Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Saw it last night... a few things... (warning, SPOLIERS)...

Posted by sjb (A) on January 21, 2007 at 08:45:23

In Reply to: I saw this today and I liked it a lot better than my wife did at the time... posted by Audiophilander on January 20, 2007 at 19:14:43:

I liked this movie... a lot. But I wasn't drawn in as much, nor was it as powerful for me as Children Of Men. I'm not making a direct comparison but they're two of the more interesting movies out and this one left me a bit cold (just a bit). I could've done with less of the graphic violence but that's the director's thing and I suppose it's meant to heighten the horrror/brutality (though, in the way a woman can be more sexy with some clothes on I think horror can be scarier and brutality more brutal with what's implied instead of what's shown).

On to the Auph/Roxanne points...

1) The extra key: After leading the nationalists on a wild goose chase in their ploy to attack the main camp and get into the storeroom, why did the resistance need to have a key to open it? They set off explosions during the attack; why couldn't they have just blown open the storeroom and avoided leaving the Captain's housekeeper under suspicion? It was an easy plot device to enable the big confrontation and reveal her as a traitor.

Can't disagree here too much. I, like Tunenut, thought maybe they needed to be careful with the storeroom and not take any chance on damaging the stuff inside but that doesn't explain why they couldn't have just taken the lock with them or blown the doors after getting their stuff. Where I disagree is that it was lazy storytelling per se as they had at least one other way (the tortured guys confession) to get to her being a member of the resistance.

I think it was a combination of those two things that made him question her and it was her slip up when she started heading to the store-room without his key that made him REALLY suspect her (I think he was a touch sweet on her and was giving her more latitude than he was prone to) and it was her running away that sealed the deal... so, for me at least, it was a lot more then just the key.

Oh yeah, and there were paralell stories going on in which the girl and Mercedes discovered their real strength and became leaders. Both involved a key being integral to that journey.

2) The Captain was effectively evil, even believably so, but from a storytelling standpoint far too two dimensional. He would've been much more interesting and effectively creepy had his cruelty been rolled out gradually and not so apparent to everyone around him.

I don't think he was ever meant to be less or more than evil. There was no place in the story - IMO - for his evilness to be rolled out gradually. The girl had to recoil immediately and I don't think we were ever meant to feel anything but agreement with her recoiling and with Mercedes' and the doctor's subversive work.

(ahem) Rox here. My husband liked the movie better than I did, which is odd; I was really put off by what I saw as extremely lazy storytelling. I understand the symbolism that was on offer, but I don't care for symbolism that ignores simple logic. To wit:

2) The "OMG!" moment where the Captain realizes that the doctor is a traitor is simply untenable. The doctor had antibiotics; surely antibiotics were not his sole province. Medics would have them, hospitals would have them, and simply holding up one phial and comparing it to another tells you nothing. The Captain didn't bother to ask if perhaps the drugs had been stolen from him, or if a partisan had simply tricked him into giving them. Granted, the Captain wasn't exactly a deep thinker, but still. It was simply convenient. Also, the captain chose to kill the doctor BEFORE the baby was born? Why? What could he possibly lose by keeping him alive until after the event?

I didn't feel that this was such an OMG moment and I didn't think the Captain had tried and convicted the Dr. based on the vial... it merely made him extra suspicious; especially in light of having just been told by the tortured stutterer - funny that the word to describe the condition is one a stutterer would have a hell of a time saying - that there was a traitor in his midst (something, I thought, he was clearly already suspicous of in general). He wasn't certain the Dr. was a traitor until he found that the Dr. had euthanized the prisoner. Even then he didn't ask about the vial, just about why he had been disobeyed.

As for killing the Dr.... it was just consistent with the Captian's character. One thing he could/would not suffer is being questioned or disobeyed (or, of course, having a traitor in his midst). The key (no pun intended) was in the Dr.'s answer as to why he disobeyed him.

3) The girl is, to me, a cipher. She does nothing that, strictly speaking, actually moves the plot. She is a reactor, not an actor. Even at the end, she bravely saves her brother, and yet at the critical moment she neither fights back nor truly sacrifices herself. She simply lets the Captain take the baby. The fact that he shoots her is an afterthought. Ergo ... what difference did it really make?

Saw this differently as well... quite differently. She may not move the plot (she also may move it but doesn't matter for my reply) but she is certainly the fulcrum around which the plot moves. As for being a reactor and not an actor (I assume you mean within the story and not her actual acting skills [where good acting is reacting]) I saw something else altogether. Sure, she may have been reacting to finding the stone and meeting fairy, etc. but it was her boldness in following her instinct despite the authoratarianism around her that - at the very least - led to all the plot devises in her part of the story.

In that end scene I again saw it completely differently. Yes, she found the strength to save her brother from the faun and then she, a little girl, was left alone after feeling betrayed by the character who seemed to be the key (again, no pun intended) to her salvation only to find that the man who'd destroyed everything was right behind her (NOT dead or disabled from the sleeping medicine and not lost in the maze). It was like she was under a spell of disappointment and disbelief. But a moment after she handed the brother over she found her strength again and shouted "No!!" That's when she was shot... indeed a sacrifice. Hardly - IMO - an afterthought or for nothing

4) The segment in the tunnel with the child-eating monster is truly scary and visually interesting, but again ... why? Ofelia does simply the stupidest possible thing she can, against clear orders and instructions and even the interference of her little fairy friends. It's an instance again of lazy storytelling ... the creature needed to wake up, so they had her do something stupid. There are far better ways to structure that scene.

She was warned because it was going to be very hard to resist the food there. She was a little girl who was still discovering her own strength and discipline and destiny. In such journey's one usually has to fail before finally succeeding. I liked that she just ate the fruit. Cleary it was going to be a factor and it was nice that there was no silly drawn out, will she or won't she moment. It caught her eye, it was a powerful temptation (a spell of sorts), she was a little girl and she ate it.

5) Why did the fairies in that scene point to the wrong keyhole? And more importantly, what made her realize which one was right? It simply didn't make sense. The fairies were never tricky or mischevious (which I would have welcomed, actually). Why would she doubt them?

Because the whole thing was test of her essence and worthiness - which included testing her instincts - in being allowed to reclaim her throne. The fact that they pointed to the wrong keyhole (and that they were so connected to the tricky faun) means they were tricky... just not in a hit you over the head kind of way. I like the juxtaposition her having that instinct but still not being able to resist the fruit.

One last thing: why do art directors think chairs raised twenty feet in the air is cool? HOW DO THEY GET UP THERE? It's goofy. It's design at the expense of practicality, a staple (unfortunately) of SF and fantasy art direction.

What 20' chair? The one in the hallway with the food and the monster was a little chair. About the same size as the girl. It was just big enough to cover the space between her small door and the floor and in the low celing corridor she stood on the top of it to reach the ceiling.

Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---