem all that far removed from the mold that the Harry Potter films had set…but still, anything with goblins and magic is enough to get my attention at the very least. In fact, the movie had garnered enough of my attention to constitute a little information spelunking for The Spiderwick Chronicles on my part. Having had no prior knowledge of even the least little thing in regards to the subject, I wasn't really all that surprised to discover that the film had been adapted from a series of five children's Fantasy books, written by Tony DiTerlizzi and Holly Black. So it was that, having not read the books before I watched the film, I had absolutely no concept of what the books contained when I drove myself down to the local Movie Gallery and rented the film, with little by way of hesitation, I might add.

Once I had finished watching the film, I have to say that I honestly quite enjoyed what I had just seen, which should be quite obvious given its place on my list here. Of course, I should also note that, as I mentioned above, I hadn't (and still have yet to) read the book series; as such, with that being said, it would probably be a fair thing for me to assume that any die-hard fans of the book series may very well be more than slightly annoyed by the film adaptation. Perhaps what would be most annoying of all to those fans is the fact that the creators of the film chose to take all five books in the series (though they are indeed little books, being of about an hundred pages in length for each), and cram them all into a single, hour-and-forty minute motion picture. That's a completely understandable situation for fans to be suitably angry with the film, but, as I said (and will say again), I hadn't read the books prior to watching, which no doubt led me to enjoying the movie more than I probably would have if I had read them. Also, I should note, that quite a fair few of the negative reviews that I'd read for the movie mad senseless comparisons of this film to the Lord of the Rings films, or the Harry Potter series, to which, in my opinion after watching the movie, there really isn't any comparisons to be made between the three. Spiderwick isn't nearly as broad in scope and intricate in design as those other two respective franchises, nor does it try to be, and so any comparisons that's attempted to made between them is completely erroneous.

While the film isn't nearly perfect, it has more than enough good things going for it to make it immensely enjoyable, as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, the film does take substantial liberties with the overall plot of the series as far as I can tell, and said liberties basically serve to super-streamline the plot of the series of novels for the film adaptation…but, as I've said several times here already (just to hammer the point home), due to my still unacquaintance with the series proper, the presumed offensiveness of that particular aspect was lost on me entirely. The computer effects that are used in the movie for the creatures were suitably well-done and entertaining, and likewise, the voice-work for said critters (featuring the likes of Martin Short, Seth Rogen, and Nick Nolte, who does a great job as the villainous ogre Mulgarath) were all expectedly superb, given the talent involved. As for the human actors, and even though I've never really been all that much of a fan of child actors and their work in film, I must say that young Freddie Highmore gave a fairly remarkable performance in his dual role as both twins, Jacob and Simon Grace, playing off the two different characters with their two distinct personalities exceptionally well. The rest of the ‘live' cast, both young and adult, did a rather solid job as well, though they were all clearly outshined by Highmore. All in all, as I said, there's quite a bit to like within this film, but perhaps the greatest thing that it did for me is that it made me feel like a kid again as I was watching it…and that's no easy task for a film that wasn't a part of my childhood to tackle.

43. MirrorMask (2005)



On one particular evening a few years ago, I made a special trip down to the nearby commercial mecca that is the Lake, having it in my mind to check out the brand-new Target store that had just had its big opening. Of course, being the movie-fiend that I am, the true (and only) reason that I chose to make the trip on that certain day was simple – I felt that itch to watch a movie that I hadn't seen before, and I figured that, at the very least, Target would offer up a couple or three DVD's for purchase that wasn't in Wal-Mart's stock. My hopes would prove to be well-founded, for as I stood in the midst of the giant wall-rack that was just absolutely bursting with films for sale, my eyes scurried about, and, like bees to honey, found all the real good stuff that Wal-Mart seemed to be lacking on their racks. Dr. Strangelove? I'd never seen that classic at the local Wal-Mart, so I picked that up instantly. 2001: A Space Odyssey? Alf: Season One? Needless to say, the offerings of differing videos between the two mega-stores were somewhat staggering, and I perused the films row after row, and then…I saw MirrorMask. Of course, as I swooped in for a closer inspection, my eyes immediately focused in on the name of one of my heroes from my childhood – Jim Henson (to be exact, the cover said The Jim Henson Company), a sight that prompted me to pick the DVD up and take a gander at the back. There, by the writer's credits, I noticed another name that had been attached to a film that I love (another Henson creation, no less…) – Neil Gaiman. Henson AND Gaiman? No wonder the box was so flippantly tossing around comparisons to Labyrinth.

MirrorMask is the story of a young, teenage girl named Helena, who is artistically talented and has grown up in a family of circus performers, thus hating her life (as teenagers are usually typical of doing) and wanting to run away and join ‘real life'. After totally being a bit of a bitch to her mother and wishing that she really WAS the death of her mother, Helena's mother falls unconscious and into a coma. A few days later, Helena is told that her mother will have to undergo surgery, a discovery that leads Helena into a fit of depression and despair, as well as guilt for having said what she did to her mother. On the night of her mother's operation, Helena awakens in a dream world, and is mistaken as the Princess of the Land of Shadows, who had previously entered into the City of Light and stole their charm – the MirrorMask. The dream world that Helena finds herself in is seemingly derived from her own artwork; at one point, Helena peers through the window of a house that is similar to one of her drawings and sees herself sleeping in bed in her own room. Of course, not all is as it appears to be, and Helena soon learns that she's not asleep in bed, but that the Princess of the Land of Shadows has used the MirrorMask to open a window into the ‘real world', replacing Helena with herself (as they look identical), and generally acting like more of a bitch than Helena possibly ever could. Soon, Helena becomes charged with finding the MirrorMask and restore herself and the Princess to their rightful places…

Perhaps I should state right off the bat here that despite the Henson Company's name being attached to this film, this is absolutely NO puppet-work to found here. Honestly, this came as quite a shock to me, probably moreso than others who had knowledge of the film prior to myself, as I bought the DVD without knowing anything about it (an act that I'm known to do from time-to-time…okay, well, more often than that, to be quite honest). Nearly everything that has to do with visual effects, from the scenery right on down to all of the creatures in film, is done by way of CGI, though not just any kind of CGI designs that we'd all consider to be the ‘norm'; contained here within the folds of this particular movie lies some of the oddest, trippiest, most imaginative, and most peculiar CGI designs and what-not that I've personally ever seen in a film (a prime example would be the Sphinx). To be perfectly honest with you, I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't a little put off at first by the movie, due to the reasons that A.) the Henson Company was involved with nary a puppet (or Muppet) to be seen, and B.) the odd CGI. However, after that first little shock had passed and I got more and more into the movie as it played, I realized that this film in no way could have worked with anything BUT the CGI; further delving into the histories of this film also justifies the strange designs for the sets and characters created by the CGI, as nearly everything in this film is based on the artwork of director Dave McKean (a sometimes comic book artist), whose artwork I don't think that I myself can quite label…it's just unique. Though if you're curious and haven't ever seen any of his work, I'd recommend you watch this film, as it perfectly captures is visions.

While those aspects are undoubtedly what stood out to me on my first viewing of the movie, the film also delivers some fairly against the grain archetypes. Helena obviously isn't a bad person, despite the way that she acts towards her family in regards to her life. Likewise, despite the actions of the Princess, she's really not the villain either. It's alluded to early on in the film that when the Princess of the Land of Shadows enters into the City of Light, a ceremony is thrown in her honor and she's revered by the people of the City (shortly before she steals the MirrorMask, of course). When most things in Fantasy are cast in the ‘dark' light or referred to as such (for example, she's the Princess of the Land of Shadow), it's automatically assumed that whoever/whatever comes from the ‘dark' is evil; in this case, however, given the reactions of the Light-folk, it's hard to believe that the Princess was ever regarded as being evil by others in the world. Her actions aren't necessarily evil (though they are indeed wrong), they're merely the actions of an immature child, who's spoiled and selfish…but not necessarily evil. In truth, her actions seem to mirror Helena's own, as both wish desperately run away from their respective lives and enter into the ‘real' world. As a matter of fact, not even the Queen of Shadows can be construed as being evil in any manner, as she's merely a loving mother, whose love had become so overbearing and smothering for her daughter that her overwhelming love indirectly caused her daughter to flee for her own piece of mind. I obviously can't speak for anybody else, but for me personally, as an only child, I can relate to all aspects of these three characters, particularly during my teenage years. All in all, any way you put it, I believe that this is an outstanding movie that works on many, many different levels. You can either just zone out and pay attention to nothing but the visuals, or you can immerse yourself in the multi-facted character work and plot. Good stuff.

42. Somewhere in Time (1980)



Ever since I've had the ability to form long-term memories (which would be sometime within the first three or four years of my life), this film has been firmly rooted within my mind's eye. Now, I suppose the proper categorization of this film would fall within the ranks of ‘Fantasy-Romance', and I'd assume that many other people were subjected to Romance films when they were younger, more-than-likely by their mothers. However, in my case as it regards to this particular film, it wasn't my mother that clambered to watch it…it was my father. I should note that when my father happens upon a film that he absolutely adores, he'll watch it, over and over again; at times, he's been known to watch a film again DIRECTLY after having just watched – he'll just restart it. Somewhere in Time was no different, and even though I was sitting there between my parents as we watched the movie, I was a bit too young to really understand much of what was going on in the film, though certain visuals from the movie (such as the portrait of Jane Seymour, or the scene where Christopher Reeve finds the penny in the pocket of his coat) stuck with me for years. By the time I was in my pre-teen/teenage years, I had zero interest in watching the movie with my parents whenever they'd have the notion to watch it again, as I felt that I had already seen the movie enough to last a lifetime…which, of course, was a bit ironic since, even though I truly had seen the film quite a bit, I couldn't remember a thing about it except those certain visuals. Flash forward a bit to the year 2002, myself being twenty years of age, and coming to the decision to drop out of college. The reasons for my decision to do so was hard for just about everybody that I'd told to fathom; I felt lost through nearly every bit of my college experience, and as such, had lost interest in everything about it, which in turn led those that I'd told to think that I felt that I was too smart, or bored, with the learning experience. Clearly, that would be a foolish boast for anybody to make, as I'm obviously not too intelligent to learn; I will say this, however, that within the span of two semesters, my grades had fallen at such a degree that I went from being a member of the Honors College (high grade-point average) to being put on a educational-probation of sorts due to low grades (typically for those whose grades have fallen below a 2.0…which mine had). My last memory of college, the last day that I was in a class of any sort, isn't a good one; I remember sitting in Psychology class, my mind being elsewhere as I stared out the window at the gray-brick building across the way, when I realized that all other eyes in the classroom were on me, including the professor, who as he stared at me said, "Well?" I told him that I hadn't been paying attention, to which another student answered the question, and I gathered my things and left the classroom, never to return. Within the week, I had moved back to the small town that I had grown up in, my old friends from high school having moved on and left the area, my college friends having been left behind…there was nothing for there for me either, except for my family. So it was that during this somewhat depressive period for me that, with nothing else to do except sit around, I took it upon myself to watch films that I hadn't memorized scene for scene, and, with Somewhere in Time being so nearby, I finally sat down to watch my father's favorite movie in earnest.

The film opens in 1972 on a young man, a fledgling playwright named Richard Collier, who's holding a party for a recent play-production of his that he's been told has a chance to make it to Broadway. During the party, he's approached by an elderly woman, who gives him a priceless gold watch, and tells him to ‘come back' to her. Collier is somewhat taken aback by this, and only stares in wonder and puzzlement as the old woman leaves. Flash forward to eight years later, where we find Richard having found obvious success with his plays, as he lives in a swanky high-rise apartment and drives a cute little convertible car. However, even though he's finally attained what we can only assume is his dreams, having become that successful playwright he sought to be, Richard is struggling in other aspects of his life: his relationship with his (presumably) long-time girlfriend has ended; he can no longer focus on his writing in order to complete his work; and the producers for his upcoming, and severely delayed, screenplay is breathing down his neck in order to push him to finish his work. Presumably having no one else to turn to, Richard, feeling lost, packs his bags and jumps in his car, leaving the city behind him. His road eventually leads him to an old hotel, a historic landmark of sorts; one night, whilst perusing the historic hall of the hotel, Collier's spies a picture dating back to 1912 of Elise McKenna (a young and beautiful Jane Seymour), an actress who was popular shortly after the turn of the century. Collier becomes obsessed with the woman in the picture, finding and soaking up any and all information on her that he can, eventually learning of her whereabouts…and of the fact that she's the very same woman that gave him the watch eight years earlier. As such, he drives to visit her, only to discover that she has been dead since the night that she gave him the watch, but still he obsesses over meeting her and speaking to her. This prompts him to visit an old professor of his that has written a book on time travel, claiming to have done it himself; he tells Richard that in order to travel through time, he must first hypnotize his mind to absolutely believe that the place in time that he exists in is the place in time that he wishes to BE in, and that one's success in the completion of the task (and the professor's ultimate failure) is to detach oneself physically and mentally from all aspects of the present. Of course, Collier attempts to do this, only to fail at first, though after having discovered an old ledger that dates back to 1912 and seeing his own signature in the ledger, he's becomes convinced that he does indeed accomplish his time travel attempts. And so, he tries again, waking up in June of 1912, and he sets out to find his one true love.

First off, it should be apparent as to why I latched onto this movie, given the particular time and happenings in my life at the time that I seriously sat down to watch the film. I could easily relate to the state of Christopher Reeve's character in the early portions of the film, as his life seemed to have been similar to mine…he was frustrated and lost. In fact, Christopher Reeve's portrayal of the character of Richard Collier throughout the film should be easily relatable to just about anybody, a task seemingly made simple enough by the simplistic charm that embodies Reeve himself. This was Reeve's first film that he took a part in after his iconic turn as the Man of Steel in 1978's Superman…though, while Reeve is indeed iconic as Superman, arguably his greatest impact in the psyche of the movie going public (not to mention the character of Superman himself) was Reeve's take on Clark Kent, utilizing his innocence and charm to lend to the character something more than what had been there before. Here, those aspects of Reeve's own personal character come through in spades, which helps in having the audience accept Collier as a human being, and not, you know, a lunatic. Jane Seymour…well, all I can say about her is that she's unquestionably a fantastic actress, and exquisitely beautiful, a fact made all the more clearer by this film, as it was shot during her early days. Rounding out the third and final member of the primary cast (indeed, beyond these three actors, no other party in the film has a part that's used to any certain, substantial extent) is Christopher Plummer, who plays the part of W.F. Robinson, McKenna's manager…and, according to McKenna, psychic, as he seems to have knowledge of certain things, such as McKenna's success and Collier's mission. In fact, there's a theory of sorts about Robinson, and that is this – is he a time traveler as well? While it's never really explored at all in the film, it very well could be, particularly from the future, which would explain how he knows the things that he does. Also, as an interesting side note (or at least one that I find interesting), is that the screenplay was written by one Richard Matheson, and based on his novel titled Bid Time Return; Matheson is perhaps best known as the author of I Am Legend, a work that served as inspiration for George A. Romero's Dead series. Intriguing, to say the least.

Typically the cynic in me would have normally said something along the lines that Richard Collier was, in fact, apparently driven insane by his newfound ordeals in his life, which led to his ultimately odd fixation and obsession with the picture of a woman who had lived nearly one hundred years before him…a fixation and obsession that led to him coiling back from life by creating an imaginary world in his own mind, a world of 1912 where he can at last meet and talk with this woman. That would at least seem to be one of the more obvious ways of explaining the more ambiguous aspects of the story…but I've never felt that Richard going insane was the case. Though that thought has indeed crept into my mind before, I've never entertained the thought very long, and the reason for that is because the film is sincere, it has no other purpose other than to give its audience a great story wrapped up in an unassumingly great movie. In its day, Somewhere in Time was critically panned and didn't perform very well at all at the box-office; however, since the film's release on home video and subsequent airings on television, the film has garnered a stout following (incredibly – to some, perhaps – made up of a majority of men), a following so stout that they have yearly conventions in honor of the film…much like, say Trekkies or Star Wars buffs. The film's initial failures but later achievements lead me to think one of two things: either the film wasn't promoted to the best of its abilities by Universal, or the film was a few years ahead of its time. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.

41. The Golden Compass (2007)



I must admit that, in my opinion, this film held a lot of promise to be the beginning of the next great Fantasy series, moreso than any other Fantasy film that's been released since the proverbial flood-gates were cast open b the theatrical birthing of The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films. Even through the relative brevity of the television advertisements that permeated the airwaves prior to the film's release, one could easily deduce that the film's cast looked great, the cinematography came across as awe-inspiring, and the special effects appeared to be nothing less than dazzling. In fact, shortly before I finally had the chance to actually watch the film properly, my interest in The Golden Compass had reached what could only be described as a fever pitch, which in turn prompted me to purchase the entire His Dark Materials trilogy of novels, written by Philip Pullman. So it was that, as I sat through the opening credits of the film for my initial watching of The Golden Compass, I doubt that my own personal anticipation for the movie could have possibly been any higher than it already was.

Upon my first venture through the film, I had read probably around half of the first book in the His Dark Materials series, the particular book that his film was adapted from; as such, it should come to the surprise of just about nobody to learn that there were a few changes made during the transition from page to screen. However, aside from the restructuring of certain scenes' placement and what-not within the film, most of the changing was held to a minimum, considering what could've been done with it, and it all passed with author Philip Pullman's stout blessing. Perhaps the biggest change of all comes by way of the final few chapters of the book, which were cut out from the movie under the pretense that those chapters would be the opening acts of the second movie…which I'll get to in a minute. As for the quality of the film itself, to be quite honest here, I wasn't disappointed with the movie in the slightest. Everything that the film purported itself to be in the advertisements, it was. The cast was nothing short of spectacular, and how could it not be with the likes of Nicole Kidman, Sam Elliot, Christopher Lee, Ian McKellen (who exists in voice-work, and is still great) and Daniel Craig (who does a good job and is indeed memorable given the short amount of time that's dedicated to him on-screen). But even beyond that certain tried-and-true (and rather lengthy for one film) cast of great actors, even the lesser known talent in the picture shines: Dakota Blue Richards, who takes on the role of Lyra Belacqua, stands as the heroine of the film, and does an outstanding job as the centerpiece of a multi-faceted cast due to her young age, as well as being a breath of fresh air in a world where many of the heroes in Fantasy films are typically male; and, once again, Freddy Highmore, who exists in the capacity of the voice actor for Lyra's daemon, once again proving his talent and worth at a relatively young age. The cinematography did indeed prove to be unendingly gorgeous, showcasing some of the most beautifully interesting landscapes and settings that have been committed to film in the past few years. Technically, everything about the film is sound and of a high-quality, and well-rounded enough to seemingly guarantee blockbuster status, especially when taking into account the ever-blossoming popularity of the Fantasy genre over the past few years.

However, and perhaps unfortunately, that wasn't the case for The Golden Compass. Ultimately, its legacy will (as of right now) be one of unsettling disappointment, a disappointment on such a scale that the financial ‘failure' of the film (failure because it was only a modest success) led to the complete restructuring of New Line Cinema…and thus putting any hopes of a sequel somewhat in jeopardy. No doubt that said ‘disappointment' and ‘failure' stemmed directly from a certain bad word of mouth about the inner-most thematical message of the book and, assumedly, film – that the true meaning of the book was one of an anti-Christian nature. As many would tell you, within the confines of the book's themes, there lie ideas such as the rejection of religion, and portraying (almost specifically) Catholicism as being somewhat of a totalitarian establishment. Undoubtedly, even the most jaded of individuals could decipher how much of a negative impact such themes could cause in what was perceived to be a children/family film, and indeed, many Christian organizations called for a boycott of the film. However, The Golden Compass got the blast from BOTH sides of the argument, as many fans of the novels and organizations that ‘support' free speech condemned the film for largely taking out (or, at the very least, dumbing down) the many anti-Religion sentiments of the novel, which no doubt both sides in large part played into being the death-knell for this wonderful film. As far as I'm concerned, I'd suggest any Christians who wish to watch the film to take everything that happens in the film/novel literal: merely accept the Magisterium as simply the Magisterium, and not as an analogy to the Church. Sometimes, I think that the world would be a much better place if everyone could remove that stick from their rear-ends…and that goes for both sides.

Come back next week!