Pan's Labyrinth. . . do you need to see it?

I know this isn't Monday. . . and we had proposed offering movie reviews occasionally on Mondays. . . but sometimes you have to take the plunge. So, I'm starting off with "Pan's Labyrinth," a movie lauded and honored on at least three continents and widely held to be one of the best movies of the year.


Here's my take:

Set in the waning days of 1944, after the fascist takeover of Spain in a bloody civil war, the story of Pan's Labyrinth is both gripping and unusual. It was also something of a let-down for me. I wanted fantasy and got. . . a little too much reality.

The fairy tale begins in the mists of time. . . with a narrator speaking of a mythical subterranean kingdom where there was no war, no hunger, and no evil. There was, however, a king's daughter with a tragic amount of curiosity about the world above and something called "blue sky." She made her way to the surface, was lost, and forever separated from her beloved kingdom. Someday, the folk tale declares, she will return.

Enter our little heroine, whose father was killed in the civil war and whose desperate mother succumbed to the proposal of a brutal army captain. Married and pregnant, she and her 10 year old daughter journey to join him at a mountainous outpost where the captain is tasked with hunting down rebels hiding in the hills. As she arrives, the young girl is fascinated by a mantis-like insect, thinking it is a fairy. Following it, she discovers an ancient pagan labyrinth presided over by a "faun" called Pan. . . who tells her she is the missing princess from the underworld and offers her a chance to prove it and return to her kingdom.


Three tasks ensue and, of course, she fails one by being a curious and hungry child. Meanwhile in the real world, her cruel and sadistic step father is killing and torturing locals and captives and menacing her very pregnant mother. His brutality is portrayed fully and gruesomely. . . clearly for impact. A showdown builds between the girl's other-worldliness and the step-father's vicious grasp on her world. When the mother dies in childbirth, the girl has no more protection and in the climax. . . well, let me just say a new beginning requires an ending. And the girl is accepted into the idyllic kingdom she once abandoned for earth.

Visually fascinating, visceral in its brutality, and unstinting in going where the story needs to go. . . it's a fascinating blend of grim and fanciful. But is it Oscar quality? Is it, as some critics claim, the best movie of the year? Your mileage may vary, but for me, no.

I suppose I expected more fantasy, even after reading the reviews. But most of the action and screen time is spent in the brutal and difficult present. And the fantasy that draws the little girl from her world is every bit as ugly and menacing as her real world life at the army outpost. I kept feeling the movie was a statement about the cruelty of our world, or something. . . but it wasn't very clear. The ending may tempt you to draw the conclusion that good will triumph. . . but if so, you have to concede that it triumphs at a monstrous cost.

I left the theater thinking about the story and we discussed it over dinner afterward. Three weeks later, I'm still not quite sure what it was all about and am curiously ambivalent about the movie. Not my favorite feeling.

Part of my ambivalence deals with the amount and kind of violence shown. . . clearly intended to make a point. But what point? That we humans are capable of great horrors? We know that. The director seems to slow the story at times to make us squirm at what humans are capable of. And yet, there are valiant and heroic humans, loving and courageous humans. . . who ultimately win this battle. . . but not before the price is paid. And the ending. . . the little girl returns to her kingdom a beloved princess. . . happy and welcomed. . . is that supposed to tell us that all will work to the good? That even evil can be used in the service of destiny? That the truth of love is sacrifice. That we mustn't be discouraged by the terrors of this world?

Still not sure folks. Oh, and though it's a fairy tale with a ten-year-old heroine, this is NOT something children should see. The creations of Del Toro's mind are enough to give me the willies. I can just imagine what they would do to an impressionable child.

For the art, I'd give it a 9.5 or 10 out of 10. But for enjoyment, I'd give it a 6. And if that makes me a plebeian, so be it.

Anybody else see Pan's? What did you think? Come on, enlighten me. Please.