Hellboy II: The Golden Army Review

Hellboy II: The Golden Army is Guillermo Del Toro's anticipated sequel to the first installment of Hellboy, and his first flick after the brilliant Pan's Labyrinth. The plot of Hellboy II centers around an ancient but extraordinarily powerful golden mechanical army created for the king of all magical creatures (King Balor). He had the army created to gain an edge in the war with humans, an edge that turned out to be so successful the king was overcome with remorse and decided to deactivate the army forever. He split his royal crown (the controlling agent of the army) into 3 pieces keeping one for himself, giving one to his daughter (Princess Nuala) and one to the humans in an effort to keep the army from ever being reactivated again and an agreement was reached - the magical creatures would remain in and control the forests of the world while the humans would reside in the cities. Princess Nuala's twin brother, Prince Nuada, was decidedly unhappy about this arrangement, feeling the humans would not honor the agreement. Several hundred (perhaps thousand) years pass, the humans begin to infringe on the forests and Nuada decides now is the time to unite the three pieces of the crown and take control of his father's long dormant golden army of machines warriors.

I'm not a fan of Hellboy II's plot, honestly. Well, not a fan of the plot in this particular context. Hellboy is a comic book character and to me, this story feels like it would be more at home in a high fantasy, fairy tale setting rather than a comic book setting. I honestly would have liked to see what Del Toro and Co. could have come up with had they not been bound to the Hellboy character and made up an entirely original cast of heroes. But as it is, it is certainly not bad and there will undoubtedly be many who enjoy the movie for what it is. The progression of the plot, however is very basic and once the back story has been explained, there are very few surprises along the way. One can almost predict what Hellboy will say/do next.

The movie relies much more heavily on effects than its predecessor, which has positives and negatives. Del Toro and his team have placed no restrictions on their creative minds for this film, ending up with an overload of fantasy creatures and wild scenarios. Especially in the first half of the movie, it seemed there was some new, twisted and totally bizarre creature showing up and disappearing every few minutes. It was in direct contrast to Pan's Labyrinth, where I was desperate to catch a glimpse of the magical world only briefly hinted at and I wanted to soak in every precious moment Del Toro gave to us with the faun and/or the other magical creatures. In Hellboy II, however, it almost feels like Del Toro wanted to saturate every possible frame with as many fantasy effects, grotesque beasts, towering giants and any other kind of extravagant FX his team could come up with. As a result, Hellboy II was way too busy with special effects. They are quite brilliant, but the film is overstuffed with them. Towards the end of the film, we find our characters in the middle of a peaceful Northern Ireland meadow, where (briefly) there are no effects at all....just them walking in the field. It was wonderful, just because it felt like a breath of fresh air after all the slime, flying critters, dirty crowded streets, mechanical underground chambers, etc. Which brings me to my next point: I'm just not a fan of the character/enemy designs in the movie. Most of the characters/creatures/monsters are all hulking, ugly, disgusting looking creatures with broken horns, scars, pulsing wounds, eyes in places they shouldn't be and at least one mechanical appendage. There's really nothing at all about the film that is beautiful, which I felt was to its detraction.

I've heard several comparisons made about Hellboy II's Troll Market to Mos Eisley from Star Wars: A New Hope. I'm not sure I would say Mos Eisley as much as I would say it reminded me of Diagon Alley from the Harry Potter flicks. As a matter of fact, the whole movie carried a Harry Potter feel with it (one wonders how fantastic an HP movie would be with Del Toro at the helm) - from the fantasy setting, to the world of magic most humans are oblivious to, to the secret underground shopping districts, to the feeling of rejection for being "freaks" our main characters experience...there are several parallels between the two series'. Another thing: I'm sick of the whole hero-rejected-by-the-people-he's-out-to-save-because-they-think-he's-a-dangerous-freak thing that so many comic book movies do. I wasn't a fan of it when the idea was original, and now it's annoying, lazy and lame. Directors of the world: find a new way to make the second installment of super hero movies interesting. Please.

Overall, I walked away from Hellboy II with a general feeling of disappointment. It wasn't bad. Far from it, in fact. I probably went into the movie with inflated expectations, but I still couldn't help feeling it could have been better. It didn't do anything wrong, but it I felt the mashing of comic book hero and high fantasy just didn't work very well. Bring on the Hobbit, Mr. Del Toro.

6/10

Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Directed by Guillermo Del Toro
Produced by Lawrence Gord, Lloyd Levin, Mike Richardson, Joe Roth
Written by Guillermo Del Toro and Mike Mignola
Starring Ron Perlman, Doug Jones, Selma Blair

Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and some language

Jurassic Park Review

Jurassic Park is a classic, plain and simple. Jurassic Park is the kind of movie that is enjoyable for children, but meaty enough for adults as well. Simple enough for a child to understand, but complicated enough for grown-ups to walk away feeling satisfied as well. This is the mark of a true masterpiece - a piece of work that translates not only across all ages, but even across time, as Jurassic Park nears the two decade age mark. Jurassic Park was the first PG-13 movie I ever saw. I was 7 years old, and I enjoyed the film for the blood, dinosaurs and big pile of poo. Now, 15 years later, I enjoy the film not only for those reasons, but also for the philosophical, scientific and ethical questions raised by the film's characters.

I won't waste time explaining the plot of the movie, for anyone who follows the film industry at least knows what this landmark film is about. Instead, allow me to take a stab at some of the more complicated issues raised by the movie - issues about science versus ethics, and control versus chaos. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) is the primary character who pushes these questions, often to the frustration of John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), founder of the exotic amusement park. Hammond feels the parks' scientists deserve all the credit in the world for their breakthrough discoveries involving genetic research while Malcolm insists that discretion must be practiced before recklessly plunging into something that deserves more thought. Malcolm argues that Nature (or some other higher power) selected dinosaurs to be extinct, and does not intend for them to be brought back. To violate this will, is to violate Nature (or Life, or whatever higher power) herself, and act he describes as "the rape of the natural world." It is interesting to note, that despite Malcolm proposing the notion of a higher power in Nature or Life, or Mother Earth or whatever other power is capable of selecting a species for extinction, he insists on the fact that man has destroyed God. Hammond however, operating solely on a scientific level (that is to say, absent a higher power in the world) feels that when presented with an opportunity to make discoveries never before attempted, how can one not act on that opportunity? These are interesting questions, to be sure, and while not fully explained by the movie's end, the fact that they are presented at all raises the movie to a new standard and allows for a whole different level of entertainment especially among adults.

Of course, the dinosaurs are the main attraction, and fifteen years later are still worth coming back to see. While the film does present the philosophical, ethical, and scientific dilemmas surrounding the genetic re-emergence of a lost species, the film eventually does become what we want to see: dinosaurs chasing people, killing people, killing each other, and finally the escape of our tired but valiant team of heroes. Steven Spielberg and his team of ILM wizards knew the potential of using CGI dinosaurs, but also knew the limits and planned accordingly. The CGI is used to great effect, just often enough to introduce an element of fantasy, but not so often that the realism is lost - a lesson that The Lost World and Jurassic Park 3 did not remember, to their detriment. I believe credit must be given to the wonderful cast, as CGI monsters were not especially common before this film and they completely sold us on their fear, awe and respect for the dinosaurs. John Williams' score fits the mood of the film flawlessly, as is common for a Spielberg/Williams film. As I said before, a classic without a doubt, and one of the reasons Spielberg is, in my opinion, the greatest director alive today.

9/10

Jurassic Park
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Produced by Kathleen Kennedy and Gerald R. Molen
Written by David Koepp, Malia Scotch Marmo
Based on the novel by Michael Chrichton
Starring: Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough, Joseph Mazello, Ariana Richards, Martin Ferrero, Bob Peck, Samuel L. Jackson, Wayne Knight

Rated PG-13 for intense science fiction terror

Sin City Review

Sin City, Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez's film adaptation from the comic book series of the same name, is a visually striking and thematically intense rejuvenation of the film noir genre made popular in the 1940s and 50s. The freshness of the style, the performance of an all-star cast and the delivery of the plot is where the enjoyment of the movie lies rather than in the plot itself.

Structurally, the movie is splintered into six separate story lines that weave into and out of each others paths in such a way that the viewer gets acclimated to the character of Basin City rather than the characters themselves. Basin City is portrayed as a filthy, dirty festering ground for corruption and despair - a place where the cops are as twisted as (and in some cases they themselves are) the criminals. We are given 3 main characters who share similar characteristics and personalities, and who deal with their specific missions in similar ways despite the missions themselves being quite different. John Hartigan (Bruce Willis) is a late 50s cop with a failing heart and a fierce determination to protect little 11 year old, and later a more voluptuous 19 year old, Nancy Callahan (Jessica Alba). Marv (Mickey Rourke) is a hulking behemoth of a man who sets his mind to not rest until he avenges the death of a favorite prostitute of his, Goldie (Jaime King). Dwight (Clive Owen) is Shellie's (Brittany Murphy) new boyfriend who vows to stop her drunk ex-boyfriend Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro) from doing any more harm than he already has. Each of these main characters shares a general feeling of self denigration, commenting regularly about low self worth (which helps contribute to the helpless, hopeless nature of Basin City). Hartigan attempts to motivate himself saying, "Get up old man. Prove you're not completely useless," while Marv mentions that he doesn't understand why a beautiful woman like Goldie would waste her time with him, but he's not complaining. Dwight mentions offhand that he doesn't blame Shellie for choosing lousy boyfriends, because he understands that he is one of them. Another trait our main characters share is the idea that they are pursuing justice, on a mission to protect and serve...even if it means killing alot of people, innocent or not, along the way. Hartigan is the only main character on the proper side of the law, but even he has committed cold blooded murder by the end of his story. In this reviewer's opinion, Dwight fares the worst in his story, starting out defending his new girlfriend Shellie from ex-boyfriend Jackie Boy and ending up in the middle of an Old Town turf war between the cops and the prostitutes and apparently leaving Shellie (with no resolution) for old flame Gail (Rosario Dawson).

The individual stories themselves are, as I mentioned before, not the reason to visit Sin City. There are several holes left unplugged in the plots and, of course, questions to be answered in future installments. There are precious few surprises during the ride here, strictly as far as plot is concerned, after an hour and a half the violence (while at first bold and daring) just gets disgusting, and the film noir style begins to wear a little thin. But also as I mentioned before, the freshness of the delivery is what makes Sin City such an enjoyable film. Great care was taken to translate (not adapt) Frank Miller's graphic novel series, and the results are without a doubt the most faithful comic book movie thus far. The movie is dripping with style, from almost entirely digital set design, to the sparse and careful use of color, and into the delivery of dialogue - much of it coming to us through narration from the main characters. Mystery surrounds nearly everything in Basin City, and while the plot eventually uncovered might not be the most magical ever conceived, the mystery itself is worth coming back for more.

The actors themselves are simply fabulous. Each performer was chosen carefully and each one fits into this corrupt, nasty world very nicely. Lines are delivered oozing with that film-noir gravity, and the acting itself is a joy to watch. Especially when considering that almost the entire movie was shot on a green screen, with actors reacting to little or nothing, the performances are especially impressive.

8/10

Sin City
Directed by Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller
Special Guest Director - Quentin Tarantino
Produced by Elizabeth Avellan, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller
Written by Frank Miller
Starring: Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, Jessica Alba, Brittany Murphy, Nick Stahl, Benicio Del Toro, Elijah Wood, Rosario Dawson, Jaime King, Michael Clarke Duncan, Alexis Bledel, Powers Boothe, Michael Madsen, Josh Hartnett, Devon Aoki, Carla Gugino, Rutger Hauer, Marley Shelton

Rated R for sustained strong stylized violence, nudity and sexual content including dialogue.

Serious Batman or Campy Batman?

A question perhaps that it would seem has an obvious answer. The financial figures alone (Tim Burton's Batman grossed $411 worldwide with Batman Begins bringing in $371 million) would seem to indicate that the general public approve of the 'new' direction taken by modern filmmakers to adapt Batman from Adam West's goofy, bumbling Batman into ultimately, Christian Bale's brooding, intense ex-ninja. Indeed, it seems surprising enough that the argument exists at all, considering the fact that Adam West's Batman waned from public popularity nearly 40 years ago but, like a cockroach flushed down the toilet...the argument for the superiority of West's/Kilmer's/Clooney's campy Batman climbs right back up the bowl just to spite you.

Unlike many issues in today's culture, this is one subject I am entirely of one mind about. For the most part. When confronted with the question of which type of Batman is "better"...I can only say I'm entitled to my opinion that Michael Keaton and Christian Bale portrayed a more interesting Batman. If you enjoy the 1966 tongue-in-cheek campiness of West's Batman, more power to you; I can't say I'm any more right than you are. But when you look at each portrayal of Batman through the lens of character depth, story arc, relationships (with partners, lovers, and villains) and personal growth I believe it is obvious that certain actors performed more admirably than others.

Michael Keaton prepared for his role in the 1989 film by studying Frank Miller's dark comic "The Dark Knight Returns" and director Tim Burton felt that Keaton brought the right kind of edgy performance needed to lift the character out of the 1966 campy atmosphere most people associated with Batman at that time. Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman struggles with several personal issues throughout the film. Most prominently, Wayne struggles with his parents' death (a central theme in the modern Batman films), his devotion to his "job" as a crime fighter, and how to have a normal relationship with Kim Basinger's character Vicki Vale. Keaton portrayed Batman/Bruce Wayne as a mysterious, complicated man, deeply layered and struggling over how to deal with his parents' death and eventually, the realization that Jack Napier was the one who murdered them. The trauma of witnessing the death of such close loved ones was essential in Wayne's decision to fight crime, and he guarded the secret of his past just as fiercely as the secret of his identity. The audience is given a character to relate to in Vicki Vale, who is just as curious about why Bruce is so secretive and why the Joker is such a threat to Batman personally.

Christian Bale's Batman was drawn primarily from several different comic books, namely "Batman: Year One," "Batman: The Man Who Falls," "Batman: The Long Halloween," and "Batman: Dark Victory." Director Christopher Nolan expressed his desire to make Batman Begins with a similar feel to it as Richard Donner's 1978 Superman, with a focus on character growth and identity. This film in particular depicts different stages and faces in the life of Bruce Wayne - starting with a vengeful, angry, but wayward young man; a vigilante with no real focus for his mission against criminals. His Bruce Wayne also deals with issues surrounding his parents' death, particularly with guilt that he did nothing to stop it. At one point in young Bruce Wayne's life, he was so disillusioned that he felt the administration of "justice" meant murdering the man who killed his parents. Bale's Bruce Wayne changes and matures, learns to control his anger, to funnel his devotion to true justice. By the end of the film, Bruce Wayne has a mission, not to beat up small time crooks or to repay criminals "an eye for an eye," but to defend the innocent and work with the help of others to stop corruption in a deteriorating city.

The depth of these characters, is why I prefer the darker incarnations of the Batman character. But it would not be fair to analyze the serious Batmans and leave out the campy Batmans. *sigh*....*deep breath*

Adam West's Batman was born out of ABC's desire to launch a straightforward juvenile adventure TV show. West was chosen for a screen test after one of the producers saw him as James Bond-like character "Captain Q" in a Nestle Quik commercial. Adam West forever would be type-cast as the campy Batman, and had trouble finding serious acting work for years following the cancellation of the show. But as far as the character itself is concerned, Batman is straightforward. The show is not designed to have layered character depth, but instead to poke fun at the genre and offer a lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek parody of superhero comics. But in it's defense, one doesn't watch the 1966 Batman for character development. Turn off your brain, and let the ZOKS!, KAPOWS! and KERSHPLOTS! fly.

Val Kilmer's Batman was on the unlucky end of the bargain in my opinion. The shift of directors from Batman Returns' Tim Burton to Batman Forever's Joel Shumacher was a difficult situation to say the least, and the changing of lead actors in the middle of the series was a recipe for controversy. Strictly as a Batman character, I felt Kilmer did a respectable job; he just didn't add anything new or take the character anywhere different. His villains (Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey as Two-Face and The Riddler) performed admirably, despite Tommy Lee Jones's somewhat butchering of Two-Face's comic book split personality. I believe the real problem with Batman Forever was the decision to make it a messy blend of campy foolishness and mature issues. Ultimately it rode the fence on the issue, ending up with splinters in its a**.

Batman & Robin sucked on all accounts.

To return to the original issue, each person is entitled to their opinion on whether or not the serious Batman or the campy Batman is the more enjoyable to watch. It depends on what you want to see, your opinion of what the true Batman character should be, and how much you want to use your brain. At least we have more than one flavor of Batman to choose from right?