This was actually quite enjoyable. I don't think I would've recognized Ron Perlman if I didn't already know he was in the thing. He does a great job and really seems a lot younger than he must be in real life.
The female lead -- I've seen her somewhere before -- is quite good too.
I thought this movie was at least as good an adaptation of a comic book as my prior favorite: = Tank Girl
Basically, it had a good plot, it was full of action, and the villains were interesting.
Lots of good jokes and plays on words in there too.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I haven't seen it yet, but I have to know:
Is HellBoy John L? Is the fire-girl his Kama?
*impatient
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I recognized Ron Perlman almost instantly, actually. To me, it just looks like Ron Perlman with a layer of red latex over his face.
But your prior favorite comic book movie was Tank Girl? That really makes me not want to see Hellboy. Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
My mom saw this last week (and she is a Merchant Ivory-type movie person! ), and she thoroughly enjoyed it. Shocked the heck outta me!
She warned me that it was too scary and violent for my six-year-old, though. (Just a caveat for Hatrack parents *smile*)
I can't wait to see it.
Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
My friend Rob and I saw it last weekend. We both thought it was an utter piece of crap.
The plot was boring. The acting was boring. The lines were cheesy. The graphics weren't even that great compared to what I've seen in other movies today.
I was struggling not to fall asleep.
As my friend and I left the theatre, I told my friend, "Man, that was more than 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back."
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
This from the guy who fell asleep in Lost In Translation Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tank Girl was on TV the other day and I watched part of it. I've never seen the comic, but I imagine that you have to enjoy the comic to enjoy the movie. I couldn't find anything to like in it. Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:My friend Rob and I saw it last weekend. We both thought it was an utter piece of crap.
What movies do your friend Rob and you like?
Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
Hey, I had seen Lost in Translation before , and was running on 6 hours of sleep in three days. I had plenty of reason to fall asleep.
Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
What movies do we like? We saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind and liked it a great deal.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Never heard of them.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Wait, I bet you don't like "mainstream" music either, right? You heard all the "good" bands before they were big? You only like "meaningful" films?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind WAS great.
...and so was Dumb and Dumber (the original) Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
That's a single movie, not two? Even more telling. How many theatres did it play in? I'm willing to bet why Hellboy wasn't entertaining to Noah.
Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
quote:Wait, I bet you don't like "mainstream" music either, right? You heard all the "good" bands before they were big? You only like "meaningful" films?
Actually, I like a mix of mainstream and non-mainstream bands, more of the bands being mainstream.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Why attack Noah? Where's the j/ks??
(protects Noah) He has the right to dislike any movie he wants to, the poor boy!!!!
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Then name a mainstream movie that played in general theatres that you liked recently.
And what, I need to put those stupid "j/k" things every time I'm poking fun at someone? I'm not attacking, you big baby. Posted by Pepek (Member # 3773) on :
No.. burn him.. if he really is Noah he's got another female version of himself somewhere around to take his place..
- Sir Montague
Ps~ Hellboy is worse then Britney Spear's movie 'CrossRoads'...
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
WHY!? WHY MUST YOU DENY ME MY MELODRAMA!?!?
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!!!!???
Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
Um, John, Eternal Sunshine's pretty mainstream. It's playing in 1,200 theaters or so and has made $23 million in three weeks so far. Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet...
Granted it's not blockbuster Hollywood schlock, but it's not exactly Run Lola Run.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I am thinking of the children. That's why I'm teaasing Noah.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
(sobs noisily and messily)
Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
quote:No.. burn him.. if he really is Noah he's got another female version of himself somewhere around to take his place..
Eh?
And John L, I, and some others, simply didn't find your "teasing" to be funny. Granted, I doubt you meant it to come across as an attack, but that's how it came across.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I didn't find your opinion to be very worthwhile, but you gave it anyway. I'm sure you weren't attacking when you gave it, but it came across that way anyway. Sucks, don't it?
Oh, and Cow, I still never heard of it. Is it a chick flick?
[ April 10, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, John L.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Then why does mine always get bitched at?
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Meaning John L. is entitled to his opinion as well... Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
I think it's your abrasive online tone.
Must be cuz you're from New Jersey.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Prolly the latter.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Yeah. It's just because when you gave your opinion, it sounded like a personal attack. Unless you were one of the people that made the movie, him saying he thought it sucked, though perhaps not the best choice of words, was not a personal attack on you.
As for me, I'm jazzed to see the movie. It looks like something I'll like.
Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
Well, the former is likely caused by the latter.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: Prolly the latter.
yah prolly
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I might actually see this, it looks fun at a time when all the movie seem either hyper-dramatic or mindlessly numb.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
perhaps CM is a big fan of Brakhage?
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Dis is a vonderful movie! Ron Perlman is a sexy as all hell quasi-demon Guillermo del Toro did a wonderful job of adapting the graphic novel format to the screen and stayed true to the feeling of the original. He apparently waited for 5 years to make the movie because the money people wanted a generic action hero (Vin Diesel and the Rock being the highest on their list), but he held out for Perlman. Inspired.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Eternal Sunshine?
Was it ok? The trailor left me with a strong sense of "and here we go... downward that slippery slope of success*
Fallow
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is playing in every single one of the mainstream theaters within driving distance of my apartment. It is a very good movie.
If it weren't playing in a mainstream circuit theater, it would still be a good movie. The fact that lots and lots of people didn't see a movie does not mean it's artistic onanism that is to be ignored.
It also doesn't mean it's good.
In this case, it happened to be good. Very good.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
how so?
The trailor was stupid.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Noah attacked the film. I don't see that he gave any reasons that couldn't be explained by his tiredness. I used to be like that myself, though. Going long periods on little sleep isn't that different from drinking. It makes you feel cool, but your perception is distored.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Actually, I thought Lost in Translation was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
I am not surprised that Noah fell asleep in it. That's because NOTHING HAPPENED!!!!!!!
*cries*
Talk about 2 hours you'll never get back. I have been going through the reviews and things trying to figure out how everyone liked it. It boggles my mind.
I was going to write a little review talking about how boring and pointless it was, but my recap itself was boring.
How you people were duped into liking it is a mystery to me. I am pretty sure the critics had a bet with eachother that if they all reviewed it really good, the public would follow along.
Can someone explain how it managed to get best screenplay? Can you name one piece of dialog that was deep or interesting or even ORIGINAL?
When reading all the reviews, this is the one that actually I related to:
quote:What I mean to say, is, there's only so many times you can point out that a) the movie is boring and b) nothing happens in the movie and c) yes, it really is that boring, and d) no, I'm serious, nothing happens, and e) no, I'm not kidding.
That sums up my watching experience perfectly.
I really WANTED to like this movie. When it was over I even tried to tell myself I did. Then I was like "No, actually that sucked, and no amount of revisionist memory is going to change that".
Can someone PLEASE explain this mystery to me.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Oh and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind is one of my favorite movies ever. Go see it John.
Stuff actually happens in it! Lots of stuff!
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
I liked Hellboy a lot. I never read the comic, but if it's anything like the movie, maybe I should. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I haven't read the Hellboy or Tank Girl comics, but I would if I could. Basically, the thing I liked about Tank Girl was the whole plucky female versus the establishment theme and how funny most of it was.
I liked Hellboy because it was just a really fun action flick. It wasn't scary or bizarre, just good fun.
And the villains are truly interesting characters.
Oh well...it's not like it's a 4-Star cinematic triumph. But it certainly delivered $3.50 worth of matinee-style entertainment. .
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
The people who say nothing happens in Lost in Translation would be the same type who say that there's no conflict at all in Remains of the Day.
Just because a film doesn't pander to the audience and choreograph everything by saying "This is the conflict! This is what the movie's about!" doesn't mean that TONS of things aren't happening.
In my view, LiT is about two people, who are in many ways very similiar to each others' spouses, but on different ends of the experience spectrum. They're both disillusioned with their lives, but through their friendship and understanding of each other, they come to understand their spouses - and themselves - a little better.
Plus it also has some wonderfully funny moments.
It's funny that OSC in his review stated that he couldn't see why anyone would have any desire whatsoever to visit Japan after seeing this film. I found that ironic because this film cemented in me the growing desire to not only visit Japan, but to live there a while and to learn the language.
I don't piss on 'Mainstream' movies because they're mainstream - I piss on mainstream movies that are simply not good movies. I just don't go to comedies whose trailers don't even make me laugh (IE, Dodgeball, Garfield, etc).
Action movies it's different. Many generic detective flicks don't interest me. But I totally enjoyed my moviegoing experience when seeing The Mummy Returns. It was a great popcorn flick, and I had a blast at it.
But just because I tend to like and watch more movies that make me THINK more than the mindless popcorn experiences, does that somehow make me a snob?
I knew Noah had been running on 6 hours of sleep, and that he'd seen LiT before. I was making a bit of a joke - I was there with him at the time. I don't think he took my jab too seriously. John, you wouldn't leave it alone, and started making additional, totally off-topic assumptions. There's a difference, bro.
So yeah - it's possible to like mainstream movies AND lesser known 'cerebral flicks'. It's possible to like underground music AND listen to mainstream music.
It's also possible to disagree with someone and not be a jerk about it.
To which I will also say, just because one doesn't like a movie, doesn't mean that it 'sucks'.
There are plenty of films I don't enjoy, but whose artistic merit I can appreciate. They're just not my cup of lemonade.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Y'all have completely missed the point of this thread.
Is HellBoy an accurate representation of John L? Is the fire-girl his Kama?
Let's stay on topic, people.
*foot tapping impatiently
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"But it certainly delivered $3.50 worth of matinee-style entertainment."
WHAT??????????????????????
Did you say a MATINEE is 3.50??????????
That is IT. I am moving to Texas. Well, no I am not, but darn it, how much is a regular time show?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
TAlk to Bob, he might know someone who will rent to you for cheap.....of course, he would then HAVE to move it with Dana, so......he might be really easy to convince.....
Hell of a commute, though.....
Kwea
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:Just because a film doesn't pander to the audience and choreograph everything by saying "This is the conflict! This is what the movie's about!" doesn't mean that TONS of things aren't happening.
But it does mean it's not successfully working as a movie, because pandering to the audience is what a successful movie does. The exceptional ones do it without us ever knowing it. Granted, I've never seen Lost in Translation, so I can't say whether it did this or not.
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
I loved the movie for the drama bits, but was disappointed by the "action" moments. The villians were good, but I thought the monsters were just rediculous and I was grimacing and bored during those fights. I liked the storyline much better.
I liked both Lost In Translation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, although I do admit to having to be in the mood for "arty" movies or I get grumpy. They are intriguing for the art/direction/philosophy and not for the storyline and the pacing is very different. Hellboy is NOT an arty movie.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: pandering to the audience is what a successful movie does
Succesful in the case of money? Oftentimes. Because, sadly, the mass majority of the moviegoing public wants to be pandered to.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
It's called business. If you spend millions of dollars making a movie, then proceed to not have that movie cater to audiences, then it is not successful as art or as a business venture. Even the artists of the Renaissance understood this.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i love the hellboy comic, and was a little worried about the movie. i still wish they put out an animated feature, but the movie wasn't half bad. it was fun, at least. i didn't regret seeing it, though it honestly doesn't hold a candle to the comic. a laser pointer, maybe. i think selma blair made a good liz sherman visually, though her voice grated on me a bit -- but she still did a good job. it really wasn't a bad go, but i would really like to see mike mignola collaborate on an animated series of sorts. i think i know what i also really missed: the comic is such a perfect mixture of detail and simplicity. mignola draws beautiful ornate sculptures and half lit tombs, huge explosive fight sequences, and small perfectly still single panel shots of that one thing amiss that only the reader gets to see. it is really well done. i don't think the movie quite captured that essence of the comic that keeps me so drawn to it. i would actually really like to see a sequel, though.
i LOVED eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. very poignant film, and not only was it meaningful and deep, it was also entertaining. i loved what a totally hopeless jerk elijah wood was.
and i like lost in translation as well.
Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
Argent, do you believe that a work of art can choose *not* to cater to the public, yet still be popular?
What I mean is, can't a work draw the public to it because of its inherent quality, creativity and power? Can't a work forge public desires, rather than be governed by them?
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Not if it's being made by an industry meant to make money off of it, which films are. If artists want to make art that makes a statement not trying to cater to a paying public, then they can do it on their own dime, not the money of others, and definitely not by spending millions of a large business' dollars without gaining a pre-agreed upon return. I don't know of any members of the MPAA who do charity.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
That may change after Gibson payed for every penny of THE PASSION himself.
-
Also, I wouldn't consider any of Charlie Kaufman's films 'pandersome' at all. They're all risky ventures - the fact that they have Star Power has admittedly helped them a lot in getting people to come in the first place, but the wor dof mouth at how good they are keeps people coming.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Oh, and in response to
quote:without gaining a pre-agreed upon return
You're obviously not familiar with the real Number One Rule in Hollywood:
Nobody Knows Anything.
In otherwords, there's no such thing as any guarantees. Some of the biggest flops in cinema history were films that, according to the 'formulas', casts, and projections, everyone expected to be hits.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Gibson's Passion movie had the biggest pandering target of all: The Catholic Church. It's not even that good of a movie, but because it follows Catholic passion plays to a tee, thus pandering directly to the largest common denominator, it was a shoo-in.
Whoever you mentioned after that would have no films played without some kind of big names. Even movies that cater to public interest need to pay for big names to get adequate screen time to earn back money. Art is a business, just like everything else. Movies that are no good for business will wilt and rot away, unless they're scooped up after the original author is long gone and praised as a legacy work. The idea of the art leading the crowd, instead of the other way around, is a completely 20th century idea, as far as I know. I can't think of a single art movement or medium that was that way before the 1900s.
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Oh pish and tosh.
Who cares?
If I enjoy a thing (movie, book, comic, whatever), who cares?
I read lots of trashy novels. LOTS. Do I think about whether or not they are 'art' while I am enjoying the story? I try not to (it ruins the pacing of the plot). Do I think about how much money is involved? Sometimes, if the story is very badly written, I think "Why is this book selling like gangbusters?". Otherwise, nope.
I'm in it for the jollies, people, pure and simple. I live a simple life and I have simple pleasures. Don't ruin it for me with this "yes, but is it ART?" crap.
Robert Rodriguez (Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Spy Kids) made his first, very successful film (Desperado) for very little money. Now he has an in-home studio. A verrrry nice home studio. He makes lots of money. Good for him! Is it art?
Who. Cares.
I want to see HellBoy, I enjoyed the Tank Girl film, and I want to be Robert Rodriguez when I grow up. So there. Nyahh!
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
The 'person I mentioned after that', Charlie Kaufman, is the writer of Being John Malkovich, Human Nature, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Now, Hollywood actors are CLAWING at getting a chance to be in a Kaufman script. Not because of the money, but because he writes fascinating, bizarre and amazingly fun to act roles.
And stories that people can't stop thinking and talking about once they leave the theater, even though they haven't been 'pandered too'.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: Robert Rodriguez (Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Spy Kids) made his first, very successful film (Desperado) for very little money
I think you mean "El Mariachi" for his first film...
Posted by StallingCow (Member # 6401) on :
See, as for the art thing, I think that is just a broadening of the discussion. Lemme get back to movies.
I think the pandering has gotten more out of hand recently - more than it has in the past.
We seem to be seeing three types of movies coming out of Hollywood:
- Sequels - Adaptations - Remakes
Now, granted, some of the adaptations are done very well. And some of the remakes (okay, not many) are worthwhile. Even some of the sequels have merit, on occasion.
But these films are glutting the box office. Sure, every so often we get an original movie, but it's pretty rare. It's getting to the point where it's not simply pandering to the public, but making every effort to dupe the public into paying money for something they don't really want to see. They only *think* they do, because the trailer hits the right Pavlovian triggers.
Underworld is a good example of that.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I was pretty disappointed with Hellboy. Maybe my expectations were too high. I didn't think it was subtle at all and there was hardly anything in there that I haven't seen done better in other movies. Del Torro should have done Blade 3 instead.
As to The Passion's box office appeal and expectations, Jon Stewart said it best (as usual):
quote:Who knew a religion with over 2 billion followers would make for such lucrative box office?
And in response to Mel Gibson's interview with Bill O'Reilly:
quote:Yes, it's a courageous move, releasing a pro-Jesus film in America. Very unusually bold.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Taal,
quote:
quote: pandering to the audience is what a successful movie does
Succesful in the case of money? Oftentimes. Because, sadly, the mass majority of the moviegoing public wants to be pandered to.
I will NOT be pandered to! In fact, the only way that Hollywood can get me to go see a movie if if they specifically DO NOT pander to me!
But what if the mass majority of the moviegoing public wants to see pandas?
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I LOVE being pandered to. That's why I liked The Last Samurai so much.
It depends on whether the pandering is very very obvious, though. And whether your pandering to the common denominator or small groups, who individually appreciate it.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
*Spoilers*
If Hellboy can talk to the dead, why didn't he try to talk to the professor when he died? I guess one explanation is that Hellboy can only talk to people in hell... does the comics explain this?
Yes, I'm the same type of person who believe LOTR would be a much better book if the eagles dropped off the hobbits at Mt. Doom. Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Thank you, Taalcon. I always get Desperado and El Mariachi mixed up. Don't ask me why. I don't have a good reason. *grin*
Appealing to the lowest common denominator, unfortunately, usually makes good business sense. For example: American Pie.
Ugh.
I laugh in spite of myself.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Look out! A grenade!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I saw Hellboy, and it was... okay. Effects were good, story was decent, Perlman was perfect. I thought the stuff with the firegirl were kinda weak, but my biggest complaint was that the ending was bleah for my tastes. I can't offer specifics without ruining the ending, but there just didn't seem to be enough of a dramatic buildup, especially for the final fight, for me to care. And the closing firegirl scene seemed to come out of nowhere.
So, OK, but no reason for me to see it again.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Taalcon, I saw none of those movies, only heard about one of them being in theatres, never heard of the others, and I wonder how you know so much about what Hollywood actors are doing to get into his films. You seem to have an idealistic view towards those making movies, and you refuse to accept that moviemakers are generally out to make money. There are some idealistic writers and actors, yes. Those idealistic people, to survive in the business, must often cater to the demands of a business where they do not get everything they want all at once. A business. We, the regular people, are the customers. Refuse to give the customers what they want, and they stop patronizing your shop. That's simple business, and that's how Hollywood works.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
see, i always thought it was abe that was the most intense about liz, so that kinda bothered me. and i agree about the ending.
if nothing else, they rendered abe sapien perfectly.
[ April 11, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Aaagh, someone mentioned Brakhage!!
*gouges eyes out*
Brakhage was one of my film advisor's favorite filmmakers. It was such a pity, too, because I loved everything else he had us watch...
But Brakhage? I've seen more than ten of his films, in several different formats, and every single one is offensive, impossible to understand, and/or headache-inducing.
So enough bitching about "Lost in Translation" fans being "film snobs" who hate the mainstream. Give me a break.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: Taalcon, I saw none of those movies, only heard about one of them being in theatres, never heard of the others, and I wonder how you know so much about what Hollywood actors are doing to get into his films.
Perhaps because a) I am a student filmmaker myself, b) I read the daily industry trades, c) many of my teachers are people who have, or still do, work in the industry (One of my teachers has directed both Leonardo DiCaprio and Angelina Jolie).
In short, this is my field. I do research. I stay in touch. I know what's going on a little better than those who just make assumptions based on what they see and what their friends say.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Then you should know more than anything about how it's a business, and those who watch are your customers.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
), and she thoroughly enjoyed it. Shocked the heck outta me!![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)