cools wrote:What did you think of the first one? I found the sequel didn't leave quite as lasting an impression as the original, which I've watched multiple times.
Actually I remember very little about the original, I need to watch it again. May have just been the mood I was in at the time but currently I found the sequel more impressive.
Honestly I'm just in love with Del Toro's ability to bring such comprehensive imagination to his world, it was a feast for the eyes. Reminded of the way certain fantasy movies from the 80s used to stick with me.
cools wrote:What did you think of the first one? I found the sequel didn't leave quite as lasting an impression as the original, which I've watched multiple times.
They do have quite a different feel to them, I'll give you that. I happen to love both of them.
I think that the almost-complete absence of HB's father in the second one does take a bit of the humanity out of the second one, as well as the absence of Myers (which honestly *surprised* me a good bit...I originally thought his character was put there for the sake of "buffering" the audience toward the material). Del Toro is a terrific fantasy guy, though, and I enjoy his sense of humor and wonder.
I, too, would give the first the higher grade, but that's not to take anything away from the second at all. I think the first is pretty much "A" material, and the second would be "B/B+" material. In both cases, I was happy with the way my time and money was spent.
Okay, I'm obligated to disagree. The first Hellboy was decent enough, but I have a hard time calling it anything more than that. It's basically a bog-standard, generic action movie with a license shoved into it. Boring, audience insert protagonist. Super monster that is totally unstoppable right up until the instant the plot is done with it, at which point everyone forgets it ever existed. Romantic misunderstanding that only happens because of plot and makes no attempt to hide this fact. Mentor killed off for no other reason than the tradition of mentors dying. I've never read the comics, but if this is really more faithful then I don't want to read them because all the life and personality is getting smothered by convention.
Hellboy 2 is just much more sure of itself. It knows what it does well and showcases that stuff. The whole thing feels more like a natural story, instead of a by-the-numbers affair. And like Skykid said, it's gorgeous. Nothing about the first movie will stay in my memory half as long as the forest god.
Good god, but what a showpiece for expert acting. Ralph Fiennes in his best role - absolutely perfect. He has been the best both prior and since, but this is his piece de resistance. The gravity, the self-aware psychopathic viciousness, the vanity, a small measure of humor, the self-doubt.. on and on. And he has to compete with the likes of Ben Kingsly and Liam Neeson, both at the height of their powers. The best.
Moniker wrote:
Good god, but what a showpiece for expert acting. Ralph Fiennes in his best role - absolutely perfect. He has been the best both prior and since, but this is his piece de resistance. The gravity, the self-aware psychopathic viciousness, the vanity, a small measure of humor, the self-doubt.. on and on. And he has to compete with the likes of Ben Kingsly and Liam Neeson, both at the height of their powers. The best.
Volteccer_Jack wrote:Okay, I'm obligated to disagree. The first Hellboy was decent enough, but I have a hard time calling it anything more than that. It's basically a bog-standard, generic action movie with a license shoved into it. Boring, audience insert protagonist. Super monster that is totally unstoppable right up until the instant the plot is done with it, at which point everyone forgets it ever existed. Romantic misunderstanding that only happens because of plot and makes no attempt to hide this fact. Mentor killed off for no other reason than the tradition of mentors dying. I've never read the comics, but if this is really more faithful then I don't want to read them because all the life and personality is getting smothered by convention.
Hellboy 2 is just much more sure of itself. It knows what it does well and showcases that stuff. The whole thing feels more like a natural story, instead of a by-the-numbers affair. And like Skykid said, it's gorgeous. Nothing about the first movie will stay in my memory half as long as the forest god.
I dunno. The original is certainly a goodly bit *darker*, which for my money, it kind of should be. HB2:TGA is a bit too campy in comparison, but there's nothing bad about the way it does things...just a bit differently is all. I don't find either movie to be surer or less sure of themselves. They just have more background/story to attend to in the original, and that needs to be taken into account. That's one of the things I found slightly amusing/uber-convenient about the second one: Myers' absence is quickly explained away and his importance (or lack thereof) isn't really addressed.
While I like Luke Goss, the malevolence of the main bad guy in the first is far greater/darker, and makes for darker atmosphere.
I guess it depends on what you're looking for, too. I think the battle with the elemental in HB2 is a great scene, too, but I also like the recurring Hellhound in the first movie...it's equally good if you add up its various scenes together.
We're picking nits, here. I certainly hope that they can swing a third, but I'm not certain they will. GTD may be too busy with other projects in the future.
Volteccer_Jack wrote:Okay, I'm obligated to disagree. The first Hellboy was decent enough, but I have a hard time calling it anything more than that. It's basically a bog-standard, generic action movie with a license shoved into it. Boring, audience insert protagonist. Super monster that is totally unstoppable right up until the instant the plot is done with it, at which point everyone forgets it ever existed. Romantic misunderstanding that only happens because of plot and makes no attempt to hide this fact. Mentor killed off for no other reason than the tradition of mentors dying. I've never read the comics, but if this is really more faithful then I don't want to read them because all the life and personality is getting smothered by convention.
Hellboy 2 is just much more sure of itself. It knows what it does well and showcases that stuff. The whole thing feels more like a natural story, instead of a by-the-numbers affair. And like Skykid said, it's gorgeous. Nothing about the first movie will stay in my memory half as long as the forest god.
All I said was that the tone of the first movie was closer.Not identical to the original comics...if you're at all interested in the comics,you should check them out anyway.Don't let the movies put you off,the original books are far darker.More of the nazi and lovecraft stuff.
I also liked the animated Hellboy direct to video movies. I like how the same actor from the movies, Ron Perlman, is the voice of Hellboy for the animated version. He also did a good job as Slade in Teen Titans.
Jonst wrote:All I said was that the tone of the first movie was closer.Not identical to the original comics...if you're at all interested in the comics,you should check them out anyway.Don't let the movies put you off,the original books are far darker.More of the nazi and lovecraft stuff.
Two working class dudes, one black one white, just baked a tray of ten cookies together.
An oligarch walks in and grabs nine cookies for himself.
Then he says to the white dude "Watch out for that black dude, he wants a piece of your cookie!"
Transformers 4
Contrary to my plans, I've been dragged to watch it.
Good application of high-budget Hollywood competence. The Yaeger lab, the cinema and other scenes and sets in the early part of the film before combat prevails are really beautiful. The Hong Kong buildings are also great.
Incredible propensity for senseless violence and destruction on everybody's part. Most egregious, the bad guy who stays behind to fight Yaeger and gets killed instead of chasing the actual objective.
Stanley Tucci feels out of place, but a funny foil for the heroic characters was presumably included in the blockbuster recipe they were using.
Very watchable and interesting true story about ignorant people from Texas during a time of general ignorance about the dangers and realities of HIV and AIDS.
The first thing I had to get over was looking at Matthew Mcconaughey and thinking holy shit man, what have you done to yourself, it ain't worth it. There's Christian Bale going death skinny for The Machinist, but it was an average movie, he's a crappy actor, and no-one cared. Mcconaughey on the other hand had a prize winning physique to lose: I can't imagine the psychological balls required to watch that fizzle away along with your dashing good looks.
But superficialities aside, credit to him, Mcconaughey's performance was very good in this - his best, I'm sure, and irrespective of the transformation. It helps that he's right at home as a Texan with a drawl, since he fits the role like a glove, but he balanced the character very well through anger, anguish, ignorance and passion, without ever losing sight of what makes him a trailer house redneck in the first place.
Jared Leto too, was a dazzling homosexual. He was a little too good in the role, but I'll put it down to effort and ability above potential real-world persuasions.
The movie was well made, encouraging, educational, and lean at only two hours. My only gripe is the Hollywoodification that creeps in. No matter how interesting, I couldn't shake the feeling that the entire thing was still engineered around drama tropes, where even a miscreant manages to ping all the right notes when it comes to embracing the gay community and turning samaritan when the chips are down. I'm sure real-life isn't quite the same, but Hollywood has always been a little afraid of coming too close to real life for fear of not appeasing the masses. As such it's a movie with plenty of real-life warnings and morals, but despite all the HIV wasting and death, never allows itself to really drop below a respectable, almost family friendly level of storytelling, where the government are the bad guys and all the homophobic violence and ignorance that still exists in Texas today is merely a second rung quibble.
But still, two good performances and intriguing subject matter make this a good watch. I'd reccommend it.
Yeah, I, too, prefer Hellboy over Hellboy: The Movie. I never really saw the point of licensing something if you're just using the superficial portions of it - why not just save the money and just use the same theme with renamed characters. The five nerds who care about the Seed of Destruction aren't going to sell any more tickets. (Though I thought the movies were harmless and fun enough. They're not crimes against humanity like Bay.)
Maybe I was spoiled by The Princess Bride's accuracy and quality when I was a callow youth. (So accurate. So good.) Maybe I'm just a stick in the mud and should just watch the Walking Dead and try not to get butthurt when they completely change core aspects of the characters or the innate silliness of the foxy doctor from Prison Break wearing Old People prosthetics to play a comic book character.
Which reminds me! 3/1000 Troma movies watched so far. Nuke'em High. I faintly feel like I saw it when I was a kid, but only one scene rings that bell. Everyone complains about Acting Ability; and here I am watching a movie I'm 80% sure didn't have a script for the whole thing. The $800 budget is a given.
Not exactly a movie, but it happened in a theater so I'm counting it. Anyway, I went to one of the theaters showing the live broadcast of the Monty Python final performance. (even though they haven't really done anything in a long time) It was really funny and a bit dirtier than I expected; but their sense of humor has not declined with age. I was extremely surprised when a certain British astrophysicist who uses a wheelchair made an appearance. There was somebody else who appeared earlier in the "Blackmail" sketch and judging by the audiences reaction I guess he was famous as well but I have not clue who he was.
BryanM wrote:You're trapped in a haunted house. There's a ghost. It wants to eat your friends and have sex with your cat. When forced to decide between the lives of your friends and the chastity of your kitty, you choose the cat.
Does K-PAX remind anyone else of the Field of Dreams Kevin Costner flick? K-PAX is more melodramatic, but they are equally, um, American (for lack of a better word).
The rear gate is closed down
The way out is cut off
Obiwanshinobi wrote:Does K-PAX remind anyone else of the Field of Dreams
Yeah, they're both shit.
Speaking of which:
Bicentennial Man
Someone piqued my curiosity by telling me it was based on an Isaac Asimov novel. Alas, as much as I like Chris Colombus for making fun, nicely controlled movies, this one laid on the shlock far too thickly. It's a shame because you can see the Asimov underneath, and if they'd cut all the sentimentalism and played it out in a more realistic, darker fashion, and minus all the contradictions, it could have been an interesting sci-fi piece, but - as much as I love the guy's work - it needed James Horner to shut the hell up with with the strings in every scene and a rewrite to solve the cartoon like emphasis of a man wanting to be a real boy.
Someone piqued my curiosity by telling me it was based on an Isaac Asimov novel. Alas, as much as I like Chris Colombus for making fun, nicely controlled movies, this one laid on the shlock far too thickly. It's a shame because you can see the Asimov underneath, and if they'd cut all the sentimentalism and played it out in a more realistic, darker fashion, and minus all the contradictions, it could have been an interesting sci-fi piece, but - as much as I love the guy's work - it needed James Horner to shut the hell up with with the strings in every scene and a rewrite to solve the cartoon like emphasis of a man wanting to be a real boy.
I heard that this was utterly awful - I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw in the end. It was about 10 years ago though.
^ Oh it's watchable enough. Chris Colombus is a director with a steady hand and I've always found his work enjoyable - but the film is too weepie/melodramatic/sentimental/silly to do justice to Asimov's The Man With the Positron Brain, and it's disappointing to think of good material being cannibalised by Hollywood tropes.
Haven't seen that movie since I was in jr high. Vikki's logic was indeed undeniable. Shame said logic didn't prevent her from appearing in that terrible movie. (though I admit I liked it when I saw it)
BryanM wrote:You're trapped in a haunted house. There's a ghost. It wants to eat your friends and have sex with your cat. When forced to decide between the lives of your friends and the chastity of your kitty, you choose the cat.
I liked I, Robot, despite the plot being insanely stupid (but then, I have a weakness for Will Smith). It actually introduced me to Asimov, albeit only by having the same title. Now I desperately want to see someone make a proper Asimov-based movie.
Volteccer_Jack wrote:I liked I, Robot, despite the plot being insanely stupid (but then, I have a weakness for Will Smith). It actually introduced me to Asimov, albeit only by having the same title. Now I desperately want to see someone make a proper Asimov-based movie.
Yeah yeah, "I, Robot" introduced you to Asimov. But did it introduce you to the MOST important thing in that movie?
Two working class dudes, one black one white, just baked a tray of ten cookies together.
An oligarch walks in and grabs nine cookies for himself.
Then he says to the white dude "Watch out for that black dude, he wants a piece of your cookie!"
