 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.108.132.210
I don't understand why this has not been mentioned here...it was quite easily my favorite movie of 2006. Not only is there a brilliant visual imagination at work, but there is a dark emotional resonance. And make no mistake, this is a very dark vision. Both stories, the Spanish civil war of the "real" world, and the child's fairy tale "fantasy" world, and unpredictable and compelling. But this fairy tale world is a pretty grim place. There are many connections to be made, and I would not say much more about that. Many good movies came out last year, but this one is, for me, above and beyond the others I saw.
Follow Ups:
Could you/ would you take a 11 y/o boy to see this? Bearing in mind that his favorite movie is Saving Private Ryan...I've heard that this film is rated "R" for violence...My son has a fascination with anything fantasy and especially war films...We relented ages ago on SPR...He can recite dialog from the film....
> Could you/ would you take a 11 y/o boy to see this?>Could be borderline child abuse.
It is much more graphic and violent than Children of Men.
Spoiler alert............
Some examples:
A guy gets his face pounded in with the bottom of a coke bottle while you watch his face turn to mush.
Another guy gets his leg amputated - you see the first saw cut through the skin.
Graphic set-up for torture scenes describing what will be done to him - then you see the guy's beat-up face and cut up hand which resulted as he begs to die.
Another guy's mouth is cut open with a knife so he looks like The Joker.
Bloody miscarriage scene.
A young girl is gut-shot at close range and lies on the ground bleeding out as she dies.Maybe when he's 12....
While Pan's Labyrinth has moments of intense violence, repelent acts, Children of Men has the dehumanizing element of street warfare and seperate acts of brutality which seem almost comically desensitized (the murder of Michael Caine's character, for instance). These tend to stick with one longer, like real graphic war footage.The reason Pan's Labyrinth seems more violent is that the moments of violence are quite direct, up close and personal; since you can't get away from these acts of inhumanity it seems that much more intense, but it's never gratuitous, IMIO.
> > > "Could be borderline child abuse." < < <
No offense, but kids are exposed to more bloodletting violence in video games these days. There are certainly disturbing elements in Pan's Labyrinth, and that's why younger children should not be taken, but older kids, say over the age of 9 or 10, with one or both parents on hand to explain the allegorical nature of the film is another matter.
> > > "Maybe when he's 12...." < < <
I doubt the film will wait that long if he wants to catch it on the big screen, but you may be right; he may be too sensitive for it.
AuPh
.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
(nt)
It was too violent for me, but then, I'm 59
Are you asking folks how old they are, how squeemish they are or what? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.Pan's Labyrinth wasn't as disturbing to me as Children of Men violence-wise and far less disturbing than war movies like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan which portrayed historic events and the physically sickening aspects of war accurately. In a fantasy such as Pan's Labyrinth once you get past the realitic depiction of occasionally violent acts the rest of the time you're suspending disbelief.
Of course, YMMV, but age-wise, we aren't that far apart.
AuPh
Fantasy violence is one thing, but this was a whole series of unrelenting gross-out real world violence, very brutal stabbings, close-ups of point blank shootings, terrorizing prisoners etc etc. If you are going to take an 11-year old to this, then you might as well take him to an R-rated horror movie like Hostel or Saw.Maybe some 11-year olds are less put off by the blood and gore than 59 year olds, but goodness.
The difference is that Pan's Labyrinth used violence in a humanizing story, a fable, and admittedly sad, but it doesn't play off of vioolence just for the sake of thrilling the audience with gore as a prurient interest. There are weaknesses to the story in terms of suspension of disbelief which I have outlined below, but the story is rich with symbolism and well done, IMHO. It is after all an adult fable and you will have to determine whether an 11 year old in your care is mature enough to handle the story and it more visceral, graphic elements, but it's still worth seeing (more engrossing than grossing per se, although the latter may be an unintended double entendre based on the box office take thus far).AuPh
...I think that Children of Men was more jarring in it's realistic depiction of house to house street warfare even though it was less graphic in terms of violence and torture.> > > "Could you/ would you take a 11 y/o boy to see this? Bearing in mind that his favorite movie is Saving Private Ryan...I've heard that this film is rated "R" for violence...My son has a fascination with anything fantasy and especially war films...We relented ages ago on SPR...He can recite dialog from the film.... " < < <
Take him; I think you'll both enjoy the experience.
AuPh
(nt)
...but if anything unplanned did occur no one ever told me. I'm pretty sure that if something happened (and wasn't aborted or raised without my involvement unbeknownst to me) then the child/children would be adult by now anyway. Ummm... BTW, how old did you say you were and who was your mother! ;^)Cheers,
AuPh
Oh, not to say I didn't love it at 44. It is subtitled though
Violence solely for the sake of violence...I'm not sure why others see that as creative or innovative.
(nt)
...and I also loved it.
... but I must admit that after discussing the film we reached a consensus that it needed at least one more thorough rewrite. In spite of its startling visual images and engrossing tale, it has far too many plot holes for a film of this caliber and as a result it became far too manipulative. Examples of logic problems (WARNING: SPOILERS follow)...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1) The extra key: After leading the nationalists on a wild goose chase in their ploy to attack the main camp and get into the storeroom, why did the resistance need to have a key to open it? They set off explosions during the attack; why couldn't they have just blown open the storeroom and avoided leaving the Captain's housekeeper under suspicion? It was an easy plot device to enable the big confrontation and reveal her as a traitor.2) The Captain was effectively evil, even believably so, but from a storytelling standpoint far too two dimensional. He would've been much more interesting and effectively creepy had his cruelty been rolled out gradually and not so apparent to everyone around him.
My wife, who under several nom-de-plumes is a professional writer, will now add her comments (take it away Rox)...
(ahem) Rox here. My husband liked the movie better than I did, which is odd; I was really put off by what I saw as extremely lazy storytelling. I understand the symbolism that was on offer, but I don't care for symbolism that ignores simple logic. To wit:
1) As my husband outlined above, the plot point of the lock being obviously opened with a key was simply lazy. Had the resistance really cared about their most valuable intelligence operative, they would never have made such an obvious mistake. They'd have forced the lock, or blown up the door.
2) The "OMG!" moment where the Captain realizes that the doctor is a traitor is simply untenable. The doctor had antibiotics; surely antibiotics were not his sole province. Medics would have them, hospitals would have them, and simply holding up one phial and comparing it to another tells you nothing. The Captain didn't bother to ask if perhaps the drugs had been stolen from him, or if a partisan had simply tricked him into giving them. Granted, the Captain wasn't exactly a deep thinker, but still. It was simply convenient. Also, the captain chose to kill the doctor BEFORE the baby was born? Why? What could he possibly lose by keeping him alive until after the event?
3) The girl is, to me, a cipher. She does nothing that, strictly speaking, actually moves the plot. She is a reactor, not an actor. Even at the end, she bravely saves her brother, and yet at the critical moment she neither fights back nor truly sacrifices herself. She simply lets the Captain take the baby. The fact that he shoots her is an afterthought. Ergo ... what difference did it really make?
4) The segment in the tunnel with the child-eating monster is truly scary and visually interesting, but again ... why? Ofelia does simply the stupidest possible thing she can, against clear orders and instructions and even the interference of her little fairy friends. It's an instance again of lazy storytelling ... the creature needed to wake up, so they had her do something stupid. There are far better ways to structure that scene.
5) Why did the fairies in that scene point to the wrong keyhole? And more importantly, what made her realize which one was right? It simply didn't make sense. The fairies were never tricky or mischevious (which I would have welcomed, actually). Why would she doubt them?
... I could go on, because there are tons more examples, but I think you see my point. I was frustrated *as a storyteller* because it simply didn't bother to even try to think beyond the easy answers.
One last thing: why do art directors think chairs raised twenty feet in the air is cool? HOW DO THEY GET UP THERE? It's goofy. It's design at the expense of practicality, a staple (unfortunately) of SF and fantasy art direction.
Okay, that's Rox's rant. Sorry. I love Guillermo's films, I really do, but this just didn't do it for me.
_______________________________________________________________________
Cheers,
AuPh (Cat) ...with a rare appearance by... *ta-da* ...my wife, Roxanne
I liked this movie... a lot. But I wasn't drawn in as much, nor was it as powerful for me as Children Of Men. I'm not making a direct comparison but they're two of the more interesting movies out and this one left me a bit cold (just a bit). I could've done with less of the graphic violence but that's the director's thing and I suppose it's meant to heighten the horrror/brutality (though, in the way a woman can be more sexy with some clothes on I think horror can be scarier and brutality more brutal with what's implied instead of what's shown).On to the Auph/Roxanne points...
1) The extra key: After leading the nationalists on a wild goose chase in their ploy to attack the main camp and get into the storeroom, why did the resistance need to have a key to open it? They set off explosions during the attack; why couldn't they have just blown open the storeroom and avoided leaving the Captain's housekeeper under suspicion? It was an easy plot device to enable the big confrontation and reveal her as a traitor.
Can't disagree here too much. I, like Tunenut, thought maybe they needed to be careful with the storeroom and not take any chance on damaging the stuff inside but that doesn't explain why they couldn't have just taken the lock with them or blown the doors after getting their stuff. Where I disagree is that it was lazy storytelling per se as they had at least one other way (the tortured guys confession) to get to her being a member of the resistance.
I think it was a combination of those two things that made him question her and it was her slip up when she started heading to the store-room without his key that made him REALLY suspect her (I think he was a touch sweet on her and was giving her more latitude than he was prone to) and it was her running away that sealed the deal... so, for me at least, it was a lot more then just the key.
Oh yeah, and there were paralell stories going on in which the girl and Mercedes discovered their real strength and became leaders. Both involved a key being integral to that journey.
2) The Captain was effectively evil, even believably so, but from a storytelling standpoint far too two dimensional. He would've been much more interesting and effectively creepy had his cruelty been rolled out gradually and not so apparent to everyone around him.
I don't think he was ever meant to be less or more than evil. There was no place in the story - IMO - for his evilness to be rolled out gradually. The girl had to recoil immediately and I don't think we were ever meant to feel anything but agreement with her recoiling and with Mercedes' and the doctor's subversive work.
(ahem) Rox here. My husband liked the movie better than I did, which is odd; I was really put off by what I saw as extremely lazy storytelling. I understand the symbolism that was on offer, but I don't care for symbolism that ignores simple logic. To wit:2) The "OMG!" moment where the Captain realizes that the doctor is a traitor is simply untenable. The doctor had antibiotics; surely antibiotics were not his sole province. Medics would have them, hospitals would have them, and simply holding up one phial and comparing it to another tells you nothing. The Captain didn't bother to ask if perhaps the drugs had been stolen from him, or if a partisan had simply tricked him into giving them. Granted, the Captain wasn't exactly a deep thinker, but still. It was simply convenient. Also, the captain chose to kill the doctor BEFORE the baby was born? Why? What could he possibly lose by keeping him alive until after the event?
I didn't feel that this was such an OMG moment and I didn't think the Captain had tried and convicted the Dr. based on the vial... it merely made him extra suspicious; especially in light of having just been told by the tortured stutterer - funny that the word to describe the condition is one a stutterer would have a hell of a time saying - that there was a traitor in his midst (something, I thought, he was clearly already suspicous of in general). He wasn't certain the Dr. was a traitor until he found that the Dr. had euthanized the prisoner. Even then he didn't ask about the vial, just about why he had been disobeyed.
As for killing the Dr.... it was just consistent with the Captian's character. One thing he could/would not suffer is being questioned or disobeyed (or, of course, having a traitor in his midst). The key (no pun intended) was in the Dr.'s answer as to why he disobeyed him.
3) The girl is, to me, a cipher. She does nothing that, strictly speaking, actually moves the plot. She is a reactor, not an actor. Even at the end, she bravely saves her brother, and yet at the critical moment she neither fights back nor truly sacrifices herself. She simply lets the Captain take the baby. The fact that he shoots her is an afterthought. Ergo ... what difference did it really make?
Saw this differently as well... quite differently. She may not move the plot (she also may move it but doesn't matter for my reply) but she is certainly the fulcrum around which the plot moves. As for being a reactor and not an actor (I assume you mean within the story and not her actual acting skills [where good acting is reacting]) I saw something else altogether. Sure, she may have been reacting to finding the stone and meeting fairy, etc. but it was her boldness in following her instinct despite the authoratarianism around her that - at the very least - led to all the plot devises in her part of the story.
In that end scene I again saw it completely differently. Yes, she found the strength to save her brother from the faun and then she, a little girl, was left alone after feeling betrayed by the character who seemed to be the key (again, no pun intended) to her salvation only to find that the man who'd destroyed everything was right behind her (NOT dead or disabled from the sleeping medicine and not lost in the maze). It was like she was under a spell of disappointment and disbelief. But a moment after she handed the brother over she found her strength again and shouted "No!!" That's when she was shot... indeed a sacrifice. Hardly - IMO - an afterthought or for nothing
4) The segment in the tunnel with the child-eating monster is truly scary and visually interesting, but again ... why? Ofelia does simply the stupidest possible thing she can, against clear orders and instructions and even the interference of her little fairy friends. It's an instance again of lazy storytelling ... the creature needed to wake up, so they had her do something stupid. There are far better ways to structure that scene.
She was warned because it was going to be very hard to resist the food there. She was a little girl who was still discovering her own strength and discipline and destiny. In such journey's one usually has to fail before finally succeeding. I liked that she just ate the fruit. Cleary it was going to be a factor and it was nice that there was no silly drawn out, will she or won't she moment. It caught her eye, it was a powerful temptation (a spell of sorts), she was a little girl and she ate it.
5) Why did the fairies in that scene point to the wrong keyhole? And more importantly, what made her realize which one was right? It simply didn't make sense. The fairies were never tricky or mischevious (which I would have welcomed, actually). Why would she doubt them?Because the whole thing was test of her essence and worthiness - which included testing her instincts - in being allowed to reclaim her throne. The fact that they pointed to the wrong keyhole (and that they were so connected to the tricky faun) means they were tricky... just not in a hit you over the head kind of way. I like the juxtaposition her having that instinct but still not being able to resist the fruit.
One last thing: why do art directors think chairs raised twenty feet in the air is cool? HOW DO THEY GET UP THERE? It's goofy. It's design at the expense of practicality, a staple (unfortunately) of SF and fantasy art direction.What 20' chair? The one in the hallway with the food and the monster was a little chair. About the same size as the girl. It was just big enough to cover the space between her small door and the floor and in the low celing corridor she stood on the top of it to reach the ceiling.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
While I liked this film a lot more than my wife and found it better than Children of Men on several levels, I do see her criticisms. As an author, avid reader and filmgoer she doesn't cut weak storytelling too much slack in any medium. I don't think that she "Panned" the acting or failed to appreciate the grimly beautiful visuals that are well incorporated into this adult fairy tale, but the easy answers, cop-outs and characters written with what she considers limited depth are another matter. We like virtually all of this Director's films, but she and I came to entirely different conclusions on this one.If I were rating Pan's Labyrinth I'd still give it 3 1/2 stars on a 5 star scale, while my wife would probably only give it 1 or 2 stars. Conversely (after due consideration), Children of Men I'd probably only rate as 3 stars, but my wife would give it 4 or 4 1/2. Go figure! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
I'd rate COM higher because it engaged me emotionally. PL kept me tense but didn't engage me emotionally except for a few moments here and there.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
The key and the store room. My take was that they intended to sneak in during the diversion and got caught so they had to fight their way out. That was my impression.
If the Director didn't want to show that occuring, which is understandable as it might've broken the tension of the entire diversion sequence, then they should've had one of the survivors report to the Captain upon his return to camp the fact that they caught the reisistance fighters breaking in and a fight ensued. Otherwise it looks like the diversion was staged for the attack and the storeroom key is merely a plot device to help entrap Maria resulting in her being exposed followed by a confrontation and torture.AuPh
I forgot to say that despite my rebuttal on those points I do think the storytelling coiuld have been better or at least some of the plot devices (the storeroom lock for instance) could have been done more cleverly.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
It's certainly not my intention to argue when it comes to personal preference. But the "problems" you cite did not bother me at all.
WARNING TO READERS: SPOILERS BELOW
For example, the key. I did not find it at all surprising that the rebels would want to use a key to ensure that the main object of their raid (to get supplies) was met. Why would they depend on an explosion when they are trying to get food, medicine, and such things that could be harmed by such an explosion? If I were a rebel, I would far prefer to have a key.
And I could go on...but bottom line, I bought it hook, line and sinker.
As far as the girl being a cipher...to me she was not, she was simply a normal young girl. A girl who was tempted by the taste of a grape. A girl who had a gut feeling that the sinister looking Pan did not have her brother's best interests in mind at the very end.
Now, in most movies, for example Babel, I could come up with a similar list of flaws that bothered me such as those you present for this movie. But no flaws bothered me when watching this. The husband is purely evil, but I thought that was quite intentional, nothing in this fantasy world was meant to be completely realistic. In my opinion.
> > > "It's certainly not my intention to argue when it comes to personal preference." < < <Mine neither, but by sharing differing impressions it may better inform other prospective filmgoers. This isn't personal, and by asking why more about this film hasn't been mentioned I considered it an open invitation to discuss this film.
BTW, Pan's Labyrinth openned sporadically with very little fanfare, probably because it's a foreign language film. What that means is that filmgoers have to seek it out, sometimes travelling much further than their favorite Bijou in order to catch a screening (often at smaller, less familiar cinemas).
> > > "But the 'problems' you cite did not bother me at all." < < <
I personally think that this is one of the best films of the year, maybe not the best or as highly regarded as your impressions for the reasons listed. My wife had a totally different perspective; she didn't like the film and explained why. I don't consider this an argument or even a debate, just a sharing of informed impressions. Others can gauge the merits of seeing this film from either professional reviews or subjective testimonials.
BTW, I'm sorry if you thought that either my viewpoint or that of my wife's was unnecessarily confrontational; that was never intended.
Cheers,
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]