Overrated pieces of sh*t that everyone creams over

[Apathy's_Child]

Seen any lately?

Pan's Labyrinth was one of mine. I've yet to meet a person who doesn't gush like a hormone-addled fangirl over this movie. The concept was good, but the end product left me bored rigid. Same with Let the Right One In - "oh, it's not like other vampire movies!" Uh, yeah, it actually is. (And is it just my sick imagination or was Eli actually a boy with his dick cut off? Actually, don't tell me, I don't care.) it wasn't terrible, but I sure as hell didn't find it anywhere nearing worthy of the adulation that's been poured on it.

Oh, and The Devil Rides Out SUCKED.

[JCC]

Pan's Labyrinth was okay, but people who called it a masterpiece are just fucking kidding themselves.

'Requiem for a Dream' is so fucking overrated.

[Still Jack]

I agree that Requim for a Dream is overrated. Titanic is overrated, and i find Pulp Fiction to be overrated as well...

[Malice In Wonderland]

Titanic just sucked.

[Needlefeet]

Twi...light?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Pan's Labyrinth is a masterpiece.

[HavelockV]

Originally Posted by JCC

'Requiem for a Dream' is so fucking overrated.

I readily concur.

Pan's Labyrinth is something that I have not yet seen, but agree that every single one of my friends who has believes it to be practically comparable to Citizen Kane. Speaking of, I found Citizen Kane to be worth watching once or twice, but overall I was quite disappointed by it, considering its legendary status amongst films. Oh, granted, it had a few memorable moments, but simply not a classic film to my mind.

[Lady Christine]

Originally Posted by HavelockV

I readily concur.

Pan's Labyrinth is something that I have not yet seen, but agree that every single one of my friends who has believes it to be practically comparable to Citizen Kane. Speaking of, I found Citizen Kane to be worth watching once or twice, but overall I was quite disappointed by it, considering its legendary status amongst films. Oh, granted, it had a few memorable moments, but simply not a classic film to my mind.

Citizen Kane's value comes from how it took Orson Welles' career and practically destroyed it when he made this movie. The film was based heavily on someone who existed, when he discovered what Orson was up to, he began doing all he could to destroy the film. But on a technical aspect... Citizen Kane was innovative in a lot of the camera shots, most of the angles the camera got were revolutionary and no one else would've though to do it.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Pan's Labyrinth is a masterpiece.

It's mediocre at best, and even THAT'S a generous appraisal IMO - the themes are clumsily handled, and the villain is basically a cartoon character who just needs a black cape to show us how evil he is just in case we missed it. It might have been interesting as an exploration of a child's psyche in a time of brutal conflict, but even that interpretation is denied as the douchebag claims the fairytale side is supposed to be interpreted literally. She really was the king's fucking daughter and went home to his palace at the end, and you're of the opinion that it's a masterpiece even knowing this?

Seriously....... DUDE. o_O

Originally Posted by HavelockV

Pan's Labyrinth is something that I have not yet seen, but agree that every single one of my friends who has believes it to be practically comparable to Citizen Kane.

Even people I generally consider to be highly intelligent have succumbed to the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome on this one. My old Russian lit tutor practically came over the movie, and this is the guy who got me into Captain Beefheart and the Holy Modal Rounders, for fuck's sake.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

It's mediocre at best, and even THAT'S a generous appraisal IMO - the themes are clumsily handled, and the villain is basically a cartoon character who just needs a black cape to show us how evil he is just in case we missed it. It might have been interesting as an exploration of a child's psyche in a time of brutal conflict, but even that interpretation is denied as the douchebag claims the fairytale side is supposed to be interpreted literally. She really was the king's fucking daughter and went home to his palace at the end, and you're of the opinion that it's a masterpiece even knowing this?

Seriously....... DUDE. o_O

I hated how it sided with the Republicans clearly for the whole fucking movie and then the happy ending is that she becomes a monarch.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by JCC

I hated how it sided with the Republicans clearly for the whole fucking movie and then the happy ending is that she becomes a monarch.

Excellent, you've alerted me to an ideological flaw to add to my standard tirade about the artistic ones. (The really enthusiatic proponents get the Rant Deluxe about the sheer cynicism of tacking on the historical backdrop in a movie that is in no meaningful way about the Spanish Civil War, in a cheap bid to get intelligent people interested as well as adults who watch and enjoy Disney movies more frequently and rabidly than their children.)

[Saya]

Originally Posted by JCC

I hated how it sided with the Republicans clearly for the whole fucking movie and then the happy ending is that she becomes a monarch.

OR DID SHE?

The ending was pretty ambiguous though, after seeing it me and the group of people I saw it with just argued the whole walk home whether it was all in her head and she just completed the fantasy before she died or if it was real at all. I'd have to see it again to argue for either interpretation but the ending wasn't really a happy ending anyway, even I thought at first it was really happening she had to be murdered and die miserably and slowly to go join the land of the fairies where monarchy does work thanks to pixie dust. A bittersweet ending, at best. Besides, the kid had no ideology she was fighting for except to being a monarch clearly for the whole movie, it just so happened that her only real human friend was with the Republicans.

[Apathy's_Child]

Sorry Saya, but del Toro has gone on the record saying that he intended the ending to be taken literally and not as a fantasy. I'd probably have a little more sympathy for the movie if this weren't the case. (Can't remember where I saw that, but it'll probably be on the official site or something if you want to check.)

[gothicusmaximus]

I liked Pan's Labyrinth. I didn't cream myself over it, or even detect the adhesion of precum on my inner thigh, but it was satisfying. I don't recall exactly to what degree the film was thematically cohesive, though I wouldn't attempt to defend it as surpassingly so anyway-- that'd be jumping the gun given that no one's yet competently supported any intimation of 'clumsiness' in this regard.
The imagery was compelling. Doug Jones' performance was gripping. The story was evocative, immersive, and thrilling.

I hated how it sided with the Republicans clearly for the whole fucking movie and then the happy ending is that she becomes a monarch.

A fairy tale princess. Of a magical fairy tale kingdom. I'm pretty sure she'll be able to avoid visiting the tyrannies of a facist state on the pixies, satyrs, and mermaids who inhabit her domain.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

Sorry Saya, but del Toro has gone on the record saying that he intended the ending to be taken literally and not as a fantasy. I'd probably have a little more sympathy for the movie if this weren't the case. (Can't remember where I saw that, but it'll probably be on the official site or something if you want to check.)

Sort of:

http://twitchfilm.net/archives/008507.html

[Ofelia] is in a better place within herself. She may objectively cease to exist but this is where I think the epilog of the movie is incredibly important and moving. If you die and your legacy is one little flower blooming in a dry tree, that's enough of a legacy for me. And that's a magical legacy. If she had not done the things she did, the tree would have never bloomed, but, because she did them, there is a little flower blooming. On the other hand, she dies at peace. She dies at peace with what she did. She's the only character in the film who decides not to enact any violence. Not to take any lives. Even the doctor takes a life. But the only one who chooses "I will not take any life because I own only mine", that's the character that survives, spiritually. The fascist dies the loneliest death you could ever experience and the girl … [I'm reminded] of the quote by Kierkegaard that said, "The tyrant's rule ends with his death. The martyr's rule begins with it." It is the legacy—no matter how small it is—that makes [Ofelia] survive that episode. The movie is like a Rorschach test where, if you view it and you don't believe, you'll view the movie as, "Oh, it was all in her head." If you view it as a believer, you'll see clearly where I stand, which is it is real. My last image in the movie is an objective little white flower blooming in a dead tree with the bug watching it. So….

MG: I'm glad to hear you say that. This is the dispute going on among people who have seen your film. Was Ofelia in her fantasy world? Was it a real world? I keep saying such questions pose a false dichotomy.

Del Toro: Yes, of course. And it's intimate. If the movie works as a piece of storytelling, as a piece of artistic creation, it should tell something different to everyone. It should be a matter of personal discussion. Now objectively, the way I structured it, there are three clues in the movie that tell you where I stand. I stand in that it's real. The most important clues are the flower at the end, and the fact that there's no way other than the chalk door to get from the attic to the Captain's office.

MG: Yes, and again referring back to the dynamic of their dyad, Mercedes notices the chalk door; they aren't just in Ofelia's imagination.

Del Toro: Objectively, those two clues tell you it's real. The third clue is she's running away from her stepfather, she reaches a dead end, by the time he shows up she's not there. Because the walls open for her. So sorry, there are clues that tell you where I stand and I stand by the fantasy. Those are objective things if you want. The film is a Rorschach test of where people stand.

He says it was real but he still left room open for interpretation so people could take a personal meaning from it.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I liked Pan's Labyrinth. I didn't cream myself over it, or even detect the adhesion of precum on my inner thigh, but it was satisfying. I don't recall exactly to what degree the film was thematically cohesive, though I wouldn't attempt to defend it as surpassingly so anyway-- that'd be jumping the gun given that no one's yet competently supported any intimation of 'clumsiness' in this regard.

As soon as Jillian supports the assertion that spawned that comment - i.e. that it's a masterpiece - I'll jump right in.

Originally Posted by Saya

Sort of:

http://twitchfilm.net/archives/008507.html
He says it was real but he still left room open for interpretation so people could take a personal meaning from it.

So he made up his own mind, but couldn't commit to his own feeling about the art that he himself made? That's kinda like Hardy going, "you know, all ye puritannical reviewers, you're right - when you look at it a certain way, Jude was an immoral shitbag who deserved a little infanticide in his life. And if I could rewrite Tess, I'd totally have her r.aped again."

[Despanan]

I'm actually with Jillian on this one. I might not go as far as to say it's a masterpiece, but I do think it's one of the better movies to come out in a long time. It's also one of the few that I think subtitles actually improve. I'm kinda glad I don't speak Spanish, that made the world of the movie even more foreign and magical.

Originally Posted by JCC

I hated how it sided with the Republicans clearly for the whole fucking movie and then the happy ending is that she becomes a monarch.

This is probably because the themes of the movie supersede whatever pamphlet-esque political points you thought it was trying to make. The stepfather isn't bad because he's a fascist, and the guerrillas aren't good because they're anarchists, the political conflict is a backdrop for the human drama we see going on.

I highly doubt Del Toro was thinking: "Hey, lets make a movie about two outdated and mostly abandoned political ideologies! I can show how one outdated, abandoned philosophy is better than the other!"

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Despanan

This is probably because the themes of the movie supersede whatever pamphlet-esque political points you thought it was trying to make. The stepfather isn't bad because he's a fascist, and the guerrillas aren't good because they're anarchists, the political conflict is a backdrop for the human drama we see going on.

I really don't think there's anything in the movie to suggest this. There were no shades of grey - not once did we see the human side of any fascist character (and given that the commander faced what could have been an agonizing choice between the life of his son and that of his wife if he weren't so evil he's actually e-VILLE, that's a pretty clumsy omission if your point isn't to vilify him on principle). And not once - to my memory, although maybe I'm forgetting 2 seconds of some incident or another - did we see any of the guerillas depicted as anything other than the white knights of freedom, truth and goodness.

[Despanan]

Well of course, it's a fairy tale. Black and white, good vs. evil those are normal themes for this type of story. Were there shades of Grey in Cinderella? or Sleeping Beauty? No. He was the Wicked Stepfather. There was also an Ogre and a Fawn for fuck's sake. That's what this story is.

However, what this story ISN'T, is an argument for anarchism. We as the audience are not so concerned with the guerrillas vs. the soldiers in any sense other than how they relate to the main character, who is, for all intents and purposes, apolitical. The girl doesn't care about the struggle, she cares about her family, her mother, and her brother. We like the guerrillas not because of what they are or where their ideology lies, but because they oppose the Wicked Stepfather. We never hear the soldier's ideology, and the only reason we even know they are anarchists is if we are familiar with the history. Most audiences think they're communists.

You can easily have the girl be a princess in the end because the story wasn't about politics, it was about the girl. In fact, that choice further emphasizes this fact.

Pan's Labyrinth was a good movie, but you are right, because idiots do cream themselves over it for the wrong reasons, such as "OMG! ANARKIE!".

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

It's also one of the few that I think subtitles actually improve. I'm kinda glad I don't speak Spanish, that made the world of the movie even more foreign and magical.

That turns a lot of people off from it (or foreign movies in general), but I really enjoy it, and it works really well with horror/suspense films in general.

And reminds me, forgot Let The Right One In. She was a boy. Ha.

But other than that, yeah I don't get the hype around it. I think the book deserves the hype it got, and the movie is sufficient enough to be sort of the condensed version of the book, super important things missing and everything, but I don't understand why the movie is supposed to be so awesome. Anyway, its getting a remake. In English. WTF?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Pan's Labyrinth was a good movie, but you are right, because idiots do cream themselves over it for the wrong reasons, such as "OMG! ANARKIE!".

They were Marxists, and Del Toro did include this specifically to polarize even more the good v. evil in the movie. Vidal's small speech on the fascist ideal did nothing to advance the plot, but made him all the clearer that he is nonredeemable.
Something interesting, Ivana Baquero went on to work on the movie The Anarchist's Wife, another movie in which the politics are clear, but only a backdrop for the real story which focuses on the protagonists.

[Despanan]

They were Marxists? Kontan's old girlfriend went on for AGES about how cool it was they were anarchists. Hmm.

There is one thing I found highly problematic about PL. When the Guerrilla's sister had the step-father completely at her mercy, she didn't kill him. SHe just cut him and threatened him. There was no reason for her character to not kill him. She had no fit of conscience, nor was she in a positionwhere she had to escape. The only reason she let him go was because he needed to be alive to continue the story.

Poor writing right there.

Everything else was brilliant.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Well of course, it's a fairy tale. Black and white, good vs. evil those are normal themes for this type of story. Were there shades of Grey in Cinderella? or Sleeping Beauty? No. He was the Wicked Stepfather. There was also an Ogre and a Fawn for fuck's sake. That's what this story is.

Actually, there are plenty of modern reworkings of fairy tales which manage to do something new with the traditional themes and motifs. Phillip Pullman springs to mind, as does Angela Carter (however you feel about her work, she manages to achieve a level of complexity del Toro can only wank while dreaming about). It's not enough to slap together a hackneyed piece of shit and defend it by saying, "oh, but it's a fairy tale and fairy tales are aways simplistic in their treatment of good and evil". I could do that in the next four minutes, but that wouldn't necessarily make the end result worth pissing on, however correct I may be about the psycholoigcal flatness of traditional fairy tales. Shit, even JK Rowling puts up a better show than this.

Oh yeah, and The Epic of Gilgamesh - pretty much the oldest fairy tale we can trace - manages an impressive level of moral sophistication. The hero/villain is a bastard for well-defined reasons - grief, belief in his own myth, terror of death - and the "monster" is literally jusy doing his job; he's an agent of the gods and therefore of justice and the natural order. Not ALL fairy tales originated from the nursery.

Originally Posted by Despanan

However, what this story ISN'T, is an argument for anarchism. We as the audience are not so concerned with the guerrillas vs. the soldiers in any sense other than how they relate to the main character, who is, for all intents and purposes, apolitical. The girl doesn't care about the struggle, she cares about her family, her mother, and her brother. We like the guerrillas not because of what they are or where their ideology lies, but because they oppose the Wicked Stepfather. We never hear the soldier's ideology, and the only reason we even know they are anarchists is if we are familiar with the history. Most audiences think they're communists.

You can easily have the girl be a princess in the end because the story wasn't about politics, it was about the girl. In fact, that choice further emphasizes this fact.

Hence my complaint that the backdrop was simply a ploy to get people interested who would otherwise have found the fairy tale concept banal and juvenile. Using a historical incident you have nothing to say about as a backdrop for your story is lazy, pointless, and mildly insulting.

[Despanan]

Well Apathy, it sounds to me like you wanted it to be a completely different movie. I mean what did you think going into a movie called "Pan's Labyrinth" That clearly had Ogres, and Fawns, and fairies in it? A documentary on the Spanish civil war? A political diatribe?

For the record, The Epic of Gilgamesh is an Epic poem, not a fairy tale. Pullman doesn't write fairy tales, he writes Children's fantasy. There is a difference. I'm not familiar with the other author you cited, but I'm willing to bet she doesn't write fairy tales either. You obviously are complaining about the Genre of fairy tales, without really understanding what that literary genre is. You complain that the historical setting is superficial when:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

However, unlike legends and epics [Fairy Tales] usually do not contain more than superficial references to religion and actual places, people, and events

You complain that the characters are archetypal and lack moral gray areas when:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The characters and motifs of fairy tales are simple and archetypal: princesses and goose-girls; youngest sons and gallant princes; ogres, giants, dragons, and trolls; wicked stepmothers and false heroes; fairy godmothers and other magical helpers, often talking horses, or foxes, or birds; glass mountains; and prohibitions and breaking of prohibitions.

Clearly, you simply dislike fairy tales as a genre. That's fine, that's your opinion, but don't try to pretend that literature which is clearly NOT a part of that genre is a superior representation of that genre. That's fucktarded.

Now, as to Pan's Labyrinth, it's obviously a very successful modern fairy tale. I would admit this even if I didn't like it. There are plenty of artistic genre's I don't care for, but that doesn't remove their artistic and cultural value. Dismissing Pan's Labyrinth as a "Hackneyed piece of shit" is a pretty ignorant and adolescent way to approach it, if I may say so.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I mean what did you think going into a movie called "Pan's Labyrinth" That clearly had Ogres, and Fawns, and fairies in it? A documentary on the Spanish civil war? A political diatribe?

I thought it might approach the reality as well as the fantasy, looking at each through the lens of the other. The reality was nowhere near that interesting – simply two virtually unrelated stories, jumbled together, with very little thematic or symbolic cohesion.

You’re right, what a dick to expect that a movie set during the Spanish Civil War might have something to say about the Spanish Civil War.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Fairy tales and legends, such as Dobrynya Nikitich's rescue of Zabava Putyatichna from the dragon Gorynych, have been an important source for fantasy.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Pan's Labyrinth (Spanish: El laberinto del fauno, literally The Faun's Labyrinth) is a 2006 Spanish language fantasy film[2][3] written and directed by Mexican film-maker Guillermo del Toro.

According to your chosen source, Pan’s Labyrinth isn’t technically a fairy tale either. Genres overlap, blend, separate, rework and then overlap some more. In fact, your point only serves to highlight the extent to which these genres conglomerate to form a body of work which need only be fantastical in nature to be included in a discussion focusing on any of these varied elements.

Now, I think it’s perfectly valid to view Pan’s Labyrinth as a fairy tale, but in order to do so you would also have to concur that the genre includes the other works I cited which you dismissed on the grounds that they’re works of fantasy and not fairy in the strictest, most traditional sense. Surely you can see how untenable your position here is.

Originally Posted by Despanan

You obviously are complaining about the Genre of fairy tales, without really understanding what that literary genre is.

Someday, scientists will find a way to mainline irony straight into your veins. When that day comes, your compulsion to say things like this will just float away on a dreamy breeze of bliss.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Beginning perhaps with the Epic of Gilgamesh and the earliest written documents known to humankind, mythic and other elements that would eventually come to define fantasy and its various subgenres have been a part of some of the grandest and most celebrated works of literature.

Okay, so Gilgamesh is an epic poem, and an early fantasy. Therefore, the point not only stands, but is strengthened in relation to my inclusion of Pullman, Carter and Rowling as modern writers of the fairy tale / fantasy genre.

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'm not familiar with the other author you cited, but I'm willing to bet she doesn't write fairy tales either.

You are entirely wrong. Google The Bloody Chamber, then tell me she doesn’t write fairy tales.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Clearly, you simply dislike fairy tales as a genre. That's fine, that's your opinion, but don't try to pretend that literature which is clearly NOT a part of that genre is a superior representation of that genre. That's fucktarded.

And that’s not true. I don’t dislike fairytale as a genre in the slightest (I actually own several academic works on the subject), but I think that if you want to incorporate elements of an old form of storytelling into modern work, you have to do more with it than simply regurgitate the classic form. Don’t forget that many fairy tales were originally told to children, whereas reworkings aimed at adults need extra layers of complexity and lucidity before we can view them as anything extraordinary. Even Disney, the bowdlerizers extraodinaire, stumbled onto that idea, adding elements like family conflict into movies like The Little Mermaid and Mulan, both of which are based on older, simpler tales, in which the parents of the protagonists don’t significantly feature, in order to get adults watching as well as kids.