Also nice review, glad to see Jeremy on AICN again.

Shit, a nice piece of ass or save the universe?

Nice piece of ass please.

So sayeth the CoC.

And I still fail to see how Pan's looked plastic and artificial.

So if you think his movies are "cheesy", may I ask what director do you like? What movies are in your "good department"?

And why are you so whiny and negative? "cynical cunt father"...wow.

What a tool.

WhinyNegativeBitch is another one.

And who says it Pan's was supposed to be a kid's movie? Why the hell would you ever think that? And gee, the ultra-violence was shown so that you would realize why the girl would want to escape to her fantasy world. So she doesn't qualify as a real character?

Good review, Beaks. Well done.

i might go see it the day Bats comes out, just so i can sit in the theater all by myself and talk to Ron and Selma(sp?) without getting shouted at.

If anyone is too one-dimensional and myopic here, it's you. Apparently, the blending of child-like fantasy elements and a more adult storyline is confusing and disturbing to you. I find it hilariously ironic that you claim to be wanting more complex characters and stories when it's those very things which have thrown you into a petulant and cretinous state.

alright. i guess we'll just continue thinking you are a dumb ass troll without a real point to make, just stirring the pot.

which gives us something to do when we should be working, so thanks.

i can't remember seeing that anywhere else and its a pretty bad ass, adult concept.

Now then, what moves do you deem of good quality and not pander to us poor 12 year olds?

You never know, I may agree with your choices. However, you come across as a drippy little whore who thinks they have a higher opinion than everyone else.

2. The idea of socialism being something to fight for (no my thing but none the less Adult)

3. A Real War drama is not for kids

I'm not going site my more examples but if you think pan's labyrinth is simple well look in the mirror sunshine, cause that shit peels back like a ripe onion

and who called Del Toro the new Kubrick? we just like his movies and wonder what, pray tell, could be so much move stimulating and enlightening while maintaining the entertainment value of his films.

You're the very definition of "loser".

You fail again.

writing hehe only twice-gay

I'd love to see the shit in your attic -- you know, the stuff you're afraid folks might judge you on.

go to filmsnob.com, or any other site.

It also shows how narrow your tastes are and therefore how incapable you are of passing judgment on genre films.

and here i was trying not to insult you and made an off topic post.

I also liked Pan's Labrynth quite a bit. Guess I'm retarded

BTW, Rickey Henderson, did you just advise Xyzzy80 to take Mrs. henderson out for a night of fun? Can I get in on that?

Helpful Stan

its Han. i let it go as a typo before, but its just Han.

just so you know.

On the subject of Xyzzy80, I say thank the gods for intellectual insecurity. There would be far fewer hilariously pointless elitists on these boards without it. Keep up the good work, Xyzzy80.

Oh, and hello to the pillow man. Have you seen The Incredible Hulk yet?

Xyzzy80, why such focus on Han Solo? Are you still mad about the whole "who shot first" scene?

Let it go...

On a related note, my buddy Leroy Palestine turned up to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull in a full Indy outfit he had cobbled together. Hat, leather jacket, a whip made of rope, the whole thing. He looked a proper douche, which was kind of embarrassing but also allowed the rest of us to mock him mercilessly for the rest of the day. He's a good guy is Leroy, but he does ask for it...

Pillow, try pomegrante - or however it is spelled, juice. Trust me.

Anyway I just hope the actors drank some Amped before they filmed this movie, I've thought about it and that was my biggest problem with the first one, that everyone just kind of seemed bored/didn't care. I mean Ron Perlman probably had to be up fuck early in the morning every day to get make up done. But he should be used to that. Plus that one actress, from Cruel Intentions, just isn't a very good actress either. She ALWAYS seems bored/bitchy.

By the way, they showed the Ang Lee Hulk on ITV the other day, and I have to admit it's not as bad as I remembered it being. Still a little dreary and serious for my taste, but it has some worthwhile moments. Nick Nolte is hilarious, and the action scenes are pretty well handled.

and do yo really not know the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek, or was that bait?

peace out, suckers, i've got a half day today.

One thing, as much as I'm enjoying this TB- they were fascists in Pan's Labrynth not socialists. Although you can argue that the local peasants were socialists. Carry on.

Terrible ending, though. Just awful.

Ang Lees Hulk is not horrible. But it is not a superhero flick either. And I have said this before, if he had just made a movie about a father and son having some issues, well that is fine. Call it the Banner Boys. But when he, and other auteur or wannabe auteurs get invloved with a superhero project, they ignore the reason the movie is being made in the first place: Action Adventure. Not introspective character development, with a dollop of adbentute thrown in. That beong said, when Hulk was doing is thing in the deserrt, it was great, The CG was much better than the recent movie - the money really shows. But the recent delivers the goods far better than Angs. I think it is fine to enjoy the Ang version, just do not call it a true Hulk movie.

The only thing I didn't care for in HBI was the Lovecraftian monster at the very end...too much of the "squishy CGI" that makes my gutty-wuts go kerfloop. Other than that, I really enjoyed it.

Hola Jarv

Read TB before posting something stupid.

Sorry. I'm a dumbass

I didn't think it was that bad, actually. Not one of my favourite comic book adaptations, but it wasn't nearly as awful as I remembered it being.

By way of recommending something similar, I'd go for Cool Hand Luke, which is one of my all time favourites. I fucking love that film. I'm sure you've seen it (who hasn't?), but otherwise you should check it out.

You don't want to get called a cunt, do you?

For me, I was never into the Hulk. I was always a Spidey/Avengers/X-men/Cap guy.

Anyhoo- horses for courses and all that.

The Queen is good, but has NOTHING on the magnificense of the mighty This is England- everybody should watch that.

Maybe that's not fair, but my £3.95 is precious to me and I haven't seen No Country For Old Men yet, so is Mr Magorium worth a look?

I wasn't crazy about The Queen.

My specific comment dealt with auteurs being given the reigns and wanting to create pathos when action is the reason most moviegoers have come to see the flick.

There is an imbalance inherent in these types of movies, And the bias should be on action, not character develpoment. I am reminded of a Not Brand Ecchh story(I was a huge comic book geek thank you very much), from many, many years ago. It had Spiderman, and some villain, talking - in an existential manner about a fight. Not doing any actual fighting. Just gving their inner motivations for it. it was hysterical, becuas it pointed out the absurdity of taking a comic based, action adventure character, and dropping huge amounts of introspection and pathos on it. I am a no longer a comic book collector - but I loved great stories. The Dark Knight being one of the greatest of all time. It did not skimp on action though.

People like you make me sad, so go and find something else to do.

I'm just going to keep shouting this, even though I know it's completely irrelevant.

I promise to stop this when soemone acknowledges the majesty of the scandalously overlooked This is England.

This is England, motherfuckers....

I'm working late, and am frankly bored out of my tiny little mind.

Xyzzy80, Frankie said you would get your ass beaten because of your ATTITUDE, which I'm sure you have regardless of the subject being discussed.

There are some people, and beleive it or not, some are directors, who are well aware of the historical origins of fairy tales. Perhaps the even incorporate those into their movies - deliberately too.

With regard to Grimms fairy tales (which are not the only ones by the way) and since you know the German name for them, then you must also be aware that they were heavily attacked during initial publication for not being suitable for Children - this was in the early 1800's. It was not until, many, many changes had been made that they apeared in the format we know today. So, that in itself should answer your own question of "i don't know what you're trying to get at here." But in case it does not: Fairytales are not mere childrens stories, and never have been.

Best Ron Perlman line--Alien Resurrection "I am not the man with whom to FUCK!!"

I'll watch This Is England this weekend.

Don't think I can bring myself to watch The Queen regardless of how amazing Mirren is in it. Maybe if I catch it on cable.

Pan's Labyrinth is a great movie. End of debate.

Ditto to Cool Hand Luke.

I'm still mourning over Holland's early exit from Euro 2008. I guess I gotta cheer for Germany. Who you choosing, Jarv?

Are you at all familiar with the Oral storytelling tradition? The non-written tradition of travelling storytellers? What kind of stories do you think they told? Some folk tales. Some involving faeries and other magical creatures. Some political commentary, couched in the familiar peasants vs aristocracy. Some even beleive that Women, were the primary source of these tales.

Just do a little research before you spout off on things you unfamiliar with.

Thsi sensitive side is weirding me out!

Hola Abom, HOD. Yep no work today!

Xyzzy80, I'm sure there's a million other things you could do with your life besides posting every 2 minutes why everyone's wrong and you are right over a movie and director you don't like. Or maybe not. Kindly go fuck yourself.

The CoC approves of this "suggestion".

In all honesty, I was really disappointed by Hellboy in the theater. Bought the DVD because I had to spend my money on something (back when I had expendable income) and on second viewing, I really liked it.

Very adult of you.

I love to read. Books that is. I never have claimed any superior education. Nor any particular fondness for Neil Gaiman either.

You really are a child, in that you cannot take being wrong about anything.

What makes these TB's ineteresting, is the free flowing exchange of ideas and opinions. Opinions are subjective. Truth is not. Your opinion and others, of Directors and movies, that has been commented on in these posts, is just that: Opinion. The historical origin of fairytales, that they were not intended for children exclusively, and that even the Grimm tales were heavily criticized for being inappropriate for children, is not subjective. It is fact. And a surprisingly easliy verifiable one at that. But, because it counters your stated, and uninformed opinion, you refuse to accept it. So you pick up your marbles and run along home.

Very sad.

I smell a troll.

Xyzzy80 by toadkillerdog Jun 26th, 2008 12:46:26 PM Actually, fairy tales were not intended for kids - at least not exclusively. They developed out a tradition or oral history and folkore. The audience was primarily adult. It was not until the late 1700's that that the fairy tales began to be gathered in written form and packaged for children. Even then, the tales retained part of their original appeal to adults, and some themes are overtly sexual and violent.

Nitwit

This was a part of a larger quote about the HISTORICAL origin of fairytales. Here is the entire quote in contect. I said "My point about the historical origin of fairytales dealt with the oral tradition they sprang from. It dealt with the fact that these tales were not intended for children." I was talking about the historical origin, as i have been talking about since the very first post. The historical orgin of fairytales were not intended for children.

I stand 100% behind every word. The historical origin or fairytales, were not originally aimed at children.

You really are troll. A very stupid one at that.

It was not until the oral traditions were gathered in written form, did the stories begin to be packaged for children, and even then, the Grimm tales, were heavily criticized as being unsuitable for children. Not until they changed did we get the fairytales aimed EXCLUSIVELY for children, that we know today.

Troll

Actually, please conitue to cherry pick. It better illustrates the type of person you are.

"My point about the historical origin of fairytales dealt with the oral tradition they sprang from. It dealt with the fact that these tales were not intended for children."

Hey, Xyzzy80, I love how you picked out the very few examples of films in your list which it was safest to assume didn't have any academic texts written about them. Talk about exceptions that prove the rule.

Speaking of which, let's look at those exceptions, shall we? You, like Memories-of-Murder, also have a couple of "slumming" titles you like to wave in our faces to show that, yes, you may be intellectually superior to the rest of us slobs, but you're also a man of the people, a fun guy and an all-round righteous dude.

In M-O-M's case, it's Lifeforce. In your case, since you don't want to be caught slumming THAT much, you chose a fairly obscure yet effective, violent little giallo to show that you can do "visceral" just like everyone else. Not at all obvious.

And Fiddler on the Roof? It must have been tough trying to choose between that and The Sound of Music.

I won't even bother with the fairy tale thing since other talkbackers here have already pounded you into the dirt over it.

And last, but not least:

"Hans Solo"?

Using the term "Hans Solo" means only one of two things:

1) You actually do know his name is Han Solo but are pretending that you are so above anything as mass cultural as Star Wars that his name never registered with you, despite having been an integral part of Western pop culture for over 30 years, which makes you an unbelievably arrogant and offensive shit.

2) You actually didn't know his name was Han Solo, which means anything you say about film is rendered pointless -- not only in AICN talkback, but in any company of self-respecting cinéastes.

At any rate, I'd like to come to Xyzzy80's defense, actually, in regards to Pan's Labyrinth. In my opinion, the film thinks it's much more mature than it really is. Rather than contrast the simple morality of fairy tale with the murky morality of the real world, the whole film plays with an extremely simplistic moral compass (step-dad = bad, mom = good, fascists = bad, socialists = good). There's no moral grey area in the film. Contrast this with the vastly superior The Lives of Others, a film whose characters all operate in a moral grey area. Makes for a more mature film, one that deserved to be nominated for Best Picture, I think. Just my two cents.

Bottom line: Xyzzy80 is an appallingly pretentious and condescending knob.

On a related note, it seems you had your cake and ate it too, since you provided a list, but not the one we asked for which means you're still holding out on us, much like that intellectual coward moviemack did.

Well done, chief.

Nope, not attacking you for watching too many movies. Don't even think about pulling that fake-quoting shit on me. I merely pointed out that you are increasingly coming across as acting like, nay, BEING one of us, which makes your poo-pooing of talkbackers even funnier.

Interesting you should mention Dirty Harry in that context, by the way. The fact is, if you had been around in the 1970s, you would have been one of the shrilltards yelling about how "fascist" the film is. However, since you are a hip, modern, European cinéaste, you adhere to the prevailing reevaluation of the Eastwood œuvre.

Christ, could you be more obvious? Surely someone of your vast mental prowess can throw us a bone from out of left field somewhere, yes?

The older fairy tales were intended for an audience of