A fairy tale with actual fairies in it. Harry Potter all over again.

Rating: 3/10 (11 March 2009)

There are many factors in this film which - in theory - would make it right up my street. The historical context of a dark time in 20th century Europe; the conflicting characters and the chance for a close-up look at a really convincing bad guy; apparent reference to ancient pagan gods and so on. And fabulous write ups and sparkling recommendations from friends, too.
All I got was a fairy tale. With your actual fairies in it. Maybe my expectations were raised unduly by the translation - this guy isn't Pan, he's a faun. The fantasy factor here isn't dark, weird or terrifying - it's childish, like another Harry Potter. The history doesn't fascinate me. The violence doesn't give me a chilling sense of the horror of the regime - it's just horrible. The question of whether I'm dreaming - frankly I thought A Nightmare On Elm Street did it better (seriously - and I cringed less at the bloodthirsty bits in that one).
Now I fully expect the fantasy fans to go bonkers for this, it has marvellous animation in it, and a plot formula that seems to match other films fantasy fans love (generally I don't like them, either, sorry). But why this appeals to film fans? I am at a loss. The stats show highest scores from under 18s, which is fair enough, but the mean scores are very high across the board. Everyone likes it, but I can't think of anyone - beside those who dress up as Frodo at the weekend - who I'd recommend it to. Beats me.