Pan's Labyrinth

[Pedro Cerrano]

Wow, for a film that some called the best of the decade so far, this movie stunk IMO.

So it's a fantasy move where over 50% of it is about a civil war in Spain? Uhhh, ok...

Then, we see this majestic "Labyrinth" for about 5 seconds at the beginning of the film and then never again.

Finally, the fantasy scenes themselves made absolutely no sense. What was the deal with the monster with eyes for hands when Ofelia ate those grapes? Why was he there? What was his point? What did he have to do with the overall story?

Just a stupid movie.

[square634]

Wow, for a film that some called the best of the decade so far, this movie stunk IMO.

So it's a fantasy move where over 50% of it is about a civil war in Spain? Uhhh, ok...

Then, we see this majestic "Labyrinth" for about 5 seconds at the beginning of the film and then never again.

Finally, the fantasy scenes themselves made absolutely no sense. What was the deal with the monster with eyes for hands when Ofelia ate those grapes? Why was he there? What was his point? What did he have to do with the overall story?

Just a stupid movie.

It was all allegory, it wasn't really a "fantasy" movie in that sense. That said, I didn't like the movie that much, but I can see why it was critically acclaimed.

[Mackus]

I thought it was awesome.

[NewMarketSean]

Wow, for a film that some called the best of the decade so far, this movie stunk IMO.

So it's a fantasy move where over 50% of it is about a civil war in Spain? Uhhh, ok...

Then, we see this majestic "Labyrinth" for about 5 seconds at the beginning of the film and then never again.

Finally, the fantasy scenes themselves made absolutely no sense. What was the deal with the monster with eyes for hands when Ofelia ate those grapes? Why was he there? What was his point? What did he have to do with the overall story?

Just a stupid movie.

LOL, this post sounds like something you'd read on the IMDb boards. I don't think you "got" it.

First of all, Guillermo Del Toro is a Hispanic director so he would have interest in setting a film during the Spanish Civil War.

The film's title was an English translation of the film's Spanish title, which refers only to the goat character we see in the film. So if the title is misleading it's because it was lost in translation.

And also of note, no one in the film is named Pan, so who is Pan? The girl's alter-ego in her fantasy world? I don't think we find out.

As for the fantasies, the girl escaped into a fantasy world because of the trauma she was going through with her mother marrying the ruthless general dude. So they were all in her head.

And like Mackus, I thought the film was great.

[Pedro Cerrano]

LOL, this post sounds like something you'd read on the IMDb boards. I don't think you "got" it.

First of all, Guillermo Del Toro is a Hispanic director so he would have interest in setting a film during the Spanish Civil War.

The film's title was an English translation of the film's Spanish title, which refers only to the goat character we see in the film. So if the title is misleading it's because it was lost in translation.

And also of note, no one in the film is named Pan, so who is Pan? The girl's alter-ego in her fantasy world? I don't think we find out.

As for the fantasies, the girl escaped into a fantasy world because of the trauma she was going through with her mother marrying the ruthless general dude. So they were all in her head.

And like Mackus, I thought the film was great.

From what I've read "Pan" is a generic name for a faun in mythology.

And you can belittle me all you want about not "getting it" -- but this movie was more about a war-time era than a fantasy.

The movie I was expecting was that of where a girl finds herself enveloped into a fantasy -- perhaps traversing through a labyrinth or whatever.

Instead we get to see a ruthless general execute a few people while this girl goes on these seemingly pointless missions.

[NewMarketSean]

From what I've read "Pan" is a generic name for a faun in mythology.

And you can belittle me all you want about not "getting it" -- but this movie was more about a war-time era than a fantasy.

The movie I was expecting was that of where a girl finds herself enveloped into a fantasy -- perhaps traversing through a labyrinth or whatever.

Instead we get to see a ruthless general execute a few people while this girl goes on these seemingly pointless missions.

I wasn't trying to belittle you in any way. It's your opinion to not like the movie. I just think the reasons you listed weren't good ones for not liking it.

[Tank]

I thought it was a good movie.

[square634]

From what I've read "Pan" is a generic name for a faun in mythology.

And you can belittle me all you want about not "getting it" -- but this movie was more about a war-time era than a fantasy.

The movie I was expecting was that of where a girl finds herself enveloped into a fantasy -- perhaps traversing through a labyrinth or whatever.

Instead we get to see a ruthless general execute a few people while this girl goes on these seemingly pointless missions.

Yeah, I think your problem was the expectations. It is chiefly a movie about the Spanish Civil War.

[Mu'ayyidSaafir]

Wow, for a film that some called the best of the decade so far, this movie stunk IMO.

So it's a fantasy move where over 50% of it is about a civil war in Spain? Uhhh, ok...

Then, we see this majestic "Labyrinth" for about 5 seconds at the beginning of the film and then never again.

Finally, the fantasy scenes themselves made absolutely no sense. What was the deal with the monster with eyes for hands when Ofelia ate those grapes? Why was he there? What was his point? What did he have to do with the overall story?

Just a stupid movie.

The monster uses his hands, physical force, to perceive, rather than his head, logic. He represents the brutality of the regime.

The frog that grows fat while the tree starves pretty clearly represents the Spanish elite eating well while handing out crummy bread rations to the poor.

I don't remember offhand what the other fantasy scenes involved, but I'm sure they were metaphorical as well.

Why does it have to take place either all in the fantasy world or all in the real world? Why can't it take place in both?

[Pedro Cerrano]

I suppose it was the ratio of fantasy to reality.

[Objectivity]

The monster uses his hands, physical force, to perceive, rather than his head, logic. He represents the brutality of the regime.

The frog that grows fat while the tree starves pretty clearly represents the Spanish elite eating well while handing out crummy bread rations to the poor.

I don't remember offhand what the other fantasy scenes involved, but I'm sure they were metaphorical as well.

Why does it have to take place either all in the fantasy world or all in the real world? Why can't it take place in both?

Herein lies the problem.

People who are film lovers who see hundreds of movies a year (or at least a very large number) like movies like this because they are different and offer you things you haven't seen before. They engage your mind and entertain you.

Your more casual movie goer doesn't want their mind engaged. They want to escape into something familiar and have a good time.

Those who market movies realize that. In the case of this movie, they sold the film lovers on the director and the abstractness, etc. And they sold the casual moviegoer a lie because there's no way that kind of person would willingly sit through a film like this.

Heck, I'll bet half the people who rented this movie didn't even know it had subtitles before starting.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Hey I have no problem having my mind engaged. My problem was I thought I was going to see a fantasy movie and instead I got a war film with a few fantasy elements sprinkled in.

[Harford Bird]

Herein lies the problem.

People who are film lovers who see hundreds of movies a year (or at least a very large number) like movies like this because they are different and offer you things you haven't seen before. They engage your mind and entertain you.

Your more casual movie goer doesn't want their mind engaged. They want to escape into something familiar and have a good time.

Those who market movies realize that. In the case of this movie, they sold the film lovers on the director and the abstractness, etc. And they sold the casual moviegoer a lie because there's no way that kind of person would willingly sit through a film like this.

Heck, I'll bet half the people who rented this movie didn't even know it had subtitles before starting.

This is absolutely correct. It's a shame that casual movie goers aren't a little more open-minded about what they see, because it just might help to reduce a good portion of the crap we see these days; we might start to see more good, unique movies like Pan's.

[Harford Bird]

Hey I have no problem having my mind engaged. My problem was I thought I was going to see a fantasy movie and instead I got a war film with a few fantasy elements sprinkled in.

If you're going primarily off of expectations based on what was sold to you, then I'd advise you to avoid seeing Bridge to Terabithia. That was easily one of the worst represented movies in a long time. Although, you'd be missing out on a hell of a film in the process.