When Good Fantasy Goes Bad
The Never-ending trend of fantasy films that suck.
      by Christina Brzustoski

Fantasy's Future: A New Hope

Now that we've seen all that fantasy movies have done wrong, here are the few that might be able to get it right.

DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS (December 2000)
Directed by Courtney Solomon
Written by Topper Lilien and Carroll Cartwright

D&D: Not just where Amanda worked on Melrose Place anymore.

Beautiful Empress Savina strives to save the world from the evil Jeremy Irons as the wizard Profion, enlisting the help of the obligatory RPG band of adventurers. Savina and Profion both want to get their hands on the ultimate magical artifact, the cleverly named Rod of Dragon Control. Who wouldn't want one of those?

Why it could be awesome: While the movie unfortunately doesn't follow the misadventures of a group of teenagers transported to this fantasy world with Warwick Davis as the Dungeon Master, this plot seems cool too. And, hey, there's always the possibility of a sequel. Plus, the current state of CGI technology ensures this movie will be a nice piece of eye candy, and a finale filled with dozens of fire-spewing dragons is promised.

Why it might suck: Well, the somewhat vague plot could come from almost any computer RPG, but with a good script and acting, Dragons could soar above mediocrity.

HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCEROR'S STONE (November 16, 2001)
Directed by Chris Columbus
Written by Steven Kloves, J.K. Rowling

Even if you're a Muggle, you probably already know about Harry. A young boy, knowing only a downtrodden life with an evil aunt, uncle and cousins, learns that he's a wizard with an unusual destiny and sets off for his first year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

The luckiest Muggles alive: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson in Harry Potter.

Why it could be awesome: J.K. Rowling's masterpiece is so cinematic and vivid in written form, it could be spectacular on the big screen. Anyone who's read the book will go see it for at least one reason: Quidditch, the wizard sport played high in the air on broomsticks. And with the delightful Alan Rickman possibly signing on to play the disgruntled but more-than-meets-the-eye Professor Snape, the cast could be just as strong as the FX will be.

Why it might suck: Three words -- Director Chris Columbus. The man responsible for such sappy mediocrity as Mrs. Doubtfire and Bicentennial Man could turn the whimsical but sometimes scary Harry Potter into Home Alone at Hogwarts. Now that's more frightening that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named any day. Also, the cast so far -- Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall and Rickman's Snape -- seem a lot older than they appear in the book, but hopefully a good make-up job will make the difference. Not to mention the possibility that any of the young unknowns cast as Harry, Ron and Hermione could pull a Jake Lloyd on us.

LORD OF THE RINGS (The Fellowship of the Ring, December 2001; The Two Towers, December 2002; The Return of the King, December 2003)
Directed by Peter Jackson
Written by Phillipa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Stephen Sinclair, Frances Walsh, J.R.R. Tolkien

Stand aside, Bakshi, Rankin and Bass! Peter Jackson has the potential of making this version of Lord of the Rings one of the most successful movies of all time, rivaling even that galaxy far, far away.

The new and improved Aragorn in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings.

Why it could be awesome: Just one viewing of the absolutely awesome Internet trailer is enough to see the incredible potential of this movie. The Nazgul are truly terrifying, and Elijah Wood gives the perfect naivety to our hero Frodo. Viggo Mortensen looks exactly as I've always pictured the ranger-who-would-be-king Aragorn (complete with real pants! We love you, Peter!) And it's possible to see Aragorn's hidden power and majesty in his brief torch-throwing clip. Almost all the roles seem to be expertly filled. Jackson dissed Uma Thurman in favor of Oscar-winning Cate Blanchett, who has proved she has the power and dignity to play the Elven Queen Galadriel, and the equally gifted Ian McKellen is the wizard Gandalf.

Why it might suck: For all the wonderful casting decisions made by Jackson and company, there's still one that worries Tolkien fans across the world: Liv Tyler as Arwen Evenstar.

Of course, many Tolkien purists are going to be offended that Jackson left out the third paragraph on page 68 of The Two Towers or insert-your-favorite-Tolkien-passage-here. Sure, we'll miss Tom Bombadil and the incredibly eerie Barrow Downs, but fans will have to accept that a 24-hour movie trilogy just isn't feasible, as much as we wish it was.

So, while fantasy movies have been notoriously mediocre to utterly awful for the last two decades, with any luck Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Dungeons and Dragons could totally redefine the genre. The Internet preview trailer for Rings is so promising. Harry was just made to be on film with his Quidditch matches and vivid imagery. And after all, Dungeons fans had to endure the creepy midget Dungeon Master in the 80s cartoon before this latest incarnation even tried to achieve what few, if any, fantasy films ever have -- and actually be a genuinely awesome film at that. Basically, this new crop of fantasy flicks has to at least be better than the previous generation. After all, it would be a lot more difficult for Peter Jackson to make a version of Lord of the Rings that sucks harder than Bakshi than for him to make a freakin' amazing movie trilogy, right? Liv, don't prove me wrong.

We welcome your comments on The 11th Hour and this feature. Please send letters to: letters@the11thhour.com

< Previous Page