Hellboy - pretty good!

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Ok HB is better then LXG - which starts out ok but is a laughable traversty in the end.

and the special effects in LXG are some of the worst ive seen, i swear on my life i could do better.

[Pissin' Poonani]

Ok HB is better then LXG - which starts out ok but is a laughable traversty in the end.

and the special effects in LXG are some of the worst ive seen, i swear on my life i could do better.

Yeah-I have no computer skills what so ever, and I know that a lot of skill is involved in creating them, but it does irk me a bit when a film is touted as having 'ground breaking special effects', only for it to be painfully obvious which bits are computer generated. Special effects should be something you don't realise you're watching-or should I say that they should appear so real that your disbelief remains well and truely suspended.

It's like Gollum-loads of hard work, nice result, but for me it fell flat because at the end of the day he was too obviously CG. When you consider all the great visuals in LotR, it's a shame when you get pulled out of the story somewhat because all of a sudden the real world intrudes.

Maybe it's just me.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

gollum is pretty clever, hes not perfect but not far from it, his interaction and character is pretty cool.

now LXG is seriously, seriously bad, some of the CG is so pathetic, were talkingobvious blue screen, bad coulour matching and essentially **** models.
i dont understand why, most of these things are sorted with a few mouse clicks now adays.

[Pissin' Poonani]

Then of course, there is the huge puddle of **** that is Mr Hyde in Van Helsing.

Some of my favourite CG stuff would have to include Jurrasic Park and Independence Day.

My favourite special effects though are good old rubber and glue-I thought the original Predator was fantastic, and the effects in both The Thing and Day of the Dead were superb examples of how to make the unbelievable, believable.

[Best First]

Then of course, there is the huge puddle of **** that is Mr Hyde in Van Helsing.

Then of course, there is the huge puddle of **** that is Van Helsing.

[Denyer]

ok this is my point exactly tho, HB as a movie is shown as an action film, if u watch a trailler they are suggesting action. the film comes across as an action film aswell, i could break down the number of action sequences into a time line, and its pretty action orientated.
If HB is not about this, then the film isnt being sold on this level, im being let down by this.

See any of the pre-press for American Beauty? Or for Fear And Loathing? Both great films, both had at least one awful and misrepresentative trailer.

What does how a film is marketed or what's seen in a trailer have to do with its watchability?

lord of the rings 9/10, star wars films (certain ones) 10/10 the matrix is really cool, thats like 8/10 etc... spidermans good, that would be like 6-7/10

I'd give LotR an N/A, as I'm never likely to watch it. The Matrix is an 8 for the soundtrack. The first Spider-Man film is about 5, second 6. Star Wars is a bag of numbers ranging from 4 to 7, Star Trek films 4 to 8.

Some other randomly assigned figures for comparison: Fear And Loathing = 9, Fight Club = 9, Ninth Gate = 8, Highlander = 7/8, Swordfish = 7, Armageddon = 4, Godzilla = 3, Terminator 2 = 9, Resident Evil = 4, Dogma = 8.

Probably never seen nor will see a 10, and everything 7 or above is in a band I'll happily rewatch, with rapid drop-off from 6 and below. A few films gain a bit of rewatch value for simply being laughably awful, like AI...

Films lose points for featuring any of the following: natural disasters coupled with "survival" plot, no humour, extended gun battles, romantic comedy*, gangsters, extended screen-time given to small children.

*Not necessarily a killer. I do like Four Weddings and Reality Bites, both of which are highly artificial flicks redeemed by character acting or music.

now that actually sounds far more interesting, because what we were given was big red guy helps a men in black/x-files type community fight monsters, and how does he fight them, by being big and red

He actually spends far more time getting his arse kicked (in spite of being a big red demon) by bigger and nastier monsters, when he does run across them. The character's tough in a survival sense, but far more of the interest of the comics is the laconic dialogue and the mythic/paranormal things he encounters. They're heavily sourced from real myth.

I rate Hellboy as an 8 for design (characters such as Broom), character chemistry and upholding source material. Some of the content (the kid, for example, the squad boss) is a 6, but not enough to severely knock the film. Ninth Gate isn't a tour-de-force either, but it's adroit and different enough to other films out there to hold my interest on rewatchings. Hellboy is similar. Not many films I'll willingly sit down in front of more than a couple of times.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

u never seen LoTR? oh u must!

oh raiting things is tough as some films do things well in different ways, T2 is great but the line " I now know why u cry for it is somthing i can never do" is so crap!

I dunno, for me HB just seemed average, perhaps even below. it doesnt feel even close to T2 or Fight Club tho i think i could pick 30 mins out of either of those two films and they are streets ahead.

please watch LoTR, it is rath amazing

[BB Shockwave]

I liked Hellboy, Immedietly downloaded all the comics I could find from dc++ and reading them. IMHo, I think the movie wasn't as good as the comics, but it stands his own amongst today's action movies.

IN the comics, it often irked me how the writer goes to great lengths to give us a clue how powerfull an enemy is, and then have him dispatched on 2 pages... (like with Giruescu) or kill off others, like Kroenen.

In the movie, Kroenen practically owned the film big time... even if he had not one line. I hope they use the Right hand of Doom story for the next movie (where another demon steals HBs power.)

[Best First]

Spider-Man 1 & 2 both get 9 as far as i am concerned...

[Hound]

Spider-Man 1 & 2 both get 9 as far as i am concerned...

Seconded...

[BB Shockwave]

Naah,you kidding? SM2 was laaaame. About half of the city now knows who Spidy is... plus, if Iwanna watch a Spiderman movie, Idon't want a film that's 50% romance.

The only thing Iliked in itwas the Green Goblin hints inthe end. Spider-man 1. was miles better then 2. Doc Ock was terribly done, too.

[Death's Head]

Spidey's always been about the romance. That's part of the appeal.

[Denyer]

It's always been a metaphor for adolescence, which is the turn-off.

My favourite review of the first movie was probably the one that mentioned Peter Parker swinging across town on streams of his own hardening jizz...

it often irked me how the writer goes to great lengths to give us a clue how powerfull an enemy is

Most don't have much constitution, and that's one thing Hellboy himself has—he can be hurt, but isn't likely to die. Thus the stories are never particularly about physical fights, just as Wolverine can be quite interesting when writers don't just make him run around killing things.

watch LoTR

I'd probably be up for it if someone suggested a nine or ten hour marathon with crates of alcohol. I don't doubt that the films are probably much more engaging than the books, as long and boring description isn't usually a quality of film. The booze would mostly be for the battle scenes, which I'd otherwise fast-forward.

[Best First]

Spidey's always been about the romance. That's part of the appeal.

totally.