Comments on the comments:
First, on many of those, I am going by repute rather than personal experience, which is always terrifically dangerous. Most, but
not all, of those I marked with query marks.
Beauty and the Beast: yes, the Cocteau version. Not only literally wonderful eye candy, but a reasonably good approach to the actual tale.
Beetlejuice: While not possessed of greatness, better, I think, than just zero or -1. I do agree that the supporting cast (including some of the minor roles) make the movie. On the other hand, given that Beej is simply a focal point for the action, I'm not sure what much more could have been done with him; what is done seems about right.
Charly: Going by rep only, and also never read the book (skimmed the last few pages once). The relation between book and movie is a perennial problem. I don't think any visual medium can ever do anything close to justice to a good book, for numerous and mostly obvious reasons. I suspect that the criterion has to be what a civilized viewer who had never read the book would feel about the movie (or teleplay, as may be). That is, they have to be judged as independent entities--not an original insight, but nonetheless one I think needs to be kept in mind.
Lord of the Rings failed as a movie for me not because it was such a travesty of the book in all the important ways--though it was--but because as a dramatic whole it was just fairly schlocky stuff (notably in characterization) cannily hidden under a mountain range of special-effect eye candy.
Labyrinth: Reputation-only again. This is one of the few unseen ones in the list that I'd really like to take a look at.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "A triumph of comedy, but a failure as fantasy"; I'm not sure I understand that. It's a tale in a fantastic setting, hence its placement in the category, and it was a pleasing film to watch in ways not intellectually contemptible. If it was not "fantasy" in the sense of being plausible. so also are numerous other works, from
Oz onward. So I'm confused . . . .
The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen: Remarkably good. Robin Williams as an actor really, really needs a firm directorial controlling hand. His shtick here was way OTT. (But, as you say, still not that bad.)
The Last Starfighter: I'm not going to go to the wall on this one, but for me, at least, it has a delicate charm. It walks a tricky tightrope: a fall to one side lands in pompous, trivial sci-fi action, while a slip to the other side produces sappy, saccherine quasi-comedy. Instead, the characters manage to retain a decent amount of dignity. All in all, I think the wanted word is "charming", but that's why they race horses.
The Man Who Fell to Earth: reputation-only again. I have the book backed up on my clogged "to-read" shelves.
Blade Runner: I kept asking myself "Where's the beef?" Granted that I think Dick is way over-rated anyway, I have to believe that the book was better than this. It was a slow-motion trip to nowhere, living entirely on a sort of moody mediocre special effects that looked better in the too-short-lived
Max Headroom TV series.
As to Dune, I found the movie as good as the book. Which is not a compliment to either.
Oh, and as to
Carnival of Souls, I speak of the original, the $33,000 1962 B&W production (I see that there was a dreadfully bad re-make in 1998). If you don't mind spoilers, Wikipedia has
a decent article on the movie. Though it has been a long time since I last saw it, I remember it as a real grabber.