The critics are schizophrenic

I was drunk two nights ago when I consumed Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth, and I am definitely tanked now as I finish Aronofsky's The Fountain. Let me say up front that I LOVED both of them. The critics, on the other hand, don't agree with me. Both The Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes show a striking disparity in their favor of the two films, with an overwhelming majority on both sites being in favor of Pan's Labyrinth.

I can honestly say I don't follow the logic; after all, both are the same film under different guises. Both rely heavily upon the premise that physical life and its inseparable sufferings are only the gateway to an eternal destination (which is very potentially blissful). Perhaps it is Pan's emphasis on present suffering, as opposed to The Fountain's emphasis on both the timeless and eternal, that nabbed the critics' love. I honestly can't claim to comprehend.

Suffice it to say that both films are the cream of the crop for 2006 (and as my Netflix friends who have suffered through all my two-cent reviews well know, I've tried to consume a substantial chunk of the year's critically well-fared). For surely, there were more entertaining films, but none were able to both challenge the viewer on life and post-life issues and transcend fleeting, contemporary politics as these two did.

As icing on the cake, both are also among the most stylistically superb of the year. You owe it to yourself to track them both down, and, if not purchase them, view them at least once. They are both excellent examples that film is not quite an irrelevant medium.

Good grief, I'm hammered.

Next stop, Apocalyptico.