Lord of the Rings changed cinema by making fantasy safe for the mainstream.
These movies tried to carry that torch to mixed success.
The success of these franchises taught Hollywood that fantasy was a profitable genre in which they should invest millions.
Sometimes the investment paid off, both in terms of box office receipts and quality.
And sometimes it definitely did not.
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)
Hey, remember Uwe Boll?
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Talefollows in Bolls usual style.
Ad content continues below
9.
), you couldnt avoid hearing about Christopher Paolini, another homeschool kid who wroteEragonwhen he was just 14.
Yet 20th Century Fox wasnt looking for originality when they optionedEragonfor a big screen adaptation.
They wanted name recognition, hoping to get their ownLord of the RingsorHarry Pottertype franchise.
300 (2006)
Its really hard to let300stand alone as a movie.
This isnt to say that300doesnt provide certain pleasures.
After all,LotRcreator J.R.R.
Lewis were close friends, and both series build off of their Christian beliefs.
And yet,Underworld: Rise of the Lycansgets some great actors having fun with the corny material.
The Brothers Grimm (2005)
People often talk aboutThe Brothers Grimmas if its one ofTerry Gilliamsworst movies.
But those people a) havent seen Gilliams hateful messJabberwocky, and b) havent rewatchedThe Brothers Grimmrecently.
But it has a warmth rivaled only byEnchanted, makingStardustsomething special.
Hes joined by some solid character actors in Geoffrey Rush andBill Nighy, who have fun playing mystical villains.
