Resurrecting the Movies thread...

[ednbarby]

I get you, oilgun.  Yes, he was overall pretty black and white, I agree.

I, too, am not a fan of the fantasy genre.  For example, I couldn't care less about The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies.  I saw the first installment of both and didn't feel the need to continue.

I dunno...  Something about this movie just grabbed me.  Maybe because I can relate to using one's imagination to get through terrible times.  But I can also understand why it's not universally appealing.

[MaineWriter]

I, too, am not a fan of the fantasy genre.  For example, I couldn't care less about The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies.  I saw the first installment of both and didn't feel the need to continue.

Another similarity in our movie taste, Barb. I have tried to watch LOTR a bunch of times and get totally bored in the first 15 minutes. I have sat through more of the Harry Potter movies, only because I love the books so much, but this is another example of a situation where the book is way better than the movie.

I also don't like comic book movies, at all, which is why I am not looking forward to Heath as Joker in the Batman movie. Speaking of that, I just read yesterday that Katie Holmes Cruise will not be reprising her role in that.

Leslie

[ednbarby]

Totally agree with you on all of that.  I like the Spider-Man movies, but they're about the only comic book movies I can stand.  And they're pushing the envelope on that one.  The LOTR lose me after about 15 minutes, too, as do the Harry Potters.  I've only seen the first of both of those series, and the first 15 minutes of the second in both!

I was hesitant to see Pan's Labyrinth knowing that the director has done a couple of comic book movies, one of which I saw and *hated* (and won't mention here lest I totally dissuade you from seeing it).  But it just drew me in.  Very subtlely at first.  Like my first Brokeback viewing, I'm kind of at a loss for words to describe it except to say, again, that I thought it was magical.  And it has stayed with me since Saturday when I saw it.  I keep seeing certain scenes in my head.  A couple of the underworld creatures are scary as hell, but they're beautiful allegories for the very essence of the natural world (Pan, the faun) and of all unseen, dormant evil (the pale, sleeping monster).  Oops - guess I'm not at a loss for words after all.  But that would be one of the Seven Signs of the Apocalypse, wouldn't it?


 

[southendmd]

I saw "Pan's Labyrinth" last night on a number of friends' recommendations. 

While I appreciated the history/fantasy/allegory, I found the violence appalling.  To me, it was gratuitous and unnecessary to the story; the brutality could easily have been suggested more subtly.  It spoiled the film for me.

I'm all for dark fairy tales.  This one was nauseating.

[MaineWriter]

Really, Paul...thanks for this.

Tony wants to take Hannah to see Pan L. I have no interest and have been of two minds about Hannah seeing it...I will share your comment with him. He may do some re-thinking.

Leslie

[Front-Ranger]

Late to the party - and just popping in to say I think An American in Paris should come off the over-rated list.  George Gershwin and Gene Kelly - who could ask for anything more?

My sister's boyfriend's brother was on United Flight 93.  I'm not ready to see it.  Though I go through dark phases of scouring the internet about it every six months or so.

I agree with you about An American in Paris! Did you know that Leslie Caron will be in an upcoming episode of Law & Order?

[serious crayons]

While I appreciated the history/fantasy/allegory, I found the violence appalling.  To me, it was gratuitous and unnecessary to the story; the brutality could easily have been suggested more subtly.  It spoiled the film for me.

That's too bad. It sounds like a movie that, if not for the violence, I'd like to take my kids to see (I don't know if any of us could handle it -- me included!). And it seems as if they're cutting their own nose off to spite their face (so to speak  ). You'd think the audience for über-violent movies and the audience for fantasy movies don't have a huge overlap. Reduce the violence, and I bet a lot more people would go.

I hear "Smoking Aces" is really violent, and of course my sons want to see that, and they can't. But in that case, it makes more sense; from what I've read, it's the kind of movie that would attract an audience that would tolerate -- if not prefer -- lots of violence.

[ednbarby]

Really, Paul...thanks for this.

Tony wants to take Hannah to see Pan L. I have no interest and have been of two minds about Hannah seeing it...I will share your comment with him. He may do some re-thinking.

Leslie

How old is Hannah?  I don't think I'd take a kid much younger than 15 or 16, myself.  It's pretty intense.

It's interesting that I didn't find the violence nauseating.  Usually gratuitous violence really turns me off and spoils a film for me, too.  Not sure why I was in a frame of mind to accept it this time.  For what it's worth, Saturday was the 15-year anniversary of my mother's death.  I wanted to see something that took me completely outside of myself.  This did the trick for me.  But I agree - it's not for everyone.  And impressionable young people (and impressionable old people, too) should steer clear.

That said, I haven't had any nightmares about it, whereas I had nightmares for 2-3 weeks following seeing "The Passion of the Christ" and "Saving Private Ryan."  The 2-3 extremely violent scenes were fairly fleeting and you could see them coming and know to look away ahead of time.  Which I did.  BTW, "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" has the dubious distinction of being the only movie I've ever walked out of the theater in the middle of.  (I at least did it discretely so as not to spoil it for the folks who were actually enjoying it.)

[Scott6373]

I saw "Pan's Labyrinth" last night on a number of friends' recommendations. 

While I appreciated the history/fantasy/allegory, I found the violence appalling.  To me, it was gratuitous and unnecessary to the story; the brutality could easily have been suggested more subtly.  It spoiled the film for me.

I'm all for dark fairy tales.  This one was nauseating.

You're not the first person to say that to me.  It's not my kind of film to begin with, but I probably will be avoiding this one.

[serious crayons]

That said, I haven't had any nightmares about it, whereas I had nightmares for 2-3 weeks following seeing "The Passion of the Christ" and "Saving Private Ryan."  The 2-3 extremely violent scenes were fairly fleeting and you could see them coming and know to look away ahead of time.  Which I did.  BTW, "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" has the dubious distinction of being the only movie I've ever walked out of the theater in the middle of.  (I at least did it discretely so as not to spoil it for the folks who were actually enjoying it.)

That's the only reason I never saw "Saving Private Ryan," and one of the reasons I never saw "The Passion of the Christ." "Kill Bill" I never saw because it looked like it would be violent and gimmicky and pretentious. (I could be wrong about that, I guess.)