Comments on The House Next Door: Hellboy II: The Golden Army—Take 1

Hellboy 2 was fun... for sure that director has an...

2008-07-24T07:59:00.000-04:00

Hellboy 2 was fun... for sure that director has an amazing imagination, reminded me a lot of his work in Pan's Labyrinth

There's a Barry Manilow scene? I'm totally there.

2008-07-15T11:18:06.600-04:00

There's a Barry Manilow scene? I'm totally there.

Though I too am at something of a loss when it com...

2008-07-14T18:38:03.138-04:00

Though I too am at something of a loss when it comes to articulating it, I too was left cold by Pan's Labyrinth - MZS says everything I'd like to but could not articulate half as well. Now, though, I simply must see The Devil's Backbone, as I'm already a fan of everything non-Pan's. Blade II and Hellboy are both quite savory, while I'll go somewhat out on a limb and call Hellboy II my favorite superhero movie to date (with the possible exception of Batman Returns, though a rewatch of Superman Returns (ditto) is in order as well). Matt, don't know if you've yet heard about the Barry Manilow scene, but it's very special indeed.

eh, who cares about hellboy anyways. its all just ...

2008-07-13T21:30:00.000-04:00

eh, who cares about hellboy anyways. its all just foreplay before the sex and subsequent amazing orgasm that will be the dark knight.

I'll admit, I haven't seen The Devil's Backbone ye...

2008-07-13T19:03:28.304-04:00

I'll admit, I haven't seen The Devil's Backbone yet (I look for it whenever I get movies at my library, but I don't go out of my way to see it). I might need to make an effort to find watch it, because it sounds like the film I was hoping Pan's Labyrinth would be (and I totally agree that PL took the very "basic" approach to paralleling the two worlds, which was disappointing).

I really did like some concepts and images in the first Hellboy, and of course the character of Hellboy himself, but I felt like it was bogged down with uninteresting subplots and characters. The villains themselves, while well-designed (well, that Nazi guy/thing at least), were just too boring otherwise.

I hope I don't come across as disliking del Toro, because it's actually quite the opposite. I get so disappointed in some of his films because I see how talented and capable he really is in his successes and his failures. Hellboy II is a great step in the right direction for him, in my opinion, despite some big flaws.

I haven't seen this one yet, and probably won't ge...

2008-07-13T15:57:25.999-04:00

I haven't seen this one yet, and probably won't get around to it for a while, but I wanted to say, for what it's worth, that "Pan's Labyrinth" left me cold. I loved the photography, the design, the overall atmosphere, but it was too simplistic in its conception, too much "this equals that" in the way it constructed the parallel real/fantasy worlds. I also thought the "real" incarnation of the villain should have been kinder, much more approachable, because that's how evil wins -- not by being scary to everybody, but scary to a few and falsely nurturing/protecting of the majority in order to buy complicity.

As for the fantasy/reality divide, "Brazil," for all its problems, is a far richer portrait of the effect of totalitarianism on both society as a whole and the imagination of individuals. "Pan's Labyrinth" seems to me a bland reduction of themes in Terry Gilliam's movie, which offers more complexity in individual moments (the office workers looking busy when Ian Holm's inept supervisor is watching them, then standing around watching TV when his back is turned; the shot of Michael Palin's state torturer with blood on his smock playing with his children in his office) than "Pan's" manages in its entire running time.

That said, "The Devil's Backbone" is the movie "Pan's Labyrinth" could have and should have been -- my favorite film of 2001. The image of that enormous unexploded bomb in the orphanage's courtyard is a potent metaphor for how the tensions from past political traumas get suppressed by recovering societies but don't ever disappear; it's so evocative, in fact, that it renders "Pan's Labyrinth" unnecessary. And definitely the best of Del Toro's movies. I really liked "Cronos" and "Blade II" as well; the latter has more energy and feeling than almost any other big-budget comic book movie I can think of, and does its characters and situations the honor of taking them somewhat seriously without sacrificing the spectacle/silliness factor, a neat trick. And the first "Hellboy" was a lot funkier and edgier than other films of its type, with a lot of Biblical and specifically Catholic iconography that actually had meaning within the plot but didn't pretend to possess a gravitas that the movie couldn't earn.

Bottom line: Del Toro's made one classic, a couple of very good movies and a lot of messy but interesting stuff. I think he's a spectacularly talented filmmaker; the problem is that his eye often conceives images that his dramatist's mind isn't adventurous enough, or meticulous enough, to properly support. Kevin H.'s analysis of the dragonfly image (above) is so spot-on that there really isn't any point in trying to add to it.

Peet, as you say, it can be a matter of opinion. ...

2008-07-12T09:34:15.583-04:00

Peet, as you say, it can be a matter of opinion. I personally feel that the CGI in many of del Toro's films could be better. Blade II blended it relatively well, but once it was full blown, it was a little painful to watch (or, as my girlfriend put it, "Look! Remember when CG used to look like rubber?"). Pan's Labyrinth, I tried to give a pass because I'm sure it had some budget restrictions, but if I'm being as objective as possible, the CG creatures never felt part of the world to me. From the bug-like fairy creatures (which, because of lighting and shading, never seemed as if they were actually ON the stones that they crawled) to the final shot (some sub-par greenscreening), it just didn't reach the level that I know del Toro was reaching for.

Kevin, I agree, it seems difficult to put into words a lot of what I find wrong with films like Pan's Labyrinth, but I'll admit that some of it is that I haven't tried hard enough. I know how I feel abstractly, but I've never tried to put it as a full, written essay.

Zach, you seem to have a valid point about Pan's Labyrinth's world, but I will say that, as I stated earlier, I would have preferred to have the sense that there could be more to this world lurking beneath, and I never felt that. Again, I blame some of that on the lack of personality with some of the fantasy world, but I'm sure there's more to it that, as Kevin says, is more difficult to define (I'm not trying to use that as a cop-out, my brain is just kind of mushy at the moment).

As for the imposed theme, sure, Nuada mentions it later near the end of the film, but it felt like a feeble attempt to connect it. I know that's kind of vague, and perhaps part of it is a matter of opinion (what isn't?), but it doesn't feel like much care is taken to nurture that theme. It's a little more acceptable if you look at it as a continuing theme from the first film to the next. The first film showed glimpses of what could happen if Hellboy fulfills some sort of destiny (an apocalyptic future is in store), and that's confirm by a character in Hellboy II, but Nuada's words feel disconnected from that thread. Plus, its placement and frequency in the film just make it feel like an afterthought.

Hence why I felt like it was pretty much abandoned.

While Pan's Labyrinth didn't have the "fully reali...

2008-07-12T02:32:00.000-04:00

While Pan's Labyrinth didn't have the "fully realized" world that Hellboy 2 did, it seems significant that the former was a world restricted to the imagination of a young girl. Much more than that and we would have complained of the impossibility of a world like that coming out of the mind of someone so young.

As for the attempt made at the halfway point to impose the major theme onto Hellboy himself, it didn't seem totally abandoned after that. Prince Nuada whispered into Hellboy's ear once again, at the film's end. The second time he not only referred to the earlier scene but also set the stage for a third film (as Del Toro has hinted), in which perhaps the dilemma of choice will be focused on Hellboy.

It's interesting to see this attitude towards del ...

2008-07-11T22:35:00.000-04:00

It's interesting to see this attitude towards del Toro's work scurry out into the open because I've felt a similar ambivalence towards all of his films (or all the ones I've seen, anyway) and for very similar reasons; but all I can ever find online is towering praise, everywhere I look. And it's almost unsafe to post criticism (blasphemy!) because of the immediate knee-jerk response you're likely to get (see first commenter above). Anyway, thanks for coming out in the open, or popping out of the woodwork or whatever: glad to have some critical support out here.

Unfortunately, the only expressions or critical evaluations we mild detractors can level at del Toro's films seem to be terribly vague, banal and generally unsatisfactory. I think this is because our negative reaction to his work is based on an intuitive sense that something is out of joint in his film worlds (the intention doesn't equal the result, the creatures and the surrounding world don't mesh, the film's cosmology is incoherent), which feels very real and convincing in the theater, but is difficult to communicate after the fact. It's an airy, ephemeral thing and it's brutally hard to define, especially in the face of such violent partisanship as Pan's Labyrinth has managed to accrue ("world's greatest Masterpiece of all time!", etc.) -- there's simply no room in which to develop such a curious negative response because of the surrounding din of slavering approval.

And so the best we can come up with is: "The film does not follow a consistent internal logic but rather the whims of its wildly inventive writer-director. Events occur because they must in order to create/reach the writer-director's desired effects/conclusion, but rarely is there a sense that the whole of the film is cut from the same cloth: it's all made up of little bits that he knows he wants to include but can't figure out how to justify or incorporate coherently." What the hell does that even mean? How do you define "non-depth"? (Or "thinness", as you've termed it.) Kinda hard.

One of the things that always bothers me about PL is the "ambiguity" of its conclusion (and the supporters are big on highlighting this as one of the films greatest traits/strengths): is the fantasy universe real and distinct from the "real world" of fascist Spain, or is it merely a figment of Ofelia's imagination? Does she escape the hardships of life on earth and become a princess in the (delightfully monarchal and patriarchal) fantasy universe, or is this merely a final dream of an imagined world that she created, called up one last time as the life slowly drains out of her?

It's a compelling notion, but I think del Toro undercuts it entirely by precisely failing to maintain any such ambiguity: sometimes the fantasy world is demonstrably real (Ofelia escapes from a locked room with chalk) and sometimes there is an atttempt to create a conflict of perspectives, such as when the Captain discovers Ofelia's rotting-root-in-sour-milk concoction, and we see both the "real" and the imaginary versions; but where's the ambiguity if, as on some occasions, there is no other explanation?

Even del Toro's camera fails to treat the real and fantasy worlds ambiguously. Consider the beginning of the film when Ofelia first interacts with the golden fairy. In order to maintain ambiguity, the camera should stay with Ofelia while the fairy flies off so that we remain uncertain as to whether she actually saw the creature or merely imagined it (the camera reflecting her fantastic worldview). But here, Ofelia's carriage drives on and we're left watching the little dragonfly flit about the screen: we are seeing this creature within this film's "reality" and there's very little ambiguity about it because it is an objective viewpoint, no longer just Ofelia's. So now we have both the camera and specific events telling us that the fantasy world really does exist.

The problem then becomes: what meaning does the film have if Ofelia actually escapes to the fantasy world? Her sacrifice is rewarded by ascendence to the thrown of fantasy-land? Not very compelling, even if we imagine that the film takes on a wistuflly ironic tone ("wouldn't it be nice if...? But we all know that this is bullshit"). If the final sequence is a complete fantasy, a last ditch effort to escape the pain and suffering of her existence under fascist rule, an imaginary reward offering (empty) solace to a girl who's slowly dying, well shit, that's crippling. But the claims of ambiguity ultimately render the film thematically incoherent, imo, and they don't stick because del Toro makes the fantasy world "real" anyway.

It just doesn't "add up". *sigh* More vague and banal complaints about a film that intuitively rubs me the wrong way....

In my opinion, Guillermo Del Toro has always been ...

2008-07-11T17:25:00.000-04:00

In my opinion, Guillermo Del Toro has always been exceptionally masterful in handling CGI.

Speaking for myself, I was actually referring to b...

2008-07-11T11:50:00.000-04:00

Speaking for myself, I was actually referring to both the magical realm and fascist Spain. For me, neither setting gave the impression of existing at all beyond the frame: the magical realm seemed like a pretty set and the "real world" seemed exceptionally cartoonish. There were several things I liked about Pan's Labyrinth but I never felt that they added up -- not to a larger world, not a larger set of themes, not to much of anything. A big disappointment for me, since it was the movie in which I expected del Toro to make the leap.

I can't speak for Infrequency, but when I refer to...

2008-07-11T09:57:44.290-04:00

I can't speak for Infrequency, but when I refer to Pan's Labyrinth's "world" I'm talking about the fantasy, magical realm.

Some brief thoughts on the film, to begin to "explain myself" :-)

I liked the character of the faun, but there really wasn't much else going on in that fantasy world. I mean, the Pale Man showed interesting character design, but he was there for all of, what, 2 minutes? And he was kind of pointless, as was the toad. Or at least it felt that way.

I was disappointed walking away from the film because the faun was the only character (again, in the fantasy realm) that displayed any personality, and the only one that hinted at any sort of depth beyond what we were seeing (that includes depth to his character as well as depth to the fantasy world). The rest just seemed like concepts conveniently thrown in there to give Ofelia something to do.

Instead of feeling like I was seeing the tip of the iceberg, I felt as if these characters were just in the film because the plot dictated it. As a result, the final shot's impact was almost lost on me.

I'm curious as to what we're referring to when we'...

2008-07-11T09:39:01.326-04:00

I'm curious as to what we're referring to when we're talking about a film's "world. " Are we talking about the magical realm or the setting of fascist Spain? Or do you mean "world" in a different sense?

Nice take. I've had the same feelings about del To...

2008-07-11T02:00:00.000-04:00

Nice take. I've had the same feelings about del Toro -- always tantalized but never quite sold. Yet I can never stop giving him another chance, so I'll surely see Hellboy II and it sounds like I'll be slightly underwhelmed again.

I'd be interested to hear one of del Toro's advocates defend him against the charge that his films tend to offer "paper-thin" worlds. This rang quite true to me about Pan's Labyrinth in particular.

"Under-developed" Pan's Labyrinth?!!!!!!What?!Expl...

2008-07-11T00:25:00.000-04:00

"Under-developed" Pan's Labyrinth?!!!!!!

What?!

Explain yourself!!!!!