Opinions on Pan's Labyrinth by those who've seen it?

[DeeBye]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457430/

I watched Pan's Labyrinth today after hearing so much Oscar buzz about it and seeing the really cool trailers a million times. I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but the trailers certainly are misleading.


SPOILERS BELOW!


















Pan's Labyrinth is NOT the pure fantasy film the trailers make it out to be. It is in fact the story of a young girl, and her experiences after traveling with her pregnant mother to meet her stepfather. Her stepfather is a brutal and sadistic military man of some rank and has been tasked with ridding the local countryside of a small rebel uprising. He doesn't care about his wife or stepdaughter, only about the son his wife is about to give birth to.

The film runs a dual storyline though. This is the fantasy stuff the trailers show. Ofelia (the young girl), has always been a fairy tale nut. While the story of her stepfather's attempts to quell the rebel uprising unfold, Ofelia finds an old stone labyrinth and embarks on her own fantasy adventure. She meets a faun (Pan), and is given three tasks to complete. If she completes the three tasks before the moon is full, she will earn her true heritage as princess to the king of the underworld and escape her pitiful real life.

The fantasy storyline is simply amazing. The "real" storyline is pretty good, though a bit depressing, but the fantasy sequences knocked my socks off. It has dark places, grotesque monsters, fairies, secret passages, and tons of atmosphere.

I could understand the dual storyline, because if Pan's Labyrinth was 100% fantasy it would not give the emotional attachment to Ofelia and her plight. I do think that more attention should have been paid to the fantasy sequences though. I wanted closure with that freaky eye-hand baby eater, damnit. He is easily one of the creepiest things I've seen in a movie.

The "real" storyline was quite good though. It was sorta Schindler's List meets Sophie's Choice. There were good guys, and there were bad guys. They clashed, but the innocents were the ones that suffered the most.

All in all, I rather enjoyed Pan's Labyrinth. It had its problems, but the atmosphere and emotion of the film more than made up for it.

[Sabra]

Hi Deebye!!!! (Feels good to say that again. )

I put this film in my Netflix queue after hearing an \interview on NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross and the film's director.

You might want to listen to it. He was quite fascinating. And oh yes, based on what he said, the term fantasy should be replaced with horror, I think.

[Occhidiangela]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457430/

I watched Pan's Labyrinth today after hearing so much Oscar buzz about it and seeing the really cool trailers a million times. I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but the trailers certainly are misleading.

============================================================
SPOILER RESPONSES
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Pan's Labyrinth is NOT the pure fantasy film the trailers make it out to be.

It was a masterful weaving of fantasy and reality together in a story.

It is in fact the story of a young girl, and her experiences after traveling with her pregnant mother to meet her stepfather. Her stepfather is a brutal and sadistic military man of some rank and has been tasked with ridding the local countryside of a small rebel uprising.

Deebye, the man is referred to as "The Captain" frequently in the film, and the references to the year, 1944, Spain, and Franco are rather obvious. The uniforms are historically accurate. It takes place in Spain after the Spanish Civil war is mostly over, but where some insurgent Communist guerillas. (NPR's commentator calls them "anti-Fascists" rather than Communists, which is I guess what one can expect from NPR.)

A reference is explicitly made to the Allied landing in France, which was D Day, or maybe the invasion of Southern France.

The "real" storyline was quite good though.

Yes it was.

The storytelling was excellent.

Occhi

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

You're right about the misrepresentation done by the advertising end for the film. If a parent were only making their judgement based on the released teasers and ads, their children might well be waking up screaming for months to come. Thank goodness for the Richard Roepers of the industry to let us know this was NOT something to go to sight-unseen.

That said, I enjoyed the movie. I can't quite line it up with the heaping helping of critical acclaim that it has received, but then again I'm hardly an industry expert -- I just know what I like. Even so, some of the more graphic and disturbing elements of the film were enough to cause me to wince; I couldn't even begin to imagine their impact on a child.

Ignoring the falsehoods in the salesmanshipping -- a steady thumbs-up.

[Flymo]

I enjoyed it, but it was too politically correct - the Fascists were irredeemedly nasty and the communist guerillas were excessively good. In reality there wasn't a lot to chooose between their behaviour: the communists stationed military police behind the International Brigade to shoot any that tried to retreat, for example.

[Guest]

havent seen it yet.but based on what you said,it got me curious and wanna check it out.:D

[Flymo]

Well, it won 3 Oscars :)

[DeeBye]

Well, it won 3 Oscars :)

Yeah, and it beat Children of Men for Cinematography, which is a shame. Pan's Labyrinth was nicely filmed, but none of the nominees held a candle to CoM in that category.

[Munkay]

Yeah, and it beat Children of Men for Cinematography, which is a shame. Pan's Labyrinth was nicely filmed, but none of the nominees held a candle to CoM in that category.

Surprisingly enough, I agree with the power of CoM's cinematography. Although I haven't added my opinion to that other thread, I have a rather dissenting opinion of Children of Men overall, but the cinematography can't be denied. As much as the shallow character/world development kept me from becoming in sync with the dystopian reality, the cinematography did it's damnedest to pull me back in. It's a shame to see it lose out.

The battle scene in the apartment building in the ghetto, through the ceasefire... wow. Absolutely wow. A large part of that was the brilliance of the camera work for sure.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. For anyone wondering, the gist of my dislike for the movie is that it failed to really draw me into the world or its characters. I kept thinking it must be an absolutely wonderful read, with plenty of submersive elements while retaining the mystery, but the translation to film failed to really draw me in - incredible cast and all. Of course, different strokes for different folks;)

[Griselda]

I just saw the movie, so I can finally click on this thread.:) I thought that it was really masterfully done. Sure I would have liked to know more about the eye-hand guy, but a lot of the fantasy drew enough upon common mythology that they didn't need to explain things in great detail.

I don't think that the rebels were depicted as excessively good. It was certainly made clear that they shot their wounded just as readily, for example. The abject brutality wasn't there, but that really only existed in one man, as far as the movie went. I personally feel that it came down hard on humanity in general, rather than on one side or another.

[Flymo]

I don't think that the rebels were depicted as excessively good. It was certainly made clear that they shot their wounded just as readily, for example.

A significant part of the plot centred on rebel sympathisers risking (and losing) their lives to smuggle penicillin so that they could treat one of their number who had been wounded.

[Griselda]

A significant part of the plot centred on rebel sympathisers risking (and losing) their lives to smuggle penicillin so that they could treat one of their number who had been wounded.

Sorry, I meant the wounded from the other side, when they were rescuing Mercedes.

I thought that that, coupled with the faun's lines about mortals, made it clear that the blood is on everyone's hands who is human, to one extent or another.