Reviews Film / Pans Labyrinth

2deep4u

Hoping this is a troll…

But the mixing of fairy tales and war is very illustrative of the one of the film's major themes: the notion that the greatest monsters are found among humanity.

As to who this should be recommended to…well…people with good taste would be my first choice.

Who did this film alienate, exactly? The squeamish?

The review seems to be under the assumption that someone who would watch Schindler's List is also someone who would not watch Alice in Wonderland. I enjoy both genres.

That said, the fantasy sequences fit with the character themes of the film.

Vidal, the Fascist leader doesn't believe in fairy tales, claiming them to be useless, but at the same time he dedicates himself to fixing a watch due to a story (that he knows is untrue) about his father. Likewise, he doesn't want a son as an actual child (he'd rather someone else just take care of him), but at the end he wants that child to know how he died, passing the same story to the child.

Ophelia on the other hand retreats into these stories (their reality is ambiguous) but they inform her character, in terms of cleverness (toad) and her own failures (Pale Man).

In short, Vidal appeared to me to be in denial that he is just like Ophelia. The fairy tale imagery is far more obvious representation for her because we never see Vidal living out his stories, just reacting to them.

So you guys are working on...interpretations? Symbolism? Seriously? That's what's required of me here?

Well. I'm obviously a victim of the film's misleading and terrible marketing that you all choose to ignore. I thought it was a dark fantasy, but it ended up being *dominated* by some truly brutal war drama.

If I want to watch Labyrinth (the one with David Bowie). Fine. If I want to Apocalypse Now. Fine. But why would I ever want to mix them up together in some surreal lovechild of a hybrid?

I don't understand the mindset required to watch this... film.

So you guys are working on...interpretations? Symbolism? Seriously? That's what's required of me here?

You say that like those are inherently bad things.

So you guys are working on...interpretations? Symbolism? Seriously? That's what's required of me here?

God forbid a film require you to think.

Well. I'm obviously a victim of the film's misleading and terrible marketing that you all choose to ignore.

Why would I not ignore that? It's not as if it's a part of the film itself, nor is it as if the actual creative forces behind the film had any real hand in it.

But why would I ever want to mix them up together in some surreal lovechild of a hybrid?

Juxtaposition is a thing that exists. The reasoning for including it has already been mentioned.

WHO green-lighted this? Its not suitable for children or adults.

It may be not for children, but it is for adults who like to enter weird worlds with a child-like curiosity.

And Sergi Lopez as Captain Vidal is one of the most well-realized and terrifying villains in cinema history.

@Tuckerscreator: Oh no, they're not inherently bad. But that's not the message I took with me on this film, everything was supposed to be taken literally, a world where fantasy and reality collide.

@MFM, thanks for the term I'll look that up.

@Quag15, the film is definitely guilty of that one sin, if nothing else. The monster designs, premise and setting will initially lure in younger viewers.

@Pannic, I agree with you, sort of, without dredging up real-life examples. Yes he's terrifying, thanks to his Hair-Trigger Temper. But the problem with that is it serves as a double-edged sword - he's not very believable or realized. Anyone behaving this way, shocking, disgusting and pushing his men to the breaking point, will eventually have a bullet in his head. Kinda disappointed none of his own soldiers even contemplated killing the bastard even once.

I agree with you, sort of, without dredging up real-life examples. Yes he's terrifying, thanks to his Hair-Trigger Temper. But the problem with that is it serves as a double-edged sword - he's not very believable or realized. Anyone behaving this way, shocking, disgusting and pushing his men to the breaking point, will eventually have a bullet in his head. Kinda disappointed none of his own soldiers even contemplated killing the bastard even once.

There have been plenty of people like this who succeeded in history for years, especially in fascist systems. Vidal isn't even particularly bad to his troops, at least in comparison to the viciousness he exhibits everywhere else.

As for how believable Vidal is, I think the film's actually pretty good with that. Unpleasant doesn't mean unrealistic, and we see motives for his unpleasantness such as his obsession with his son and his distaste for non-combatants and women.

The film is not meant for children and any blame for children watching it should fall on the marketing.

@Quag15, the film is definitely guilty of that one sin, if nothing else. The monster designs, premise and setting will initially lure in younger viewers.

First, you use the word sin, which is harsh. Second, I'm not against children watching such a movie. Some children will be more mature or will be able to handle it, others...won't.

Yes, it's a movie for adults. But some children can watch them, if they talk with the adults (and the adults must not be condescending or repressive).

Marketing doesn't mean anything to me. If a movie is good (as in, artistic quality, with all the things that it entails), it's good, period.

I'm sensing a lot of Fantasy Ghetto here.

Maybe you should wait until you've gotten some maturity and worldly experience before you watch it again. As to Vidal's believability... Comparing him to my own father (and not in a good way) I found him all too real.