« Previous Entry | Main Page | Next Entry »
June 29, 2008
Hellboy II
I've seen it. I've spoken on it. Need to know more?
Okay, just a sample...
Broom reads Hellboy a bedtime story, which we see enacted by CGI wooden dolls, that establishes what the plot of the movie will be – an indestructible army commissioned by elves and mythical creatures once laid waste to humanity, but was then buried (in Northern Ireland near Belfast, ironically enough) after a peace treaty was signed. The only way to revive said army is by the reconstruction of a golden crown, whose parts are divided between humans and elves.Enter the present day, and one very pissed-off elf named Prince Nuada (pronounced Nu-WAD-da), who’s like an evil Legolas after a 6-day meth binge, and so fast that he can slice a raindrop in half with his sword. He’s played by Luke Goss, who was also the main Reaver in BLADE II (alongside Ron Perlman), and a surprising choice for badassitude considering his past…
Posted by LYT at June 29, 2008 11:52 AM [Message Board]
Comments
I thought the production value on HBI was pretty low and it just gave off a very generic vibe to me. The sets were cheap, the camera work was mediocre and the dialog and plot were schlocky instead of clever. I hope improvements have been made all around this time because it's a great concept when you do justice to it.
Posted by: ReJeKt at June 29, 2008 2:43 PM
Then we're at a complete 180 -- I don't know how you'd think the production grade was low on the first. The creatures were great, the giant stone chambers at the end, the study/fishtank area that Abe lives in...granted, del Toro likes almost everything to look decayed and run down and low-lit, but I don't think that's what you mean.
Still, if you didn't like the first, this may not do it either. It's the same but with more.
Posted by: LYT at June 29, 2008 8:47 PM
The movies aren't as good compared to any given movie as the comics are compared to any given comic. But I liked the first movie and the second looks badass, esp. if Prince whatisname is in it. Woot!
Posted by: David N. Scott at June 29, 2008 9:43 PM
I could name a few specifics that bugged me if I rewatch it, which I probably will, but basically I think the movie lacked the polish and stylistic coherency of Del Toro's other films. The special effects were fine but a lot of the sets felt very cramped and sound-stagey, which affected the cinematography. That was my biggest problem, which probably colored my view of the other elements.
It could also just be that nothing can live up to mike mignola's style. I've been a big fan of his for years and was hoping Hellboy would keep the noirish vibe of the comics, which it didn't. So maybe I just expected too much.
Posted by: ReJeKt at June 29, 2008 10:04 PM
That depends on the Del Toro film. Hellboy was so much better than Blade II it isn't funny. (Although I was pleased that it did. I was not happy with Blade II's production values.)
Posted by: Julie Scott at June 30, 2008 6:42 PM
Blade II and Mimic might have been lousy films, but stylistically they were consistent. Something about Hellboy's mise en scène kept drawing me out of a suspension of disbelief, which is really bad for a movie about a devil who fights monsters for the government.
Posted by: ReJeKt at June 30, 2008 8:23 PM
I would dispute the notion of BLADE II being a lousy film. The story might not have been much, and the climax nowhere near as good as earlier battles in the film, but the action was top-notch.
Posted by: LYT at June 30, 2008 8:26 PM
Outrunning light was pretty ludicrous, but you can go along with a crappy plot and enjoy yourself as long as nothing violates the SoD too much. But I guess everyone has their own limits on what they'll let slide.
Posted by: ReJeKt at June 30, 2008 8:44 PM
I think Blade 2 was basically a sequel, with all that entails. Definetely had some badass scenes, though.
Posted by: David N. Scott at July 2, 2008 8:50 PM