Reviews Nov 10 2008 @ 09:00 am
REVIEW: Hellboy 2: The Golden Army
Directed By: Guillermo del Toro
Written By: Guillermo del Toro & Mike Mignola
Starring: Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones, Jeffrey Tambor, John Hurt, Seth MacFarlane
Running Time: 110 minutes
Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and some language
This review was originally published July 12th, 2008.
I’m getting tired of the marketing hook adorning trailers and television spots that reads “From Visionary Filmmaker [insert latest flavor of the week here].” While Wanted was a giddy testosterone fest that proudly flipped Physics the bird, director Timur Bekmambetov did not warrant the ‘Visionary’ label that Universal seemed determined to bestow him with.
Enter Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, Universal’s 3rd foray into comic book adaptations this summer (following Wanted and The Incredible Hulk), and once again the big wigs with the purse strings are slapping ‘Visionary Filmmaker’ over every piece of marketing fluff they can generate – posters, trailers, websites, everything. They all conspicuously display that moniker which is essentially PC speak for ‘Cinematic God.’ The only difference this time is that director Guillermo del Toro utterly deserves it.
Ron Perlman as Hellboy. Also, a big honkin' gun.
Hellboy 2 isn’t so much a comic book movie as it is a canvas upon which del Toro can apply his (apparently) limitless imagination. I’m familiar enough with the comics to know that half of the visual inventions that del Toro saturates his film with have little precedent within Mike Mignola’s original creation. The Mexican director remains true to the source material (Mignola shares a writing credit with him) but coats layer upon layer of his own ingenious characters and contraptions and creatures (oh my!) on top. Around every corner is something new and brilliant – trolls and ancient weapons and earth elementals and stone golems and steampunk armies and angels of death and…the list is endless. Each frame is lovingly packed to the brim with clever asides and meticulous flourishes of fantasy, so much so that blinking means missing out on a score of marvelous details.
The parallel that springs to mind is the Coen brother’s adaptation of No Country For Old Men. They saw in Cormac McCarthy’s nihilistic western a story that perfectly dovetailed with their own proclivities for genre, rich characterization, and abrupt violence. Rather than becoming a simple adaptation, the film registers clearly within their stylistic oeuvre. Hellboy is the same kind of muse for del Toro, the perfect foundation for him to build his playground of wonders upon, in the process becoming something more than just a simple comic book movie.
Del Toro's color palette is consistently gorgeous.
I recently began avoiding trailers for films I know I’m going to see (this results in some comical behavior, such as plugging my ears and sticking my head between my legs in theaters) and I am incredibly thankful that I did so with Hellboy 2. None of the surprises were ruined by months of advertising overload, and every revelation was just that – a revelation, and not a tick on a mental checklist of scenes from the trailer. If ever there was a film to avoid the marketing for, this is it, although that is likely an impossibility for anyone reading this.
Part of del Toro’s effectiveness stems from his reliance upon old school methods of cinematic wizardry like makeup, prosthetics, and puppetry. There is, to be sure, an abundance of CGI, but del Toro always favors tactile creations when possible, turning only to computers when absolutely necessary. This gives his fantasy a connective, real world aesthetic that is notably absent from many CG blockbusters. The three Star Wars prequels suffered mortally from this digital of Achilles’ heels: because you knew that 80% of what you were seeing was pixelated hocus-pocus, you were left with a distinct feeling of ambivalence. Hellboy 2 removes that artificiality, replacing it with a what-you-see-is-what-you-get tangibility that I wish more directors would embrace (Peter Jackson, apart from del Toro, is the only one that comes to mind).
One scene in particular, where our heroes venture into the fairy tale equivalent of a black market, recalls the wide-eyed wonder of Blade Runner’s rain swept neon-lit streets, Harry Potter’s Diagon Alley, and (especially so) Star Wars’ legendary Tatooine cantina. Jam packed with fairy creatures of every conceivable shape and size and texture, but nary a computer generated one among them (granted, I may have missed something), you wish you had an in-theater pause button so you could stop and drink in every ounce of del Toro’s magic. His work here recalls the genius of Ray Harryhausen (Jason and the Argonauts) or Jim Henson or, dare I say it, early George Lucas before he developed his all-consuming green screen fetish. At the expense of sounding like a Universal shill, you’re watching a Visionary Filmmaker at work.
The detailed fantasy overload of the Troll Market.
I realize I have neglected to mention the story so far, which is partially intentional. While thoroughly acceptable and mostly entertaining, Hellboy 2 hits most of the standard superhero plot beats that we’ve come to expect and won’t rock your socks emotionally. There is the ancient foe determined to rise up and destroy the human race (ala del Toro’s own Blade II), themes of alienation and questions of “Do I really belong?” (X-Men), and romantic difficulties of the superpowered variety (Spiderman 2). The second act in particular is bogged down with where-is-this-thing-going script problems, and includes a movie convention that 1) I wish would be retired permanently and 2) would have believed to have been beneath del Toro: the bad pop song montage. Some John Mayer-esque crooner sings about “being a freak just like me” while Hellboy broods in the shower, and the result is so bad I wonder if it wasn’t intended as parody (I hope so, I truly do).
I will say that the mythology heavy prologue, which is usually an excuse for directors to show off their lackluster storytelling skills (see the voice over-gimped intros to The 13th Warrior and Jumper for examples of this), is adeptly handled by del Toro here. A pre-teen Hellboy is up past his bedtime watching what all little boys in the mid-fifties watched, Howdy Doody. His adopted father (played by an always welcome John Hurt), at the little red demon’s insistence, tells him the story of an ancient war between fairy folk and humans that resulted in the creation of the Golden Army. Rather than being an obligatory piece of dry exposition, del Toro approaches it from the perspective of Hellboy’s young imagination, fashioning the sequences in the vein of – what else – Howdy Doody. The effect is splendid, a kind of nostalgic, marionette populated fairy tale that sparkles with charm, and just one more indication of del Toro’s bottomless creativity.
The BPRD, or Bureau of Paranormal Research and Development.
Ron Perlman, as in the first film, is perfectly devil-may-care as Hellboy, shooting off cheeky one liners from his cigar-toting mouth and concussive projectiles from ridiculously oversized weaponry with equal abandon. The supporting cast are all colorful and unique and fully realized, from Jeffrey Tambor’s (Arrested Development) governmental overseer who pops Rolaids like candy from the stress of YouTubed appearances of Hellboy, to Selma Blair as the sweet, pyrokinetic love interest, to Seth MacFarlane (the creator and vocal virtuoso behind Family Guy) providing the voice for the deliciously wacky Johann Krauss, an ectoplasmic diving suit who embodies Van Helsing and Einstein in equal measure.
Of special note, however, is Doug Jones, who does triple duty as Abraham Sapien (Hellboy’s aquatic sidekick), the Chamberlain, and the Angel of Death. Known almost entirely for his work underneath layers of prosthetics (he played both the Faun and the Pale Man in Pan’s Labyrinth), Jones is an actor who can communicate complex emotions through the simplest of movements (his only equal is Andy Serkis, the mo-cap genius behind Gollum). Has any actor ever been able to do so much with only their fingers?
The many masks of Doug Jones, from Pan's Labyrinth to Hellboy 2.
Pan’s Labyrinth, while being an extraordinary accomplishment (and, incidentally, the film that earned del Toro enough cache to make this film), left me cold inside. I wasn’t ready to sing the praise of Guillermo like the rest of the cinematic community, but I did respect his talent from afar. While Hellboy 2: The Golden Army is not the equal of Labyrinth in terms of storytelling or emotional complexity, it has effortlessly convinced me that del Toro is one of the most talented directors working today. Visionary Filmmaker? Hell yeah. Pardon me while I go purchase another ticket so I can catch all the things I missed the first time around.
on Jul 12 2008 @ 2:44 pm 1. sartre said …
“Hellboy 2 isn’t so much a comic book movie as it is a canvas upon which del Toro can apply his (apparently) limitless imagination.”
That’s just the kind of recommendation one wants to hear when it comes to someone of his caliber.
Part of the reason I celebrated the announcement of del Toro’s involvement in the upcoming Hobbit films is that together with Peter Jackson they seem to know better than other filmmakers how best to seamlessly integrate both old school and CGI effects to create fantastic characters and worlds. They also both pay meticulous attention to even small details. This has the effect of drawing one further into a convincing fictional universe, and as such grounds everything that occurs within it in truer sensations and feelings, even if the story is as fantastic and pulpy as a Hell Boy.
I skipped the plot sections of your fine review as I’ve yet to see the film. I was going to wait for the DVD on this one, but your review together with others has me thinking I should drink in the craft on the big screen.
I can only echo your sentiment with regards del Toro – visionary filmmaker, hell yeah.
on Jul 12 2008 @ 3:40 pm 2. Blake Derrick said …
I enjoyed it too Evan. Keep the reviews coming, I’m going with a friend soon to see Speed Racer.
on Jul 12 2008 @ 3:48 pm 3. Evan Derrick said …
It’s funny you should draw the comparison between Peter Jackson and del Toro, sartre. As I was reading over my review, I was a little disappointed with some of the sections, so I rewrote part of it, expounding on exactly WHY del Toro’s use of prosthetics and puppetry is so much more satisfying than pure CG wizardry, and at the end I (too) drew the comparison to Peter Jackson.
It was only then that I scrolled down and saw your comment, reflecting my own thoughts exactly (and, actually, a bit better worded than mine were). Great minds think alike, I guess.
And as to plot sections, you can feel free to read the entire review. I’m not a blow-by-blow plot synopsizer, and if anything I discuss the plot too little in my reviews, so rest assured you’re not going to read anything that you probably don’t already know.
on Jul 12 2008 @ 4:42 pm 4. Thadd Harrington said …
Man you sound a lot like Luke in your reviews. Anyway, thanks for reviewing this. When I watched the trailer I walked away thinking ‘Meh, I’ve already seen it when I watched Pan’s Labyrinth’. But after reading what you thought of it I’ve decided to give it another chance.
on Jul 13 2008 @ 2:05 pm 5. Nathan said …
I really loved the visual side of this movie and was really disappointed with everything else. Del Toro’s creations are always amazing; they leave you with this feeling of half awe and wonder, half revulsion (especially how he works with skin). I thought he exemplified this in contrasting the twins, one evil, one ‘beautiful’. The same artistic flair made it apparent they were both creations of the same Del Toro race, but twisted *just so* so that the evil twin is tilted into that vile category oh-so-nicely. In fact, he was my favorite character from this film.
What I felt was it’s complete failure, which made me leave rather unhappy with the film, was just how much Del Toro was trying to accomplish. He tried to squeeze 15 movies and 40 characters in to 1 movie. He tried to give every character back story, tried to build an emotional attachment to all of them — and failed, leaving me with no emotional attachment to any of them. I felt that the only character that was predictable and “made sense” was the aforementioned prince. (And in case it isn’t obvious, I felt the unpredictability of the other characters’ was the bad kind, not the good kind.) There were just too many points when I said “woh — what? huh? why? that makes no sense at all.” I would have enjoyed the movie more if he wouldn’t have been so ambitious, had half as many main characters, and made one movie instead of 15.
Anyway, I went to see this with my brother and my wife still wants to see it, so I’ll probably happily go see it again for all of the eye candy, but that’s the only reason.
But I will give it this: Del Toro’s creations and fight scene choreography left my jaw on the sticky, popcorn covered floor.
on Jul 13 2008 @ 7:10 pm 6. Luke Harrington said …
I agree that del Toro is visually inventive, but as this review indicates, he doesn’t always have the substance to back it up. So I have to say I’m a little concerned about The Hobbit, although I’m sure he’ll do fine with Peter Jackson as his producer.
I’ve heard enough pseudo-raves that I might have to check this one out (perhaps at a second-run joint) — even if I didn’t care much for the first installment.
on Jul 14 2008 @ 12:58 am 7. Craig Kennedy said …
Nicely done, Evan. Like you said, we’re pretty much on the same page with this one.
As I’ve said before, I kind of liked the first one. The second one is another movie entirely. Don’t let your impression of the first let you decide whether to see this one.
And this isn’t a rehash of Pan’s Labyrinth. It’s much lighter in tone and has a different feeling overall.
The plot is definitely the weakest element, but it’s good enough to tie together some amazing visuals.
If the script is right, I have hope for The Hobbit. Del Toro has a great visual and tonal sense.
For the record, I’m in the minority of people who didn’t really care for Pan’s. It was good, but ultimately not the movie I wanted it to be. Perhaps not fair to judge a movie that way, but there it is. I’m not generally squeamish, but the ultra-violence contrasted too harshly with the fairytale elements and it put me off. I wanted more fairytale, less brutality.
on Jul 14 2008 @ 1:33 am 8. Ryan Dunlap said …
I enjoyed the film, even if I felt the soundtrack was a bit off in places for my taste… quirky jazz? Oh well. Also, I felt that the dialog was a little overworked in a couple places (or at least that some lines weren’t even needed or merely repeated information about non-plot-essential things… not that I needed to be reminded that the cigar was a Cuban…
)
The rest I liked well enough… but I’m a sucker for steampunk in any format.
on Jul 14 2008 @ 8:34 am 9. Phillip Johnston said …
Quirky jazz = Danny Elfman’s favorite style. Oingo Boingo, anyone.
on Jul 14 2008 @ 10:59 am 10. Ryan Dunlap said …
Yeah, I saw it was Elfman… it just seemed to pop in in the strangest places for me… kinda took me out of the tone of the movie that was being set up.
on Jul 14 2008 @ 1:32 pm 11. Fox said …
I agree that Del Toro’s ability to transfer his imagination to tactile screen creations is an accomplishment, but to me, the label of “visionary filmmaker” – and I don’t just mean this to be directed solely at you – is one that feels majorly misplaced.
I don’t think Del Toro is even a good director, yet. To me, he is too often concerned with impressing himself (and fan boys) instead of communicating any type of real world emotion or feeling through his themes, stories, or images.
I get the impression that he is still an immature artist. He rejects the world around him, and to me, that limits him. This comes out in the way he shows a general disdain for humanity in Hellboy II.
on Jul 14 2008 @ 4:10 pm 12. Maurice said …
I like that you used a painting analogy for Del Toro. This film reminds me of the many Picasso paintings that I have viewed. While the painting was great to look at and also try to fill in all the blanks (which I’d hoped would create a complete image), I was, in the end, left puzzled and not sure what I was looking at. I did like this film, but, like eating at a $3.99 buffet, I felt a lot was missing and I was dissatisfied at the end.
The scene in the market is a given. It was a visual delight but reminded me of all the pretty garnishes and decorations on a really bad cake. Del Toro hopped us from one extravagant character to the other, all in the hopes that the plot holes would not swallow us whole. I mean, really. There’re trolls galore, along with an assortment of goblins, demons, fairies and some guys that they shuttled over from the Intergalactic Customs line in “Men in Black”. A mélange of species but nobody notices the walking Guppy with a toilet seat slung ‘round his neck. Rubbish.
I wanted more meat on this bone, more substance than was found in the rubber PJs that Johann was wearing. There’s still such a large part of Hellboy’s canvas we need to complete. Like, is he and Liz a couple or just hanging out? What is his daily life like? Is the BPRD seeking these cases out or just waiting for the Ghostbusters phone to ring? How is Johann qualified to lead anything other than a diving expedition to collect deep sea samples? Whew! Maybe he brought that squid on the table with him. There’s such a huge back story I want to see and it was mostly ignored.
The imagery of this movie was stunning on a level never before seen in such a film. The dialog was mostly an edited vaudevillian routine from 1930. The cast was not interacting so much as bumping into each other on occasion. Rather than seeming sad and weary, Hellboy just seemed sluggish. Abe falls in love with a Princess who looks like the wife of ”Mr. Sardonicus” but we do not know why. Tom Manning is reduced to a mere prob and we wonder if his relationship with Hellboy has maybe soured? Details are so important when you have a scope of this magnitude.
Case in point: Hellboy get’s the snot whacked out of him by doors in the locker room. I will repeat that. Hellboy get knocked to the floor by being repeatedly smacked with metal locker doors. It made no sense, considering all of the airtime he spends when he is uppercut by something very strong, sails across a parking lot and is stopped by the side of the battleship he lands against, only to groan and climb back to his feet. I think the scene would have better played and been way more comical if they would have used the doors as an annoyance. It would have far better played to have the Big Red Monkey staggering back and forth like Sideshow Bob in the rake patch than to see him go down like Liston from the phantom punch.
This film succeeds on levels but fails on so many more. I liked it but the first film was way better. The plot was tighter, the characters better developed and the dialog snappy. This film was more like a shotgun blast of imagery that could not compensate for the lack of writing. The myriad of characters where blasted on the canvas like drops from the bucket and brush of Jackson Pollack. It still looks like art, but it ain’t pretty. The movie will be a box office failure for that reason.
Your reviews are terrific. I love this site.
on Jul 15 2008 @ 10:31 am 13. Rick Olson said …
“del Toro’s bottomless creativity … Visionary Filmmaker? Hell yeah.”
Like del Toro much, Evan?
I liked the original “Hellboy” for what it was: a fun, breezy comic-book adaptation, one of the better in my not-so-humble opinion. Guess I’ll have to see this one too.
on Jul 15 2008 @ 10:40 am 14. Evan Derrick said …
All legitimate concerns, Maurice. From what I’ve seen so far, the film’s constant barrage of imagery is a double edged sword – some (like myself) loved seeing what new sight was around each corner, others felt it was a “shotgun blast of imagery” that disguised the weak story. It’s always great to hear dissenting opinions, one of the reasons this here internet thing is so fantastic.
And Rick, I really didn’t like del Toro all that much until this film. Like I said in my last paragraph, his magnum opus (Pan’s) was practically DOA for me, although I’m getting ready to revisit it in light of seeing this film.
So, if anything, I’m a new del Toro convert.
on Jul 15 2008 @ 3:36 pm 15. Maurice said …
See, this….THIS is where I go R. P. Murphy.
First, don’t compare the tapestry of “Pan’s Labyrinth” to the Painting of Hellboy II.” A tapestry is a pains-taking, stitch by stitch, thread to thread work of a single individual’s creation. The details are meticulous, each thread is matched to the other in order to create an image that is pleasing to the eye and intricate. Paintings have plenty of detail buts also have broad brushstrokes to cover large areas that are, well, plain. Holes, if you will.
Second, the former films is one of seamless beauty, horror, suspense and fantasy. Look at the last few minutes of the film. Tell if it is possible to truly be sure which part of the film was real? Was she a Princess, returning to her majestic throne? Or another victim of man’s cruelty in wartime? Did any of it happen and if so, which? More importantly, where did the fantasy end or begin? Further, you can say that the horrors shown in in the reality of the film are so severe that they could be interperted as fantasy.
Evan, I am not sayig you are right or wrong, nor do I disagree that a few parts of “Pans Labyrinth” are more conveluted than the thought of any Clinton family member in a Speedo. What I am asking is that you get out the DVD, turn out the lights, plop yourself down in the chair and really, really watch this film. Use the slow-mo, turn up the THX and experience it’s lushness, the magnitude of this tapestry. It is a breathtaking film in every scope.
You write excellent reviews. Why not turn your eye and pen to this one?
on Jul 15 2008 @ 3:56 pm 16. Evan Derrick said …
Ok, gauntlet taken up, Maurice.
My original impression of Pan’s Labyrinth was, even by my own admission, completely shipwrecked by marketing and expectation. The trailers, which I had salivated over for months (see my note in this review on how I’ve rectified that little problem), gave the distinct impression of a fantasy intensive film. To provide a crass statistic, the fantasty ratio in the film is around 20%, whereas 80% of the film is comprised of the ‘real world.’
So there I was, sitting in the theater, constantly aware of how few and far between the fantasy elements were. All I could keep thinking was, “It’s been 40 freaking minutes since we saw the Faun.”
Afterwards my friends were ecstatic with the film and their experience, while I was disappointed and somewhat bitter. But, even then, I knew I was a victim of my own expectations and the vicious marketing machine.
So, I have a nice, hi-def copy of the film waiting for me at home to approach a second time. I had been hemming and hawing over it for quite some time, but now with the jolt of energy from seeing Hellboy 2 coupled with your insistence, Maurice, I am primed and ready to experience it with new eyes. Wish me luck.
on Jul 18 2008 @ 3:14 am 17. Sean C said …
Looking forward to this one. Eric mentioned how awesome it was, obviously movie of the year, maybe next 2, is The Dark Knight, but very much want to see this cinematic work of art.
Someone mentioned that Evan’s reviews are much like Luke’s, that’s so funny because I was just going to write that I like to read Evan’s more because I feel he takes a very moderated and balanced view. I think Luke tends to throw the baby out with the bath water a lot of the time… just my humble opinion. Luke is a great writer though and probably knows more and has seen more movies than I have eaten sandwiches. I’ve never counted but I think that would be a lot.
on Jul 18 2008 @ 8:37 am 18. Luke Harrington said …
Man, I was wondering what happened to my baby!
I’d be interested to hear why you say that…I’m not offended at all (quite the opposite, actually), but I am alway working to improve my writing.
on Jul 18 2008 @ 10:44 pm 19. Sean C said …
Well, first let me start by discounting my opinion. I can tell you have seen copious films and that cinema is a passion of yours. It is a fairly new developed passion of mine, maybe 4 or 5 years? I still watch only the movies that interest me and not ones that will challenge me to understand them before I like them. You on the other hand according to your writing have watched most likely every movie, both obscure and rare, that has come across your proverbial desk. For that I very much admire and respect your knowledge and writing ability. Plus you also have a great writing skill and a very colorful and full vocabulary.
On the reverse side, I tend to feel like you can be very smug towards films or genres that you don’t like. Like you’ve poised yourself and prepped yourself with disdain. The strong sentiment then protrudes in your discourse. Like the Ratatouille food critic for instance. When you’re presented with some Ratatouille like you remembered loving as a child however, you give it the praise it deserves, which is sometimes totally lost on me. Like Fool’s Gold, was that you or am I just pissing everybody off tonight? Maybe it’s because I don’t know you personally like I do Evan and in fact that could be all of it, but I just tend to think that some movies don’t have a fair squirt with you before they’re even pressed, canned and shipped to the theatre. (I think that’s the process of making film reel copies right?).
Now, I’m not comparing your writing skills and pitting one against the others skill sets. And I certainly know nothing about you personally to make a personal assumption. I just tend to understand Evan’s reprimands, remissions and justifications in his reviews more, even though he and I don’t always agree. If I had to compare I would say that Evan usually seems to give a very objective review for the things he doesn’t care for, and you on the other hand, it seems your negative sentiments can be quite palpable at times times.
Is that fair to say?
on Jul 19 2008 @ 1:57 pm 20. G said …
Luke, I think Sean just said you let your temperament dictate your reviews. Which I’m all for.
on Aug 18 2010 @ 1:18 pm 21. King Leesman said …
Thank you for the awesome article