I love Zacharek's review for this film:

I've posted my initial thoughts on the film here.

Alright. I saw the movie this afternoon and I am now far, far more excited about Del Toro and The Hobbit.

I don't have a lot of time right now, but highlights:

I really enjoyed how well things worked together. I liked that things not only looked amazing, but a lot of things were set up to serve another purpose.

And initial thoughts: I got more out of this movie than a really enjoyable afternoon, some laughter and excitement. This is a movie I'm going to be thinking about for a while. One scene in particular stuck with me, and this is definitely a movie I could use clips of (if not the whole thing) for a movie-night at my college Bible study small group.

Mild non-plot spoiler:
The scene where our heroes encounter the two trolls in the troll market was one that struck me more after I left the theater. I was talking to sanshiro_sugata (we saw the movie together) about it, and noted that as adorable as the "baby" was, it actually really unnerved me after it said it was a tumor. Maybe this was just done for laughs. But that doesn't mean I can't get more out of it-- and I did. It reminded me of a scene in The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis. I'm definitely going to have to re-read that book soon. But anyway, point: The whole idea of cuteness masking something dangerous, something deadly, is one that I think is pretty relevant to life in general-- especially spiritual life, perhaps. The beginning of that scene evokes pity, while the "baby" cries to be protected; the idea that something sucking and destroying life would demand shelter under the guise of helplessness is something Lewis explores, and something that really resonated with me. I'm still working on gathering thoughts on this.

But yeah. I enjoyed this movie. Perhaps enough to actually pull together a real review so I can better recommend it to friends. It's something that's fun to watch and is potentially good conversation material. Hm.

And the make-up work! Which is one of the main reasons I went to begin with. Holy CRAP. Really liked it.

One thought I had in the theater, concerning some of the detail work and some of the fighting sequences with the Elves, was that Del Toro has managed to capture something that's perhaps more Tolkien-esque than Peter Jackson always did. And I liked the newer Lord of the Rings movies. But there was a sense of otherworldliness, evocative of the sense of myth that Joseph Campbell accused our latest centuries of losing to some damaging degree. I'm anxious to see Mirkwood, after this. Very anxious.

So, yes. I enjoyed this movie.

Interesting thoughts about the non-plot spoiler, livingeleven. I didn't quite take it the way you did, partly because the main thing it reminded me of was the symbiotic rebel leader in Total Recall, whose nature is never really questioned. (Well, except for the fact that the rebel leader, like many of his followers, is a "mutant", which sounds off-putting to our ears.) But you make some interesting points.

Saw it today, loved it.

Like livingeleven pointed out, there was a lot under the surface that really stuck with me, and will stick with me for some time. It's not a perfect movie, by any means, but did everything I wanted it to do. This is definitely something I'll see again, and again.

"Hopefully, the better-made Christian fantasy movie PRINCE CASPIAN will make a whole lot more money than HELLBOY II, but that won’t happen if the world’s Christians don’t take a stand to choose the good and reject the bad."
-From Movieguide's review of Hellboy 2

It is all our faults for not making Caspian the biggest hit of the year, apparently, but I am pretty sure that Andrew Adamson doesn't have one-fifth of Guillermo Del Toro's vision or filmmaking skills.

I don't know what I was expecting. I mean, it is called Hellboy. That right there is enough to get a bad review, even without the "mixed pagan worldview with strong Romantic elements where people make emotional decisions".

I remember reading that the other day, and I thought, "Why do I do this to myself? The only thing reading Baehr's reviews accomplishes is me getting angry."

I like how one of the big concerns, in that review, is the "left-wing ideology." Because taking care of creation is bad, of course.

This line is great from the MovieGuide review:

QUOTE

no actual sex scenes but the villain lightly strokes his sister’s cheek in a too-familiar way

Yeah, like WALL-E, which he calls one of the greatest films ever made, didn't have some of the same "ideology."

I told my thirteen-year-old brother I was going to see this, oh, two or three weeks ago when we were talking about movies that were set to come out this summer. He was shocked and I think a little afraid that college has "ruined" me. I talked to him about it though, and explained my reasoning and will talk to him about it again. I now have things to tell him about what I really did get out of the movie, other than a fun few hours.

Honestly, as much as I'm looking forward to The Dark Knight, I'd rather him watch Hellboy 2. It's a case of a misleading name, when the truth of it is that Hellboy's origins aren't praised or viewed as a good, desirable thing.

Anyway, I just read the MovieGuide review (confession: first Ted Baehr review I've read...) and I'm not even going to try to talk about how I disagree with his review. And the sad thing is, it's not just about this movie.


- One thing, though. Why is this a bad thing? Technically, doesn't the Bible warn us about evil disguising itself as goodness? I thought some of this was actually an interesting analogy for seeing things for what they really are-- it could even be carried over to "heart conditions."

But anyway, because I've had more time to think about it, though there were other things in this movie I enjoyed and other things I didn't, one thing that stuck with me and that I've found myself talking about is the very capture of myth in this film-- not the corruption of it. I'm a huge, huge Tolkien fan-- I am. And I think that what he did with Elves was great. That aside: I really liked the mix of elves and fairies in this film because of the very roots of those myths they sprang from. The idea of an otherness, at odds with the human race, was pretty cool. One thing I've said a couple times recently in conversation is that even when the Christians got a hold of some of these myths (Celtic and Norse and otherwise) way back immediately post-fallen Rome, their idea of incorporating that was to keep them dangerous. Even in Beowulf, those "elves, fairies and ogres" were the things that sprang from the line of Cain, in myth, those things condemned to the shadow and darkness.

And this said, I really, really appreciated Hellboy's further struggle with that. Nuada's attempts to remind him that he was "one of them," and Hellboy's struggle with what that meant for him and his alliances, was interesting to watch. The message (whether intended or not) that someone's origin, former alliances, etc., are not excuse to keep one from doing the right thing, was one that stuck out for me.

Anyway. So. This will probably be something I watch again.

Really? Maybe I don't like WALL*E so much anymore.

The only reason anyone should read "Dr." Ted Baehr is for the comedy. Or for the sheer pleasure of shooting fish in a barrel. If he makes you angry, well, he ain't worth it.

That said, would anyone DENY that "the villain lightly strokes his sister’s cheek in a too-familiar way"? I'm not inclined to complain about this sort of thing myself, because, y'know, villains will do villainous things. (And it's gotta be weird being psychically -- even physically, in a way -- linked to your sibling-of-the-opposite-gender. There's gotta be a whole lot more intimacy to that relationship than there is in a typical brother-sister relationship, just by virtue of that link.) But what purpose would be served by denying that that element is in there?

Oh, and any reference to "Dr." Ted Baehr's thoughts on Prince Caspian must refer back to SDG's account of how Baehr complained about the lack of a "sacramental" element to that film when they both saw it at the junket.

Don't forget to rate this work by clicking "Rating", above, selecting a rating, and clicking "Rate". When five users have submitted a rating, the group rating will be displayed.

For guidance on selecting or understanding ratings, please click here.

I love this movie. I wasn't a huge fan of the first one, I thought it was well made, but with lackluster villains and a weak story. This one however, was a marvel, with great characterization and a strong villain who had clear and understandable motives.

It's like I was telling my friends afterwards, every movie these days has big, destructive showdowns between superpowered beings, but it was the other things, such as when the elemental died and began producing plants right in the city streets. or when Nuada died and lamented the fact that humanity will be poorer for losing these myths, that really make a movie memorable and distinguish Del Toro as a first rate director of popular entertainments. Bring on The Hobbit!!

FWIW, I loved the scene with the Elemental on a TECHNICAL level -- it looks brilliant, it's beautiful, it's perfectly crafted, etc. But, um, how does it fit into the STORY? I mean, where does it come from? What is there in the previous hour-or-so that establishes any sort of basis for this character? How does it fit into the mythic prologue, if at all? How does it fit into the elven culture, if at all? How does it even fit into Nuada's conflict with Hellboy, if at all? There are all sorts of story-logic questions that this scene raised, and I was willing to bracket them off for the sake of enjoying the ride, but, y'know, those questions are still there. (And I would be genuinely interested in hearing some answers, if there are any; I don't know the mythos of this series at ALL, so I might have missed something, somewhere.)

I really liked this film, too, although I found the theme of forsaking the whole world for the sake of your beloved a bit out of alignment, and "gashead's" about-face was a bit too arupt. The "elemental" fit very well into the story, IMHO.

Alan Thomas wrote:
: The "elemental" fit very well into the story, IMHO.

How, though? Sincere question.

FWIW, one plot element that bugged me was the way the female twin goes back to the good guys' lair and THEN reveals that her brother knows exactly where she is because they are psychically linked. You'd think she might have put a little more effort into hiding, staying hidden, and not endangering others!

I agree with you on that last point, though I now wonder if she ever really could hide, or even tried to, since even by herself she'd ALWAYS be linked to her brother. Perhaps her only hope was getting lost...or blindfolded.

About the elemental, though...not to answer for Alan (you'll probably remember things that I don't), but I found this sequence fit well on several levels.


Are you more concerned about the absence of plant-gods from the plot and established world, Peter? I'm not at all familiar with Hellboy outside the two movies and don't know if this creature has ever been previously mentioned. I didn't have a problem with it, though. The movie's full of magical non-elvish creatures, and after the tooth fairies and troll market cornucopia of ancient, forgotten creatures (especially the talking tumor) , I don't need an explanation for this elemental and its origins. This must depend on the viewer, though...maybe I'm just more accepting of plant-gods .

Edit: I forgot to say what I actually thought of the film. I loved it. Current favorite new release of the year (bumping Wall-E).

sanshiro_sugata wrote:
: Are you more concerned about the absence of plant-gods from the plot and established world, Peter?

Yeah. Especially since the prologue sets up the elven world as a place where people create magical MACHINES to do their bidding (such as the "Golden Army", or the crown with the interlocking pieces). I didn't get much of a NATURE vibe off of anything in the earlier scenes, so the Elemental element seemed to come from out of the blue -- especially when it turned out we were dealing not just with a jumping-bean-shaped weapon, but an actual CREATURE, even a sort of deity.

So the two have to be mutually exclusive? Maybe I'm too familiar with D&D settings, as the above is usually a given. For what it's worth, the scene didn't send any red flags up at all plot- or theme-wise.

And for what it's worth, I thought the plot was basically Del Toro's; while Mike Mignola helped with some ideas, this is an original story for the screen.

I'll do my best to answer the questions, Peter, as I saw them.

I mean, where does it come from?
I'm guessing that, for one reason or another, the elemental was captured or imprisoned. Or restrained. Remember, the elves had domain over the forests and fields. Where else would a forest elemental/god dwell? Bed, Bath & Beyond? (That would be sort of cool...) What would prevent Nuada from using the elemental? I mean, he had access to fairies and Mr. Wink, both not elves.

What is there in the previous hour-or-so that establishes any sort of basis for this character?
Based on what we know, I think there's enough to go on. (See other answers.)

How does it fit into the mythic prologue, if at all?
Humans control the cities. The fairy tale creatures have the rest, since they mention many other types of mythical creatures during the prologue. Are you discounting it because they didn't say "oh, and forest gods!" in the list?

How does it fit into the elven culture, if at all?
How does Wink, the fairies, the trolls or the the earth creature fit into the elven culture?

How does it even fit into Nuada's conflict with Hellboy, if at all?
Again, where do the other non-elves fit in? I think the forest god helped, either willingly or unwillingly, because of the whole us v. them mentality.

Jason Panella wrote:
: So the two have to be mutually exclusive?

No, of course not. But if a movie's been pointing one way exclusively all along, and then suddenly it points the other way -- or comes at you from the opposite direction -- then it's going to feel a little odd. (But I am genuinely open to the possibility that I "missed" something.)

: I'm guessing that, for one reason or another, the elemental was captured or imprisoned. Or restrained.

No kidding! Not only was the plant-god captured, he was miniaturized and turned into a just-add-water weapon.

: How does Wink, the fairies, the trolls or the the earth creature fit into the elven culture?

Well, they're all magical beasts and creatures, just like the elves. They're just animals and/or people like us. None of them rise to the level of elemental deity, as the plant-god seems to (with the possible exception of the earth creature), neither do any of them sink to the level of just-add-water gadgetry, the way the plant-god seems to.

So that's a couple reasons why the plant-god seemed like an odd fit, to me. It's still a great scene, though.

It was a seed, right? A baby plant-god, just waiting for a bit of water to sprout.

sanshiro_sugata wrote:
: It was a seed, right? A baby plant-god, just waiting for a bit of water to sprout.

Erm, well, if THAT'S the case, then you wouldn't really expect the resulting deity to be the last of his kind, would you? I mean, wouldn't the plant-god sprout seeds of his own, and keep the species going? If not, then where did Nuada's seed come from?

Two problems: pollination and small bees.

Wouldn't the plant-god need other plant-gods nearby?

I almost want to suggest that the line between the forest elemental and creature-like-us isn't that thick, but I think you have your mind made up. As far as the gadgetry, what about the fairy carrying cases? Those were magical in some sense, especially since those monstrous swarms couldn't fit in those two tiny boxes.

sanshiro_sugata wrote:
: Two problems: pollination and small bees.
: Wouldn't the plant-god need other plant-gods nearby?

Aha. Hmmm.

Jason Panella wrote:
: I almost want to suggest that the line between the forest elemental and creature-like-us isn't that thick, but I think you have your mind made up.

Hey now, don't give up so easily.

: As far as the gadgetry, what about the fairy carrying cases? Those were magical in some sense, especially since those monstrous swarms couldn't fit in those two tiny boxes.

Unless the fairies sprung from just-add-air seeds.

Anyway, the fairy-carrying cases didn't faze me at all, because we had already seen the prologue with the Golden Army, which is entirely mechanical too.

Whoa. Hellboy II slipped 70.9% this week, and fell from the #1 spot to the #5 spot. The only film with a steeper drop in the Top 16 was The Incredible Hulk, which has already been out for over a month, and which slipped from #9 to #15.

Could ‘Hellboy III’ Mean The Death Of Hellboy? We Ask Creator Mike Mignola
“The problem is, what del Toro’s talked about to me is that ‘Hellboy III’ would be the end of Hellboy,” Mignola said. “And here’s where we have the big conflict. My version of Hellboy in the comics is a finite story, but it’s going to take me 15 years to get to the ending. If he makes ‘Hellboy III’ and it’s the death of Hellboy, I’m left doing the comic going, ‘But I’m not done yet.’
“My Hellboy is not going to have kids,” Mignola added. “My Hellboy is going to die, but I want to be the one who does that. And if del Toro does my ending, there won’t be a lot of surprise when I get to the end of the comic.”
MTV Splash Page, August 6

Phew....Im glad to see Mignolia speak out. I was wondering... I hope these two are getting along though...its been such a great ride to watch their collaboration and the authentic generosity of both when credit is due.