>I prefer the movies, actually.

I thought the movies were a little cheesy, and didn't really deserve the Oscar hype. Not that I'm totally gaga over the books, I'm just that ambivalent towards the films.

>Worth doing to see the end of it, you think?

I dunno. They get progressively weirder. King takes the easy way out and uses some techniques that let him have happen pretty much whatever he wants to have happen. It's like Q in the ST:TNG series. The character exists just so the writers can create all manner of bizarre story lines.

Also, you may take issue with the ending.

>I have a love-hate relationship with Moorcock.

I read them in high school, which is to say 15 years ago, so I'm hard-pressed to remember much about them. I know I enjoyed them at the time.

Some other ideas of "highly regarded" (or at least "popular") fantasy (none of which I've read):

Stanek's "Kingdom and the Elves" books. (These were highly rated when I did a search at Amazon.com a while back. The most common criticism is that they're a little too "kiddy".)

Donaldson's "Thomas Covenant" books.

Le Guin's "Earthsea" books. (These are really short.)

Stephenson's "Baroque Cycle" books. (I started reading these last year and got bogged down in the middle of the 1st book. Also, they're less "fantasy" and more "historical fiction".)

Friedman's "Coldfire Trilogy". (Someone on Dio's recommended these.)

Howard's "Conan" stories.