Pan's Labyrinth's distant cousin
hells yea!
shareThat's exactly what I thought. I even mentioned that in my review of Pan's Labyrinth.
Meh!
MovieChat Forums > Paperhouse (1989) Discussion > Pan's Labyrinth's distant cousin
...I also mentioned a while back that it reminds me a bit of Deadly Friend and The Last Mimzy.
It's more like Pan's Labyrinth in the whole fantasy/reality aspect though, you're right. Personally I like Paperhouse better. The former is a good film though. Overrated by some perhaps, but still good-- just not the epic it seemed it would be.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way
Actually this movie goes though every cliché there is about "misunderstood kids who seek a hide-out in a fantasy world that in fact is a reflection of their real-life situation". All these movie are pretty much alike. You know what to expect at every turn, and this was no different. I see ancestors going all the way back to The Wizard of Oz, but even a more recent cousin in The Never-Ending Story. It has it's moments, a freaky image or two, but overall I was disappointed at how predictible this is.
I'm not so sure I'd consider that a cliche since allegories are literary forms of technique. If the idea isn't exactly new, then that's one thing. But I definitely would have a hard time summing "misunderstood kids who seek a hide-out in a fantasy world that in fact is a reflection of their real-life situation" into the word "cliche."
TWoO and TNES are too creative and elaborate to be cliche, even if they do borrow from a known metaphorical formula. The same thing goes for this film. I therefore cannot entirely agree.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way
Look, all I know it was a step or two ahead of it at all times. You can borrow from a "metaphorical formula" and still be original, but that was not the case here.
I've seen many "Alice in Wonderland" formulas and many of them are quite different in terms of where they're headed. This one is heading for a well-known territory from the beginning.
I'm sorry, but, I'm going to have to ask you to please lay out a few things for me then as far as the film's sybolisms and undertones, because, after seeing it only once a couple years ago, I must say that I have yet to figure it all out (and this is coming from an English scholar who prides himself on analyzing fictional concepts and literature).
I therefore challenge you to present a brief synopsis or review that explains some of the themes of the film and what some of its more poetically abstract scenes meant to relay.
~thanks ahead of time; I look forward to your analysis..
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way
I don't really have the time unless you had something specific in mind. The thing is I don't believe this movie is that deep, it has basic symbolism of the missing father figure, the misunderstood teen outsider(s)...and so forth. What makes you believe that this is suppose to be deeper than it really is?
share...first of all... if one cannot see that this film was done well, and delivered impressively, particularly in its allegories, then I'm stumped.
But anyhow... how can a film that consists of much allegory not be deep? I'm not sure I understand your assessment (or lack thereof) here.
I don't think we're supposed to understand all of this movie in its entirety. But because you have implied that you do, I thought that you did understand it all. But now, after reading your latest post, I'm beginning to think that you only feel you have it all figured out because you've ignored all of the undertones and metaphors in it. How can a movie filled with metaphors be completely figured out when not everything in the film is made 100% clear?
For example... while watching the film, I thought at first that there was some suggestion or implication that the father might be abusive to his daughter in some way or another. Then, when the father finally comes into the picture towards the end, I'm a tad confused because I see no further hints of it.
That's an example of one of the ambiguous things in the film that are left open in a way. I'm not entirely sure of everything in this movie, and rightfully so. I've only seen it once though and look forward to seeing it again eventually.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way
if one cannot see that this film was done well, and delivered impressively, particularly in its allegories, then I'm stumped.
But anyhow... how can a film that consists of much allegory not be deep?
In order to understand where I'm coming from, you must understand that I've seen way to many movies to be easily impressed. Yes, it is one of those deep movies. But to me it is merely a beginner's guide to "deep cinema".
As I said before, overall it is one of those "misunderstood, lonely teenager seeks hide-out in a fantasy world that in fact is a reflection of their real-life situation". Now that's what the movie is about. I did not however feel the need to dissect every single frame in order to understand the movie. I'm sure it's a gold-mine if you attempt to over-analyze the whole thing, from psycho-analysis of Freud to philosophy of Sartre. But too me that seems like making a hen out of a feather. Or I believe it's called making a mountain out of a molehill in British.
I'll give you credit, though: Obviousely I did not get every piece of symbolism by just watching it once. But the dialogue, the plot twists...it all seemed too familiar that I honestly have a hard time believing that what I didn't get would be so impressive I would re-define this as superior to other movies of similiar kind. If I learned what I've missed, I'm pretty sure it would be just another one of those things you find in deep movies "attempted to be deep" on that pretentious level.
It has its charms, and believe me, that's a pretty positive rating coming from me.
share