Pan's Labyrinth

Not quite sure what people see in this film. Outside of the harrowing scene with "Hand-eyes", I found this movie strange and frustrating. Strange because it flipped back and forth between two storylines that didn't really have anything to do with each other (I know you can make an argument that they did - but for all intents and purposes, that war story could've been any story). Frustrating for that same reason. I didn't mind going on those journeys with the girl and would've preferred to be in that world more. But instead we were inundated with the uninteresting meanderings of a girl helping a trivial renegade WW2 resistance. Give me a break.

Another thing was the director's complete lack of respect for the audience. I have never witnessed a scene (except for the bad guy in Four Brothers) where the director more desperately begs you to hate the bad guy than in this movie. That scene where he repeatedly bangs the gun on the "rabbit shooter's" nose until his nose caves in and then repeatedly shoots him again and again is just shameless. Why not, after he killed him, didn't he skin him right there and start eating his organs? Then take his skull, place it on a stake, and then every morning come out and shoot it seven times? Give me a break.

And any director who puts something up onscreen for the sole purpose to make the audience go: "ewwwwwww" completely loses me for the rest of the movie. The scene where the random guy with a bad leg, who we just met a second ago and who we will not see for the rest of the film, gets his leg amputated. And we actually SEE the saw cut into his bone. WHAT THE HELL WAS THE POINT TO THAT SCENE OTHER THAN TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE SQUIRM?? Man I hate directors like that.

Needless to say, I don't recommend this film.
 
I'll have to disagree with you c.g. eads. I haven't been as moved by a movie in years. I wasn't a Del Toro fan at all, but I am now.

Out of curiosity C.G.; what do you think is a good movie? I'm serious. That may sound sardonic, but I ensure you I'm being sincere. I want to know.

I don't think the face bashing scene was a disrespect to the audience. It was a wine bottle he used, not a gun. How can you nitpick a scene to death, and be so presumptuous with the director's intention...yet you can't remember a simple prop?

Anyway, I don't think that beating was trying to provoke a hatred for the character. I think it was establishing his desperation, frustration, and overall cold heartedness. The hatred for the character was established already, and quite elegantly I might add.

As for the amputation scene, it's not so much about the character of the amputee but the situation and the doctors importance to the renegades. You sound like you can't see the forest for all the trees. From reading your previous posts it seems like you already had your mind made up not to like this film.

This film has made it into my top 5 favorite films of all time. I've seen it twice so far, and I'm going to go see it again.
 
This film is as much a fairy tale from a childs view as it is from an adults. The story of the girl and also the woman (from Yu tu mama tambien).

As for the VILLIAN, how many fairy tales are there that have bad guys are not completely "evil"?

As for the violence and "things that make people go ewwwwww", this film had an underlying theme of choices and consequences, so for me, the prices had to be high for those "rebels" who made either the wrong choice or the right choice, but just had bad luck.
 
Please dont read this is you haven't seen the movie and from now on. everyone that gives away the parts of the movie should tell people your post is a spoiler:

some people are not as swimish as you c.g. eads. There are reasons for violence in movies and everyone responses to it differently. Dont assume the directer is tryin to make u go "ewwwwww' as u say. At the screening the del toro said he witnessed a guy get beat with a bottle, that part of thereason why its there.
 
Noct, favorite movies this past year: Children of Men, Hustle and Flow, Oldboy, The Illusionist, World's Fastest Indian.

Are you saying that the amputation scene, in order to convey the situaton and the importance of the renegades, required them to actually show the saw going through the bone? Of course it didn't. He could've conveyed the exact same meaning by cutting to the actor's face, giving a sound effect, and then having the actor reel in pain. But he wanted to make the audience squirm, for no reason.

deedive, trust me, I'm not squemish. When that moment happened, I laughed at its absurdity (this did not endear me to the crowd btw).

jpeck: you can have your bad guy be completely evil without going over the top. The only scene more violent than the bashing in the nose scene that I've seen in the last 10 years is the scene that I think he stole from in Irreversible where the guy beats the other guy to a pulp with a fire extinguisher. For reference, that movie was unrated and banned from playing in most theatres. But at least in that movie, there was a point behind showing that violence.

I readily admit that I don't get Del Torro. I didn't like The Devil's Backbone. I didn't like Blade 2 or Hellboy. I was hoping that this was going to be the film to finally help me cross over because everybody was talking about how great it was. And that temptation beast with hand-eyes thing had me into it. I was ready to start liking that movie. but then after that scene, we had like 30 minutes of the uninteresting (in my opinion) war story and all the momentum it had built up was lost.

I guess I have to give Del Torro props for doing something different. A lot of filmmakers are scared to do that. I just think, in doing so, he made a movie that was all over the place and unfocused. Again, just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
How many traditional fairy tales have villians who are not completely evil or over the top? Most older fairy tales deal in absolutes and deal with choices and consequences and that is the kind of film Del Toro made.

As for being over the top, I think these were pretty tame things that can happen compared to what really happened to people during that time.
 
c.g._eads said:
Noct, favorite movies this past year: Children of Men, Hustle and Flow, Oldboy, The Illusionist, World's Fastest Indian.

Are you saying that the amputation scene, in order to convey the situaton and the importance of the renegades, required them to actually show the saw going through the bone? Of course it didn't. He could've conveyed the exact same meaning by cutting to the actor's face, giving a sound effect, and then having the actor reel in pain. But he wanted to make the audience squirm, for no reason.
Click to expand...

If he "cut to the actors face giving a sound effect, and then having the actor reel in pain" then i would have said. wow this movie looks like a billion i have seen before. There are a lot of ways to shot a scene and the direct is who makes the choice.

i have to say. since you where the only one laughin that obviously u didnt feel the same way as other in the audience. You say the scene didnt work but your the only one that reacted to the scene this way. this really tell me that this movie wasnt for u.

c.g._eads said:
The only scene more violent than the bashing in the nose scene that I've seen in the last 10 years is the scene that I think he stole from in Irreversible
Click to expand...

As i said before its from his past. He said he witness this. He said that he see so many movies where people hit people over the head with bottles and they break but this is not the case in real life.
 
William S Burroughs was right: too much criticism consists of the critic complaining about what he feels the artist should have done, rather than addressing what the artist actually did.

And, the bottle's behavior depends upon whether it's full or empty, and how thick the glass is blown, and whether it strikes soft tissue, or bone, and the degree of force with which it strikes.

I'm just saying.
 
This movie was really really good; see it. The bottle scene was violent, but it didn't bother me much for some reason. The stitches scene was definitely grosser, imo, but less brutal. I like how the "real world" was realistic enough to be frightening, but also exaggerated enough in its unpleasantness to contrast well against the (also horrific) fantasy world.

I have a few complaints but they're spoilers so I won't mention them. Overall I think it's just a fantastic movie and confirms del Toro as a very good director (and in my mind confirms that Blade II is way way better than Blade I....) However, there's not much "formal rigor" either in film form (color is used effectively, though; if they didn't use a DI the cinematographer is quite clever) or in the script (the two stories don't parallel each other that consistently and the historical references don't make a political statement as much as one might argue they should in magical realism) but it doesn't matter much since it evokes a sense of wonder absent from 99% of movies. Even Lord of the Rings bogged me down with the exception of a few choice sequences in the latter two films, and the last 1/3rd of Sith was compelling but also terminally silly, and the prequels didn't really do it for me other than that.

Parts of this were up there with the original Star Wars and the better parts of the Indiana Jones movies in terms of the sense of awe it inspired, and while it's not as good by any means, largely because the narrative is episodic, subjective, and whatnot, (and this may make it a more artistically correct film but it makes the story drift a bit) it's pretty remarkable, especially on a $5 million budget (although you could really feel the budget in places; there were not many locations and few extras.)
 
Yes, thanks, that was awesome. For those in the other thread debating how long that uncut shot was in "Children of Men" Alfonso Cuaron said in this interview that it was 9 minutes (but he did seem somewhat unsure).
 
POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW!!!!!!!






















I saw the film this past weekend and liked it very much. Below are just some random thoughts I had after the movie.
1. I thought it was an interesting portrayal of escapism as a coping mechanism. I once read a story of an American POW in Vietnam that said he kept his sanity by meticulously imagining playing 18 holes of golf each day. I don't think the "real" story line and the "fantasy" story line needed to parallel each other because the fantasy world wasn't a mirror of the real world. The girl wanted to escape reality, not relive it.

2. I thought the time period of the movie was interesting. As another poster said, it could have taken place in time period, but that era in European history inspired authors that pretty much laid the foundation for modern fantasy (like Tolkien). I don't know if this was a purposeful "nod" by del Toro or not but at the least it's an interesting coincidence (at least to me).

3. I really like the sound design. Everything from the faun's woody/creaking movements to the sound of the Capt's leather boots and gloves to the slightly "clanky" sound of the action on the semi-auto pistols. I thought was very well done.


-A
 
deedive said:
1167152852.jpg

i took this on nov 29th, after screening of Pan's Labyrinth, at AMC 42nd street, NYC (presented by the museum of the moving image)
Click to expand...
Dee. I must have been sitting just a few feet from you, because this is almost my exact POV from my seat in the 2nd row. Unless you were one of the photographers who came up to the front for the Q&A.

Loved this flick. Think it's an instant classic and the Q&A session was the most entertaining and interesting I've ever attended.
 
What's strange is that I never really questioned the reality of Ofelia's fantasy world at all until the very end of the film, or right after it ended... I just assumed it was as real as anything else.

Spoilers:









Then I read all these reviews criticizing the film's bleak and nihilistic ending, and I think anyone (regardless of whether you think the fantasy world is "real") who interprets the ending as anything but redemptive misses the point entirely. I think perhaps Ofelia could have been more operative in Captain Vidal's downfall, but that's a minor quibble with an otherwise solid script.
 
holy CRAP that was an amazing film......pans and children of men are my 2 fav. films i've probably seen over the last 12 months.....really great movie making
 
You know... I really wanted to be blown away by this film, but it just didn't happen for me. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think the film suffered from the split storylines. I really would have liked to see more of the fantasy world, and see what kind of twisted stuff they could have thrown in there. It's not that the "reality" part of the story wasn't interesting, I just would rather have seen more crazy fantasy stuff. Overall, I was slightly underwhelmed with this one. Found myself wishing it was more.
 
Pale Rider said:
You know... I really wanted to be blown away by this film, but it just didn't happen for me. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think the film suffered from the split storylines. I really would have liked to see more of the fantasy world, and see what kind of twisted stuff they could have thrown in there. It's not that the "reality" part of the story wasn't interesting, I just would rather have seen more crazy fantasy stuff. Overall, I was slightly underwhelmed with this one. Found myself wishing it was more.
Click to expand...

same with me, slightly disappointed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top