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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The rest I liked well enough… but I’m a sucker for steampunk in any format.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.