Friday, 4 May 2007

Pan's Labyrinth

Never trust a fawn. These are true words. They are shifty fuckers. Labyrinths are normally good though (see: David Bowie in tight trousers).
What's the difference between a labyrinth and a maze? I guess one just sounds cooler.
I was really looking forward to this film, mainly because that dude from The Culture Show who likes Morrissey said it was the best film ever made. Unfortunately, I can't agree. The main problem was there was not nearly enough labyrinth in it and rather too much gratuitous gore.
It's a strange juxtaposition between war and fantasy: I'm sure its all very meaningful and arty but it didn't do it for me. I just found it thoroughly depressing.
The potential was there: the fairies were good, the tree looked exciting, the guy with the hands seemed an interesting character. The root under the bed was pretty cool. But none of it went anywhere, things were introduced, then just forgotten. I felt the plot didn't really develop, except the annoying war plot which was just too grisly for my sensitive disposition.
How far did we actually get to see into the labyrinth? I felt like we just hung around outside rather than really getting in there. Even at the end it was kind of Star Wars-y and crap: not much of a pay-off.
It's a shame: there was magic there. It was just hidden in a big pile of violence, gore and mud.
Sounds like my upcoming Glastonbury weekend.


* (asterisk) said...

I don't mind violence and gore. And I'll even go for a bit of magic once in a while (like olden-days David Blaine, before he became a cunt). But the mud...? That's not for me. I will see this film, though, despite having been mildly disappointed in most things that the director has made so far. I like his work, but I do feel it's lacking ... I don't know ... something.

electriclandlady said...

Awe, I'm sorry you didn't like it. I thought it was pretty good but I too was anticipating more fantasy stuff than there was. I knew it was about the war before I watched it though.