Pan's Labyrinth was a surprising disappointment in many ways. I found I didn't enjoy it very much at all, and while it was shot breathtakingly beautifully and was in many ways visually stunning, the story was displeasing and I thought it was depressingly unbalanced.

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. I loved it beyond reason, and have been itching to see it again for months. I also disagree that the violence was gratuitious. I think less graphic, more "fantasy"ish violence would have undercut the story's impact a great deal.

I also love Children of Men, but that's one I've been lucky enough to see twice already.

Well, it wasn't that I wanted the violence to be particularly fantasyish. I just think that it was too much violence, period. While it conveyed the real horror and violence of the civil war, I think it could have been transmitted without, for example, seeing the guy's hand bloodied from his fingernails being removed. Or watching the captain stitch up his own face and than be all surprised that it hurts to drink alcohol. And while I understand that the captain was a character who acted as a corrupted moral centre for the film, and on a larger scale for the country, it was ham-fisted and difficult to watch; I felt no sympathy for him, and mostly was eagerly waiting for him to get off the screen. Unfortunately, he was in almost every damned shot.

I suppose I went in expecting a fantasy, and what I got was a recreated view into a terrible historical reality, with some (far more unbelieveable for the lack of balance between "reality" and her fantasy) out-of-place, though beautiful and intriguing, adventures thrown in.

It really was disappointing for me, because I had looked forward to seeing it, and thought the reviews sounded intriguing.

Now I really want to see it, SA. I like a film that exacts extreme reactions. It makes it so that I'm not disappointed either way. If I really like it, I can say I knew I would because Jessica liked it. If I don't, then I can say that SA was right all along. Hee.

Mom and I took the nephew and niece to A Night at the Museum on Tuesday night, and it was not as bad as I had feared. Definitely not memorable, but it did produce some laughs from me, and the kids loved it (the 13-y.o. niece got a big kick out of the Easter Island moai). The CGI was iffy, at best, but you can tell where they spent their time/money (the T. Rex, especially). Not a bad way to entertain the kids without having your brains leak out of your ears.

I agree, Kathy! It's exactly what you'd expect from such a movie, nothing more and nothing less. Very fun.

So it seems I really need to see Children of Men. I was interested before, but the raves in here have enhanced said interest. Even though I didn't really get the big deal about Y Tu Mamá También.

Also, for those of you in Bitches who have heard me bitch about my uncle, you may find it amusing that the first time I saw the trailer, I thought, "Wow, that looks like it might be really, really good," and my uncle said, "Looks like a flop!"

On rewatch, the plot of Casino Royale makes very, very little sense. Good thing it's so pretty.

(And after listening to an NPR piece by one of ESPN's poker commentators, I just can't take anything in that sequence seriously. Especially when Bond tosses the chip to the dealer at the end -- it didn't occur to me the first time I saw it, but the podcast pointed out that tournament chips don't actually have any cash value. It's just a piece of plastic.)

I just read the book on the plane (while my seatmate was reading an article in, I think? American Cinematographer about the cinematography in the movie), what didn't make sense? Not that I'm saying it made sense; I maintain the stock shorting scheme was particularly inane.

I kind of want to see it again. It was so pretty!

I saw it again last night. craig is just as hottttttt on the second viewing.

There just doesn't seem to be any plan in the movie that's very well thought out.

Like, why does Le Chiffre react to his stock shorting scheme going south with "I know, I'll win it back in a POKER GAME!" Why doesn't MI6 have any backup plan? Why does the Treasury not run background checks on their agents before sending them into the field with millions of dollars? Why were the winnings transferred at the hospital instead of right after the game? If Vesper is really in love with Bond, what's she being blackmailed over? (And if she's in love with Bond but still fond enough of her ex to be blackmailed about him, why not just ask Bond for help getting out of it?) And if she IS still in love with her Algerian boyfriend, why involve him Bond all? Why not just steal the money and disappear? Where the hell was the CIA after the game when they were supposed to be apprehending Le Chiffre? What happened to the tracking device Bond planted on him earlier?

Yeah. YEAH. Everything Jessica said. With an extra ?!

And still, I want to see it again. As much for supporting its NOT!like previous Bond movieness as for its pretty pretty.