Archive for guillermo del toro

DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK (2011)

Posted in 2011, Cinema Knife Fights, Demons, Monsters, Remakes with tags , , , , , , , , , on August 29, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK (2011)
By L.L. Soares and John Harvey

(THE SCENE: A Rhode Island mansion in the middle of nowhere. L.L. SOARES walks to the front door and knocks loudly. JOHN HARVEY pulls open the door to find LS smoking a cigarette and carrying a large tank on his shoulder that has a skull and crossbones on it. LS notices dozens of small homunculus-like troll creatures crawling all over Harvey. One is passed out on top of his head, though he seems not to notice.)

LS: You the man of the house?

JH: I guess so. Apparently, I can’t live anywhere except creepy old houses in Rhode Island. What’s with the big tank o’ poison?

LS: I’m the exterminator. I came here to get rid of your pests. Errr … those pests.
JH: Oh these little guys? Nah. They’re fine as long as you keep them liquored up. They’ll even clean up a bit if you get them the good stuff. Would you rather review the new movie DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK?

LS: Well, if I’m not going to be doing an exterminating today, I guess so.

JH: Excellent! Come on in.

(LS and JH walk into an incredibly ornate library with huge leather chairs.)

LS: Holy Jeez! Are we reviewing a movie or kicking off an episode Masterpiece Theater?

JH: Har-dee-har. Make with the reviewing already.

LS: DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is being promoted as the new Guillermo Del Toro movie, but he just produced it and co-wrote the script. The film was directed by newcomer Troy Nixey, whose only previous credit is a short film called Latchkey Lament (2007), which obviously impressed Del Toro enough for him to hire the guy to direct this movie.

JH: True, but it’s got Del Toro’s fingerprints all over it. Ranging from the look and feel to the pacing and characterization, I’d say that Del Toro spent a fair amount of time looking over Nixey’s shoulder. Anyway, what’s it about?

(One of the little trolls brings LS a Tecate beer.)

LS: Hey! Thanks little guy. (Pops the can open) I guess you’re not so bad after all. Well, the movie kicks off with a sour-faced little girl named Sally (Bailee Madison) going to live with her father Alex (Guy Pearce—who you might remember from MEMENTO [2000]) at his new mansion. Alex, an architect and restorationist, has sunk all of his money into remodeling a big old house for resale and to restart his career. And it is a pretty amazing-looking joint. Alex is accompanied by his interior decorator/girlfriend, Kim (Katie Holmes, who you might know as Mrs. Tom Cruise, but she’s also a decent actress with movies like BATMAN BEGINS [2005] to her credit. I remember her back when she was Joey on DAWSON’S CREEK [1998 – 2003]). Bailee is a sad little girl who takes anti-depressants and feels like her mother is punishing her by sending her to live with her dad. Obviously, this kid didn’t take the divorce very well. Alex tries to cheer Sally up, but she’s a hard nut to crack, and Kim is sure that Sally hates her. So much for a fresh start.

JH: I believe that Sally’s mom really is punishing her, because Guy Pearce plays an incredibly monotone, detached, and distracted dad. Honestly, this kid did not hit the jackpot in the parents department. This plays up Del Toro’s common use of a fairytale story structure…

LS: Too common, if you ask me.

JH: …where parents are almost placeholders rather than developed characters. Whereas, Katie Holmes performance is both warm and believable at the same time. I think that she did the best acting in is movie.

LS: I agree with most of what you just said, pardner. But more on that later.

(The little creatures serve LL and JH finger foods while wearing tiny butler outfits.)

LS: Honestly, you have the best infestation EV-ER! Anyway, I thought Bailee Madison was an interesting choice to play Sally. Usually, you’d see a cute kid in this kind of role, but Bailee kind of looks like she’s always sucking on a lemon. And in some scenes, she looked to me an awful lot like a miniature version of Katie Holmes—maybe it was the hair—which I found kind of creepy.

JH: Yeah. I didn’t see the resemblance. But I agree that it was an interesting and good choice to use a child actor that wasn’t a Dakota Fanning knock-off. That said, I also thought that she was a bit dismal throughout the movie. It’s hard to get attached to a kid that’s so totally emo.

LS: Okay, so Sally is off to a rocky start. Add to this a strange hidden basement of the house that was being kept a secret from Alex (which Sally finds). It turns out to be where a famous nature painter named Blackwood did his final work (he was one of the house’s former owners). They find his workspace and an odd furnace-like contraption that Alex says is most likely an ash pit.

The boss of the workmen renovating the house, Mr. Harris (Jack Thompson), is clearly upset that they found the basement, and he knows something he’s not telling them (because his grandfather was the house’s caretaker way back when). Meanwhile, Sally starts to hear strange, whispery voices calling to her. She’s very curious about the basement (the only interesting thing about the house she’s found since she got there) and goes down there whenever she can sneak away from the adults. At one point, she brings a wrench to help unlock the furnace door and let out the unseen creatures who have been calling to her.

(One of the little trolls climbs up on LL’s shoulder with a Q-Tip and an intent interest in LL’s ear. LL pokes it in the chest.)

LS: Right. There’s such a thing as too much of a good thing. Keep the booze and food coming. I’ll take care of my personal hygiene. And I don’t want to see any of you in the bathroom with me. Got it?

(The little troll sighs deeply and leaves.)

JH: I’d like to interject just to say that I found it totally ridiculous that Sally would actively try to release and befriend these creatures, even before she’s laid eyes on them. No matter how lonely I am, if I was a kid and heard those terrifying hissing voices calling my name from under my bed, I’d exit that house on a jet-stream of feces. I get it; it’s a movie. But I still think that characters need to act logically within their made-up world.

LS: The thing is—we’re supposed to think Sally is a moody but smart kid. I guess they telegraph that by making her so damn serious all the time. And you’re right, a lot of what she does isn’t all that smart.

Anyway, that’s when things get a bit hairy. Harris tries to lock the creatures up again, but they’ll have none of it, and soon they have free reign of the house. Their only weakness is light. They don’t come out in the daytime and they scream when bright lights are flashed on them. Needless to say, Sally has some very good reasons to be afraid of the dark, as these odd creatures, that at first said they want to be her friend, reveal their true nature. What they really want to do is capture Sally and drag her back down into their tunnels, where (we’re told) they love to eat things like “children’s teeth and children’s bones.” (Which contradicts the other theories presented in the film: 1) that the creatures must kill one person every time they are set free, and 2) they want to turn a human into one of them. Make up your minds already!)

When Sally tries to tell her father and Kim about these menacing little gnomes, they don’t believe her and think she’s just acting out. But as the movie develops, they begin to change their minds…..

(JH looks down to see some of the creatures giving LL an pedicure and foot massage.)

JH: Didn’t you have personal space issues …

LS: Yeah, but this is awesome. Besides, they’re the only things that will get close to my feet.

(JH notices that all the little homunculi have clothespins on their noses.)

JH: I’m going to have to buy a case of Black Label to make up for this.

LS: I’ll chip in! Anyway, I had a lot of problems with DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK. First off, I didn’t like Sally and found it difficult to care much about this mopey little brat. Although, I will admit that she grew on me a bit as the movie went on, I never was totally won over by her as the main character.

JH: True, but by the time I started warming up to Sally. The movie had already stopped being scary. The first 30 minutes of this movie is genuinely creepy and tense. The train comes off the tracks the moment that they show the creatures. Who, to me, looked like they came off of a special effects demo reel. DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is a prime example of a movie where not showing bogey man would have been the better choice.

LS: You’ve got that right. Also, there is a scene where the work foreman, Harris, is viciously attacked by the monsters (when he tries to lock them up again). He staggers upstairs badly hurt, bleeding, with sharp objects sticking out of him, and collapses on the floor. Alex then proceeds to call this incident “Harris’s accident.” All in all, they don’t seem to take his brutal injuries seriously. You would think that would make them consider getting the hell out of this place, but nobody seems to be interested in what happened to the man and they just dismiss it, which I found very strange.

(JH nods emphatically while several little creatures give him a shoulder rub.)

JH: Oh, yeah, that’s the stuff! Right, back on topic. That was the other plot point where I threw down the bull#$%& flag. Apparently, they believed that Harris fell down on his tools. All of his tools. And then rolled around on them like a dog on roadkill, and then threw himself down a flight of stairs for good measure … by accident. That whole sequence pulled me out of the story entirely.

LS: It was stupid with a capital “S.” I also wondered why nobody else saw/heard the creatures. I mean, I know that they wouldn’t talk when anyone else was around, but there are several scenes where someone will enter a room and the creatures will scatter and yet nobody has a clue. You’d think someone would hear them scurrying about. Or see them jumping around quickly. But no one does.

In particular is a scene where the creatures attack Sally while she is taking a bath. People come to her rescue, and they clearly heard the commotion inside and must have seen small figures fleeing when they turned the light on – but no, they don’t believe that anyone or anything else was in there with Sally.

LITTLE CREATURE (clears its throat): Ahem. Listen up, bub. A) we’re magical, B) in old homes you hear a bunch of odd little noises that can’t be explained. You write them off after a while. I think you’re being a bit hypercritical.

LS: Hey you little bastard! Who’s reviewing this movie, you or me? Go get yourself another Scotch and make me a hamburger.

(The little guy rolls his eyes and stalks off.)

LS: Besides, I hardly think a hundred little creatures jumping around and tearing down shower curtains would sound like typical “odd little noises.” Oh yeah, and Sally was screaming throughout.

Also, if Sally is so damn smart for her age, why didn’t she just tell her father that she saw rats in the house, instead of telling him all about creatures trying to talk to her and grab her, which she knows he won’t believe. If she’d changed the truth a bit and said it was rats, not only would they have believed her, but maybe they would have gotten someone like an exterminator to come and take care of the damn things. (LS taps the poison tank that is resting beside his chair). And maybe Alex and Kim would have considered moving to a hotel room during the rest of the renovations if they thought the house was infested with vermin.

Another big gripe of mine is a certain scene where someone is dragged down into the furnace and the tunnels below the building. I won’t say who. But I will say I found it very strange that the survivors merely picked up and left after that. Not trying to get the person back and not calling the authorities to bring help to get the person out. You’d think if you really loved someone you’d try your best to get them back and not just leave them down in a pit with a bunch of horrid little monsters.

JH: I cared less about your first two points there, but I did have issues with the third. It did seem like a cold response from characters who supposedly loved each other quite a lot. That said, I’ll give the movie a modicum of credit for providing an ending that isn’t all rainbows and lollipops. Which happens too often in American (or Americanized) horror films.

LS: DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is actually a remake of an old ABC TV-movie from 1973. In that version, it was about a young couple who move into the house and the creatures haunt the wife, played by Kim Darby. That movie was actually kind of surreal and worked because nothing was really explained and it all seemed very weird and otherworldly. In that version, the monsters were strange little bald-headed men with furry bodies. Odd-looking things that really gave you the creeps. We never found out what they were or why they wanted Darby. But that was part of what made it so cool.

JH: I don’t think I ever watched the original. If I did, I’ve forgotten about it. So, this was a new movie to me, not a remake.

LS: Do yourself a favor and check out the original.

The new version tries to explain things a bit more, with tales about ancient races that lived before mankind and allusions to the writings of Arthur Machen. The movie begins with a flashback to the painter Blackwood and his own demise at the hands of the beasties in the house decades before. None of this was in the original version, and it tries too hard to flesh out something that is scarier if it’s not explained.

Also, in this new version, the creatures are kind of a cross between monkeys and rats, as they scurry about the place with twisted, rat-like bodies and human-looking hands. They’re obviously CGI creations and while there are few scenes where they’re effective, they look too ordinary for lack of a better word. Despite their monstrous faces, they look too much like rodents or the kind of fast-moving critters you’d expect to infest an old house. In other words, they lack the strange magic of the original creatures. Sure, in the original movie it was just little men in costumes, but it really did seem to work a lot better. I just didn’t find the monsters in this movie all that compelling, and in too many scenes they are so obviously just CGI cartoons jumping around. Say what you will about old fashioned latex and make-up, but I think old school effects were a lot creepier.

JH: I didn’t mind that they tried to explain things more. I thought the back story made it a little more interesting and added depth. But I’m going to stick to my argument that they became far less scary once they appeared on camera. It didn’t matter what they looked like.

LS: Well, I see it as a need to over-explain creatures that should be a complete mystery – DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK reminded me of American remakes of Japanese horror films like THE RING (2002) and THE GRUDGE (2004) that also attempted to over-explain things that should have been left to the imagination. As if American audiences need everything spoon-fed to them and can’t appreciate the creepiness of unsolved mysteries. Hey – maybe they have a point there!

JH: There’s an argument out there that standard American audiences (meaning not horror geek fans), actually don’t like to be genuinely scared or disturbed during a movie. They like to jump out of their seats every so often, but that’s about it. I have friends who say they love horror films, but can’t watch SESSION 9 (2001) when I recommend it to them. I think there’s some truth to that theory, which is unfortunate.

LS: Really? That’s kind of sad.

In this movie, the acting is good enough. Bailee Madison makes the Sally character believable enough. She does seem like a real kid. I just didn’t like her all that much. Guy Pearce is given thankless role as the father—who has to be the voice of reason throughout, and therefore the most boring character. Strangely, the best one in the movie, and the one I found myself rooting for the most was Katie Holmes as Kim. I sympathized with her attempts to befriend Sally, and she was the first one to actually start to believe what Sally was talking about, and slowly becomes her protector.

The direction is serviceable. Nixey does a decent enough job with his first feature film, but I had a lot of problems with the script by Guillermo Del Toro and Matthew Robbins (based on the original teleplay by Nigel McKeand). Another reason why I thought the original was so interesting is because it was about adult characters. In this remake, Del Toro and Robbins immediately change the dynamics of the story by making a child the protagonist, and I just didn’t find the story as interesting. Sure, kids are afraid of the dark, and this movie gives them a reason to be. But so have a hundred other movies before this one. I also thought that the fact that a little girl was the lead drew comparisons between this movie and Del Toro’s much superior PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006), and the comparisons don’t do DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK any favors. It just emphasizes how much weaker the script is for DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

You said before that Del Toro has a tendency to tell his stories like fairy tales and the adults aren’t as important to the story. Well, this is the first time in a Del Toro-written film where I found myself getting really tired of this “lonely child” perspective. In his own, more personal films like PAN and CHRONOS (1993), Del Toro made it work. But here, his often-used themes started to feel like clichés. And it’s not just because Troy Nixey directed this one. Like you said, it has Del Toro’s “fingerprints all over it.”

JH: For me, the script required too many leaps of faith over too-wide plot holes. That plus the non-scary nature of the creatures made for a very ho-hum film after the 30-minute mark.

LS: Yeah. This movie had a lot of potential, and adapted an interesting story. But I don’t think the new version improved on the original in any way. I give it one and a half knives. And most of that is for Katie Holmes, who played the only character I gave a damn about.

JH: I wanted to like it more, because I generally enjoy anything that has Del Toro’s stamp on it. But I’m giving this two knives. Too bad.

LS: I’m a Del Toro fan, too, but this movie just didn’t do it for me.

I’d also like to note that DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK was supposed to be released last year, but it stayed on the shelf while Disney sold the movie’s studio, Miramax. It’s funny, I’ve been seeing the trailer for this movie for a long time now—since they were originally planning to release it—and I thought the trailer was very effective. Pretty cool, in fact. It’s too bad that the movie didn’t live up to it.

(JH sits up and claps his hands)

JH: You know what? I’m in the mood for musical theater. What can you guys do for us?

(Several of the small creatures walk out onto a table dressed like the Family Von Trapp. They look less than thrilled.)

JH: I think they’d be more enthusiastic if they weren’t being filmed.

LS (to camera): Yeah, the review’s over. You can go now.

(Shoves hand to push lens away as we FADE TO BLACK)

© Copyright 2011 by L.L. Soares & John D. Harvey

L.L. Soares gave DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK - one and a half knives

John Harvey gave DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK – two knives.


5 Comments »

CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR AUGUST 2011

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Barbarian Movies, CGI, Coming Attractions, Guillermo Del Toro, Lame Remakes, Monsters, TV-Movies, Vampires with tags , , , , , on August 4, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT
COMING ATTRACTIONS: August 2011
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A laboratory, with two scientists in white lab coats arguing on either side of a CGI-created chimpanzee.)

SCIENTIST #1: That chimp is too smart for its own good!

SCIENTIST#2: What makes you say that?

(CUT to chimp reading the WALL STREET JOURNAL while texting while working on a Sudoku puzzle.)

(Door to lab bursts open and in walk MICHAEL ARRUDA, L.L. SOARES, and a large gorilla.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA: If only you guys had watched CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (1972), the fourth film in the original PLANET OF THE APES series, then you would have known that Caesar here (points to the chimp) was bound to escape and lead the apes in a revolt that would mark the downfall of humankind.

SCIENTIST #1: We don’t watch movies.

L.L.SOARES: You ignoramus! How can you not watch movies?

SCIENTIST #2: We’re too busy here in the lab. Sad, but true.

MA: You should never be too busy to watch movies!

SCIENTIST #1: We wouldn’t know where to start.

LS: Start by reading  Cinema Knife Fight. We’d get you up to speed real quick on which movies to see and which ones aren’t worth your hard earned money.

MA: That’s right, and up first for us in August will be RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011), opening on August 5. Based on what I’ve seen in the previews, this movie looks like it’s based on CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. That was the one that told the story of Caesar, the son of Cornelius and Zira, and how he led the apes in a revolution that overtook humankind.

In the previews for RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, there’s a super smart chimp named Caesar (CHIMP sitting in lab waves at camera) who leads a horde of apes in a battle against humans. Of course, back in the 1970s, the apes in the APES movies were played by people in ape make-up, and Caesar was played by the late great Roddy McDowall. Here, the apes look to be CGI created, but based upon what I’ve seen in the previews, the CGI looks pretty good.

LS: Some of it looks good. Some of it looks fake. I still prefer make-up effects myself. Or a mixture of CGI and make-up. Because straight-on CGI is very uneven.

MA: I’ve always been a fan of the PLANET OF THE APES movies, and so I’m looking forward to RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. That being said, however, CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES was probably my least favorite film of that original series.

LS: I don’t believe you just said that. I loved CONQUEST.

MA: Figures.

LS: I’m not sure if I’m going to love RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, though. But, based on the trailer, it has a shot at winning me over. We’ll see.

MA: RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES stars James Franco (from the SPIDER-MAN movies and last year’s critically acclaimed 127 HOURS), and also features Brian Cox and John Lithgow in the cast.

(Behind MA & LS, the gorilla gives a “thumbs up” gesture.)

LS: On August 12 we’ll be reviewing FINAL DESTINATION 5. We’ve reviewed some of these before, and I have to admit, I’m not a fan of the series. The first movie seemed like a clever idea, but by now it’s the same formula over and over. A bunch of people barely escape dying in some horrific accident. But they were supposed to die. So Death comes to get them in various bizarre ways, and we get one weird death after another, until someone figures out how to escape their fate.

MA: I really don’t like the FINAL DESTINATION movies, so I can’t say that I’m looking forward to this one. While the first one was OK, the rest were dumb and forgettable, so much so, that I can’t tell what they were about since I’ve forgotten!

LS: That’s true. These movies are not very memorable. And I don’t expect this one to be any different.

MA: This one’s written by Erick Heisserer, the same guy who wrote the recent remake of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010), a film I didn’t like, so this doesn’t make me feel any better.

(Gorilla gives a “thumbs down.”)

There are two films coming out the following weekend, August 19, both of them remakes, FRIGHT NIGHT (2011) and CONAN THE BARBARIAN (2011).

The original FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) is one of my all-time favorite horror movies. In fact, on a recent movie panel, I selected FRIGHT NIGHT as my favorite horror flick from the 1980s.

Chris Sarandon made a very memorable vampire, and Roddy McDowall was terrific as horror host turned vampire hunter Peter Vincent. FRIGHT NIGHT was a horror comedy that worked.

The trailers for the remake look horrible, and since I liked the original so much, it goes without saying that I’m not looking forward to this one. This time around it’s Colin Farrell as vampire Jerry Dandrige, David Tennant (from DR. WHO) as Peter Vincent, and Anton Yelchin (who we saw as Chekov in J.J. Abrams’ STAR TREK reboot and as Kyle Reese in TERMINATOR SALVATION (2009)) as young Charley Brewster, the high-schooler who suspects a vampire is living next door.

(Gorilla holds its nose and shakes its head.)

LS: I wouldn’t go so far as to say FRIGHT NIGHT was the best horror flick of the 80s. I can name a dozen better ones, but it was a really fun movie. This new version looks boring in comparison. I wish we weren’t reviewing it.

The new CONAN movie looks a lot better to me. I always thought the Arnold Schwarzenegger CONAN movies were pretty bad (although they are campy fun), and I wished someone would do Robert E. Howard’s iconic barbarian justice. I can’t say that the new CONAN movie will be much better, but there’s hope. It stars Jason Mamoa, and some people have been complaining because he was on the television show BAYWATCH, but that was awhile ago, and much more recently he was Khal Drago on the HBO series GAME OF THRONES, and I thought he was really good in that. It would be nice to have a really cool CONAN this time around. I hope the script is decent.

MA: Yeah, I remember liking the two CONAN movies from the 1980s with Arnold Schwarzenegger. They were a lot of fun. I haven’t really heard all that much about the remake. I know very little about it other than Ron Perlman is in it. I like Perlman, so if he’s got some decent screen time, this one might be good.

(Gorilla holds up sign which reads, “Hellboy rocks!”)

LS: We sure do have a lot of HELLBOY plugs in these columns. Is he paying you some kind of product placement money or something?

MA: What are you asking me for? Talk to the gorilla!

And we finish August with DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK (2011), a new haunted house movie written by Guillermo del Toro. This one’s set to be released on August 26. It stars Katie Holmes and Guy Pearce, and I’m looking forward to it because horror movies have been few and far between this summer. Hopefully it’ll be good.

LS: Yeah, this one is directed by newcomer Troy Nixey, but Del Toro was one of the writers and producers. This isn’t completely new, though. It’s another remake, this time of an ABC TV-movie from 1973, starring Kim Darby. Back then, a lot of TV movies were pretty damn great, and the original DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK is a perfect example of 1970s television at its best. It’s the story of people who move into a house that has weird little monsters living in the basement, who come out at night to “play.” The original movie was very creepy and effective, and I hope this new version is as good.

(Gorilla lifts a pan with the word “Labyrinth” printed on it.)

LS: “Labyrinth?” I don’t get it.

MA (rolls eyes): Del Toro wrote and directed PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006).

LS: Oh, I thought it was a reference to the David Bowie movie LABYRINTH (1986).

MA: But that doesn’t make sense. Anyway, nice touch inviting the gorilla.

LS: I didn’t invite the gorilla. I thought you brought him.

MA: I didn’t bring him.

LS: Hey, monkey, where did you come from?  Who invited you?

(Gorilla narrows its eyes and stares menacingly at LS & MA.)

MA: I don’t think it appreciated you calling it a monkey.

LS: That’s what he is, isn’t he?

MA: It’s the way you said it, I think.

(Behind them, CHIMPANZEE looks up from his newspaper, cell phone, and puzzle book.)

CHIMP: We prefer “ape” to “monkey.” It’s more sophisticated and doesn’t have as many negative stereotypes connected to it. After all, that silly game is not called “Ape in the Middle,” and that classic movie series is not called PLANET OF THE MONKEYS.

LS: Ask me if I care! I just want to know who invited him.

CHIMP: I did. I invited them too.

(The door opens and hundreds of chimpanzees and gorillas enter the lab.)

MA: What the—?

CHIMP: Relax! They’re all fans of your column.

GORILLA: We love Cinema Knife Fight and going to the movies. We go all the time.

MA: Who knew?

LS: That explains the bin with the banana peels next to the 3D glasses. Well, that’s it for COMING ATTRACTIONS for this month. Hopefully, August will be a good movie month.

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS!

Posted in 2010, Craig Shaw Gardner, Friday Night Knife Fights, Grindhouse, Guillermo Del Toro, Indie Horror, Robert Rodriguez with tags , , , , , on November 26, 2010 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
(NOVEMBER BATTLE – CONCLUSION)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Craig Shaw Gardner

(The Scene:  a boxing ring, with spotlights on Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, and Craig Shaw Gardner, sitting on stools inside the ring.)

MA:  Welcome back to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Tonight we’re continuing our brawl—er, discussion—of Robert Rodriguez vs. Guillermo Del Toro, in order to judge ultimately which one of the two is the better director?

I’m joined once again by L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner.  Gentlemen, thanks again for joining me.

CSG:  Happy to be here.

LS:  Screw the niceties.  Just get on with the questions.  I’m sure there’s a movie playing somewhere we have to review.

MA:  No doubt there is.  Anyway, LL, since you’re so full of—energy— tonight, we’ll start with you.  Of the two directors, Robert Rodriguez and Guillermo Del Toro, which one means more or has done more for the horror genre?

LS:  They have both done a lot for the horror genre—.

MA:  Cop out.

LS:  Will you let me finish?

MA:  Sure.  Go ahead.

LS:  As I was saying, they both have done a lot for the horror genre, although I feel Del Toro has a much stronger resume in the genre. Where Rodriguez has also made action films and family films, Del Toro’s output has been almost exclusively focused on horror, or at least dark fantasy.

MA:  Okay, it’s Craig’s turn.  Craig, how about you?  Who has done more for the genre, Del Toro or Rodriguez?

CSG:  Well, Del Toro has given us stuff like THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE (2001) and PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006), movies that engage the mind as much as any horror/fantastic films made today.

LS: I love them both! Great movies.

CSG: Both directors play fast and loose with horror conventions, but Rodriguez’s stuff seems to have less staying power.  So, I’d have to go with Del Toro.

MA:  I don’t know.   Rodriguez’s stuff has stayed with me.

However, because he’s has created such detailed and elaborate worlds of darkness in his movies, I’d have to say Del Toro has done more for the genre.  Rodriguez probably means more to the action/pulp genre than to horror.  I still prefer Rodriguez’ movies though.

And on that note, has either one of these two directors made a movie or movies that you’ve disliked?

I’ll answer my own question first and say no, neither one has made a movie that I’ve seen that I’ve disliked.  I’m not a big fan of PAN’S LABYRINTH, but I wouldn’t say I disliked it.  And I’ve liked everything I’ve seen directed by Rodriguez, even his SPY KIDS movies.

LS:  They have both made movies I have disliked. I was not a big fan of Del Toro’s MIMIC. While it had some interesting ideas, I didn’t care for it.

MA:  I liked MIMIC.  I thought it had its moments.

LS:  And something like BLADE II from 2002 (which was maybe the best installment in that series), though based on a comic book, is much inferior to his HELLBOY films, which are also based on comics.

As for Rodriguez, I am not a fan of the SPY KIDS movies. But then again, I am not the intended audience for them.

MA:  But without the SPY KIDS movies, there wouldn’t have been an Uncle Machete!

LS:  And I thought his MARIACHI films were uneven. Even his straight-out horror film FROM DUSK TIL DAWN—while there are some things I like a lot about it—is pretty much a mixed bag.  Overall, I think Del Toro has the stronger filmography.

MA:  So, Craig, which one has made a movie you’ve disliked?

CSG:  Both. And they were both sequels.  ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO (2003) and HELLBOY 2 (2008) were, each in their own way, terribly confused, and big letdowns compared to the earlier films.

MA:  Time for our next question.  Which one would you want directing your own screenplay?  Craig?

CSG:  It would depend on the nature of the screenplay.  Haunted, spooky, reflective stuff would go with Del Toro.  Balls-to-the-wall action, and we’re going with Rodriguez.

MA:  Yeah, I would agree with that.

As for myself, I’d want Rodriguez directing my screenplay because I would most likely be writing something highly energetic with a pulp feel, as opposed to something more cerebral set in a fantasy world.  Rodriguez would be a better fit for me.

LS: Actually the best fit for you would be Hanna-Barbera.

MA:  Try Looney Tunes.  But cartoons aren’t on the ticket tonight.

LS:  If one of them were to direct a screenplay by me, I would definitely prefer it be Del Toro. While working with Rodriguez seems like it would be a lot of fun, and I agree he’s excellent when it comes to rapid-fire action, I just think Del Toro is a much more gifted director.

MA:  Okay.  That brings us to the final bell, the big question of the night.  The bout is over.  Robert Rodriguez or Guillermo Del Toro?  Who’s your pick for the best director?  Craig?

CSG:  First, I will admit to skipping a couple of Rodriguez films (some of his lesser, later, kid’s films.)

MA:  It’s okay. I haven’t seen all his films either.

CSG:  I would go see anything Del Toro was involved in (including stuff he produces), so I guess he’s my favorite of the two.  So I guess I’d have to go with Del Toro.

That said, I have no interest in reading the vampire book series he’s co-writing.  We all have our limits.

MA:  Absolutely!  I just read the book jacket of the latest book in that series the other day at my local library, and I left it on the shelf.

LS: Yeah, I’m not that interested in checking them out, either. Although, if he made films of the books, I’d go see them.

MA: My answer to the question, which one’s the better director, I’m sure both of you have already figured out.

For me, the best director is Robert Rodriguez over Guillermo Del Toro, hands down!

LS:  As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about.  While they’re both talented, I’d go with Del Toro over Rodriguez any day.

MA:  So, there you have it folks, two votes for Del Toro, and one vote for Rodriguez.  So, on this particular night, Del Toro is the winner of the FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

LS (shakes CSG’s hand): Thanks for proving I’m right. This guy never learns.

MA:  What a kiss up!

Anyway, on behalf of L.L. Soares, Craig Shaw Gardner and myself, we’d like to thank you for joining us tonight.  We’ll see you next month with another exciting bout between two horror icons.

LS:  And who knows which members from our illustrious staff will be here then to take part in the bloodshed.  Tune in to find out!

MA:  This has been FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Good night everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda,  L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner

2 Comments »

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS – PART 1

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Friday Night Knife Fights, Grindhouse, Guillermo Del Toro, Robert Rodriguez with tags , , , , , , , , on November 19, 2010 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
Featuring: Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner

(A spotlight in a dark room suddenly illuminates MICHAEL ARRUDA)

MA: We’re kicking off a new column here at CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT.

Welcome to FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, the column where titans of terror square off in duels to the death (well, figuratively speaking, anyway), and it’s up to our illustrious panel of writers to determine the victor.

Tonight it’s ROBERT RODRIGUEZ VS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO, two of the most talented film directors working today. Which one of these talents is the better director?

I’m Michael Arruda, and joining me tonight to determine the answer to this question is my fellow knife fighter, L.L. Soares, and New York Time Bestselling author Craig Shaw Gardner. (As he introduces them, spotlights illuminate them as well, showing all three of them are sitting inside a boxing ring.)

Okay, here we go.

ROBERT RODRIGUEZ VS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO – who is the better director?

Craig, we’ll start with you. Of these two directors, whose style do you prefer?

CSG: It depends on the project. Rodriguez is better at straight ahead action. Del Toro is better at mood. If forced up against the wall, I’d pick Del Toro.

MA: Well, fortunately, we won’t be forcing you up against a wall on this issue.

CSG: That’s good.

LS: Although this is Cinema Knife Fight, so you never know!

MA: That’s true. LL, how about you? Whose style do you prefer?

LS: I’ve been following both Robert Rodriguez’s and Guillermo Del Toro’s careers since their first films…so….

MA: Really? So, you should have a lot to offer tonight on these two guys.

LS: …..Yeah, sure, if you let me talk. Besides, I have to make up for your shortcomings.

MA: I’ve seen a decent number of films by these guys. Don’t you be concerning yourself with me.

LS: I’m not planning to.

Anyway, in Rodriguez’s case, his first film was the much-lauded EL MARIACHI (1992), which received a lot of attention because it was made on an unbelievably small budget (rumored to be just $7,000). The movie, about a musician who is mistaken for a hit man, was a hit on the indie circuit and got Rodriguez’s career rolling. For Del Toro, his first feature film CRONOS (1993) was a unique take on the vampire yarn, concerning an old watchmaker and his granddaughter, and a strange clockwork device that turns people into vampires. This movie also received much attention during its release, mostly in  art-house theaters, marking Del Toro as an up-and-coming director to watch.

Rodriguez’s films are much more grounded in a grindhouse aesthetic (which makes sense, since he directed one of the two films that made up the “cinema experiment” called GRINDHOUSE in 2007, along with Quentin Tarantino) and this is evident in his Mariachi trilogy (EL MARIACHI, DESPERADO (1995) and 2003’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO), as well as films such as PLANET TERROR (his half of GRINDHOUSE ), FROM DUSK TIL DAWN (1996), SIN CITY (from 2005, which he co-directed with comic book legend Frank Miller), and of course, his latest film MACHETE (2010). Rodriguez also has a strong base in family fare, having made the very successful SPY KIDS films (the first one was in 2001).

Del Toro’s work has had more of an  art-house sensibility, with a bigger emphasis on imagery, atmosphere and style. Since his early days, Del Toro has been splitting his time between Hollywood (movies like MIMIC (1997), and the successful HELLBOY films – from 2004 and 2008) and Mexico (more artistic Spanish-language films like THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE (2001) and PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006), both of which are excellent).

Del Toro is interested in other mediums as well, and has even written a series of novels (THE STRAIN series) with crime novelist Chuck Hogan.

Del Toro’s more literary background is also evident in the choice for his next film, a adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS, which he has been trying to get green lit for several years now.

MA: So, whose style do you prefer?

LS: I’d have to go with Del Toro, too.

MA: In true Cinema Knife Fight fashion, I prefer Rodriguez’ style over De Toro’s, because I tend to enjoy his highly charged, energetic movies.

I enjoy movies with a high-octane pace, and Rodriguez’s films tend to fly at high speeds. Also, for me, a film with an edge is more compelling than say a film with great visual detail. Rodriguez’ movies tend to have more bite. I also prefer a movie with a strong story over one with a strong visual style. I think the stories Rodriguez has chosen to film—or at least the ones I’ve seen—have been stronger than the stories Del Toro has chosen. Again, from the ones I’ve seen.

LS: I disagree. Del Toro is as strong a storyteller as he is a visual artist. While I enjoy Rodriguez’s work a lot, I think his stories are more superficial than the more mythic quality found in Del Toro’s work, for the most part.

MA: If you say so, but I enjoyed the stories in movies like MACHETE and FROM DUSK TILL DAWN much more than the stories told in either of the HELLBOY movies, for example.

And while Del Toro is a master of creating strong visuals in his movies, Rodriguez is no slouch either. A film like SIN CITY is full of powerful visuals.

LS: Well, a big reason SIN CITY has such powerful visuals is because it is taken directly from Frank Miller’s graphic novels. It’s Miller’s vision, filtered through Rodriguez. But I have to admit, Rodriguez does a great job of helping Miller bring his artwork to life. Even though the movie is “co-directed” by Miller, I tend to think Rodriguez did most of the directing here –only because the movie maintains his kinetic style of movie-making throughout. So, as far as SIN CITY goes, you’re right. I think it’s easily Rodriguez’s most impressive project.

MA: Moving along, of the two, whose movies do you prefer? Craig?

CSG: Didn’t I just answer this question?

LS: He tends to repeat himself.

MA: It’s the middle school teacher in me. I actually asked whose style do you prefer before, and now I’m asking whose films do you prefer, but I’ll admit, they’re similar questions.

CSG: Whose movies do I prefer? Del Toro’s, probably, just because he’s better at bringing in the right collaborators for his individual projects.

LS: I like them both and think they are both bringing a lot to the current world of cinema, however, if I had to choose, I prefer the films of Guillermo Del Toro. I think that, of the two, Del Toro is much more of an artist, who knows how to use the medium of film to its best effect. Even his Hollywood films (especially the HELLBOY series) have vivid visuals and strong characterization, two things I look for in movies.

MA: See, I’m less interested in visuals, and I’m more into a good story.

LS: We’ve been over this already. Del Toro is more than just visuals, he’s all about story, too. Besides, how can you dismiss strong visuals, when film is a visual medium?

MA: I guess it’s just the writer in me.

LS: That’s a cop-out.

MA: No it isn’t. I write stories, and I enjoy stories, and while I enjoy the different ways directors tell their stories in their movies, if a film’s strength is its visuals and not its story, nine times out of ten I’m not going to like it as much. Obviously you feel that Del Toro is a very good storyteller. Fine. But I think Rodriguez is better at it.

As such, I prefer Robert Rodriguez’ movies over De Toro’s.

I loved MACHETE (2010), as the action was so over-the-top I couldn’t help but get drawn into its story. I also really enjoyed FROM DUSK TILL DAWN (1996), though admittedly, it does go downhill as it gets deeper into its vampire plot. It becomes almost silly. It’s a much edgier film early on when it deals with its straight action plot.

I liked SIN CITY (2005) a lot, and I even enjoyed THE FACULTY (1998).

With Del Toro, I liked the HELLBOY (2004 & 2008) movies a lot, but mostly because I enjoy the character of Hellboy. I enjoy the character much more than the actual movies. And while most people loved PAN’S LABRYNTH (2006), I wasn’t all that excited about it. I can’t deny its strong visual style, but its story I found too depressing for me to enjoy.

LS: That’s because you’re a wuss who can’t appreciate the power of darker storylines. “Oh, it’s too depressing for me.” That’s hardly a legitimate criticism! And PAN’S LABYRINTH has a stronger story to it than anything Rodriguez has made.

MA: And you’re a grump who can’t stand the fact that people disagree with your opinions. What do you mean it’s hardly a legitimate criticism? PAN’S LABYRINTH has a depressing story, and as such, it’s not for everyone’s tastes.

LS: You’re a horror writer. If anyone should be able to appreciate a dark storyline, it should be you. Weren’t you the one who said you liked movies with an edge? I guess as long as it’s a nice, safe edge that isn’t too dark, then you’re fine with it.

MA: I wouldn’t describe MACHETE or FROM DUSK TILL DAWN as nice and safe.

Hey, if you think PAN has a stronger story than Rodriguez’ movies, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But in my opinion, PAN’S LABRYNTH’s story is nothing to brag about.

And you’re calling me a wuss? You’re the one who raved over that art-house wannabe movie MONSTERS and thought it was compelling! That movie was so much about nothing I think Jerry Seinfeld co-wrote it!

LS: Yeah, well, I stand by my positive review of MONSTERS. You were wrong about that movie, and you’re wrong in this argument as well.

MA (mockingly): All bow down to the all-knowing god of film criticism! Wrong? How judgmental of you! Try a different opinion, bud!

(CSG watches them with a smirk on his face)

—TO BE CONTINUED —

To find out who we ultimately choose as the best director between ROBERT RODRIGUEZ VS. GUILLERMO DEL TORO, tune in next Friday for Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares and Craig Shaw Gardner

1 Comment »

A Night with GUILLERMO DEL TORO and CHUCK HOGAN

Posted in 2010, Vampires with tags , , , , , , , , , , on September 28, 2010 by knifefighter

Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan – Live at the Brattle Theater 9/23/10
A review of a public interview and Q&A session by L.L. Soares

I went to see filmmaker Guillermo del Toro and crime fiction novelist Chuck Hogan being interviewed by the Brattle Theater’s Creative Director Ned Hinkle last Thursday. The Brattle is a venerable arthouse theater that has been showing movies in Harvard Square in Cambridge, Mass., since 1953. Del Toro and Hogan were there to promote their new book THE FALL, the second book in their STRAIN trilogy, three books about modern-day vampires. They were interviewed for about half an hour, then took questions from the audience, and then there was a screening of del Toro’s 2001 modern classic film, THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE. The event was co-sponsored by the Brattle Theater and the Harvard Book Store (founded in 1932).

Here are just some of the highlights of the interview and Q&A session:

  • They really aren’t writing the series with a movie version in mind. There’s a freedom in writing novels that they wouldn’t have in a movie or TV series. Although, before writing the books, del Toro did pitch a three-season television version that was rejected. They wanted him to make it a comedy!
  • Even though they do not write the books with a film version in mind, they do have characters who are sort of already cast to match certain actors. Exterminator Vasily Fet would clearly be a good match for Ron Perlman (a regular in del Toro’s films) and the Master Vampire would be perfect for del Toro stalwart Doug Jones.
  • del Toro became aware of Hogan after reading his novel THE BLOOD ARTIST. He then read Hogan’s PRINCE OF THIEVES and realized they would work well together to flesh out ideas del Toro has been working on since childhood about particularly vicious vampires.
  • Hogan’s novel PRINCE OF THIEVES was the basis for the new Ben Affleck movie THE TOWN (reviewed here yesterday by John Harvey). Hogan said the movie takes liberties with his novel, which is to be expected, but that he was very pleased with it. He said he had seen it five or six times and was excited that it was the number one movie in the country (in box office receipts) during its first week of release.
  • If del Toro had to use one word to describe himself, it would be “voracity.” He lives life voraciously and isn’t happy to work in just one medium. He loves doing other things besides movies, like writing novels, writing comic books, and he’s working on a video game script as well.
  • Del Toro has been a gamer most of his life and thinks some video games are more impressive than most movies. In particular, he mentioned SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS as influencing some of the imagery in his movies.
  • When asked about the genre of “magical realism” that has been applied to several Mexican authors over the years, del Toro said the label was a “slippery thing.” He said, growing up in Mexico, that every day was “magical realism.” Even his father, a very pragmatic man, is convinced that he has seen UFOs, for example.
  • The germ of the idea of the STRAIN series was in del Toro’s head since he was eight or nine years old. As far back as that, he had planned for various kinds of vampires, like one that had a stinger under its tongue. When he approached Hogan about collaborating, he had already outlined the series from beginning to end in a 12-page synopsis. It was going to run just three books, and each would be self-contained, with its own beginning , middle and end. Readers do not have to read previous books to figure out what is going on. del Toro and Hogan said they were in the middle of working on the third and final book now.
  • When asked about his close friend and fellow director Alejandro González Iñárritu, del Toro became quite animated, imitating the intense way his friend speaks. He also pointed out that Inarritu was able to cut out 15 minutes from his masterpiece PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006) and actually make the movie tighter before its release. Also, when they first met (through mutual friends), del Toro had been able to eliminate 17 minutes of Inarritu’s film AMORES PERROS (2000), even though Inarritu now claims it was just seven minutes. Aside from being friends, they are also each other’s harshest editors.
  • Del Toro said he has many “fetishes”, from the colors amber and cobalt blue, to the clockwork gears that appear as imagery in many of his films, and insects.
  • Del Toro’s first film, the offbeat vampire movie CHRONOS (1993) will be released soon as a Criterion edition with lots of extras.
  • Talking about their collaboration process, Hogan and del Toro said they usually start out by getting together and spending several days together, plotting the book and outlining the chapters. Then they do the rest via emails back and forth. They each take which chapters they want to do (and, in turn, which characters they want to work with) and write those. Then they give the chapters they wrote to the other person to rewrite for continuity. del Toro said the collaboration process is actually quite amiable. They have never had an argument and the writing goes quite smoothly.
  • Hogan said before he started work on the first STRAIN novel, his agent called to tell him that del Toro was interested in doing this project with him. This is about four months before PAN’S LABYRINTH was released in the United States. Hogan’s agent had seen the movie early on and said it was amazing. When Hogan finally saw it, he was suitably impressed and maybe a little intimidated at first. He said he definitely felt the need to bring his “A-Game” to the collaboration. In turn, del Toro said he was very impressed with Hogan’s novels, especially THE BLOOD ARTIST (which combines several genres), and knew immediately that this was someone he wanted to work with. Hogan is very good at writing police procedural fiction, and del Toro wanted to bring that to the STRAIN books.
  • Answering an aspiring writer’s question about advice, del Toro said he has avoided most “How To Write” books and doesn’t recommend them. Except for Elmore Leonard’s 10 RULES OF WRITING, which he says is brilliant. Hogan and del Toro also agreed that reading constantly is very important to the craft of actually writing well.
  • Del Toro said he is surprised by what he likes and doesn’t like within the horror genre. He said he was not a fan of the original 1931 DRACULA with Bela Lugosi (it’s like “an uncle in a cape”), and he wasn’t all that impressed with the Spanish version that was done at the same time with a different cast (although he thought the camera angles and acting were more interesting in the Spanish version). As far as vampire fiction, he said there were three novels that affected him the most. The first was Richard Matheson’s seminal novel, I AM LEGEND (which has been filmed at least three times), Stephen King’s SALEM’S LOT, and the Jeff Rice novel that was the basis for the television movie THE NIGHT STALKER (1972).
  • He also said that he didn’t like Francis Ford Coppola’s version of DRACULA(1992) the first time he saw it (he left the theater “scratching his head.”) But that he has grown to love it and has seen it multiple times since. He even owns some props from the movie.
  • Del Toro said that he has tried to watch the show THE X-FILES on DVD several times but cannot get into it. He says it reminds him too much of the earlier series KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER (1974). KOLCHAK is very dear to his heart, especially the first TV movie, which featured vampire Janos Skorzeny (Barry Atwater), who was attacking women in Las Vegas. He also mentioned how well the newsroom scenes worked between reporter Carl Kolchack (Darren McGavin) and his editor Tony Vincenzo (Simon Oakland).

© Copyright 2010 by L.L. Soares

2 Comments »

HELLBOY 2: THE GOLDEN ARMY

Posted in 2008, Cinema Knife Fights, Comic Book Movies with tags , , , , , , , , , , on December 17, 2009 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: HELLBOY II:  THE GOLDEN ARMY
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

(FADE IN: MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES are seated in front of several television sets on which various horror movies are playing (from the 1931 FRANKENSTEIN to Hammer’s HORROR OF DRACULA to Tobe Hooper’s THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE). Cats run wild all around them. There is a hill of empty cans of Tecate beer on the floor beside them.)

MA:  We’re coming to you live this morning from the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense, here to review the new movie by Mexican writer-director Guillermo del Toro, HELLBOY II:  THE GOLDEN ARMY. We are in the actual room where Hellboy himself resides with his wife Liz Sherman, and I can’t think of a better place from which to bring you this review.

LS (takes a lit cigar from his mouth and swigs from a beer can): Thanks, Red!

MA:  Red, for those of you who don’t know, is Hellboy’s nickname. He’s not here right now, as he’s out and about saving us from otherworldly monsters, no doubt. Frankly I’m glad he’s not here, because I’m not sure how he’d react to a less than glorious review of his new movie.

LS:  He’d knock you across the room is what he’d do.

MA:  Most likely, so let’s get this in before he comes back. As I already said, HELLBOY II:  THE GOLDEN ARMY is the new film by writer-director Guillermo del Toro, who also made the first HELLBOY movie, as well as the critically acclaimed and Oscar- winning PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006), which I know you liked more than I did.

LS (rubbing his eyes, and imitating MA’s voice):  It was too dark, and it didn’t have a happy ending. WAAAH! What kind of a horror guy are you anyway? And why do you keep repeating yourself?

MA (ignores him):  And del Toro is also slated to helm the upcoming HOBBIT movies to be produced by Peter Jackson. He’s a very talented director, and I have no problem with his work either here or in the other two movies. He knows how to satisfy his audience visually. In regards to his writing a compelling story, for me anyway, the jury’s still out.

LS: (puffs cigar): I couldn’t care less about THE HOBBIT. I wish del Toro would make his long-anticipated adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS, instead. Hobbits give me the hives.

MA: In HELLBOY II, we find our lovable misfit crime fighters Hellboy (Ron Perlman), Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) and Hellboy’s pyrokinetic girlfriend Liz (Selma Blair) still working for the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense, still fighting the bad-guy monsters, while their boss, Agent Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor) tries to keep them and their work secret from the outside world, in a comic routine that grows old fast.

This time they square off against an underworld (as in “under the ground,” literally) prince named Nuada (Luke Goss) who sees it has his destiny to awaken a golden army and conquer the human race. As a result, most of the action takes place in this underground world of trolls, fairies, and monsters, with most of the proceedings playing like a chapter from THE LORD OF THE RINGS, only not as good.

LS (finishes his Tecate beer and tosses the empty can on the mountain of empty cans. He then pops open a new one): He’s not just an underworld prince. He’s the friggin Prince of the Elves!. Give the man some respect! Then again, elves give me worse hives than hobbits.

MA: The problem I have with this movie is the same one I had with the first HELLBOY, and that is, Hellboy, as played by Ron Perlman is a hilarious character, a scene stealer and incredibly entertaining. When he’s on screen, the movie rocks. Problem is, he’s not on screen enough. Also, the plots of both films don’t do Hellboy justice. Some of the best James Bond movies, for instance, were the ones that had the best villains. Prince Nuada is a bore. Luke Goss delivers an excellent performance, so there’s nothing wrong with the acting, but the character is so one-dimensional and so boring compared to Hellboy, they’re not even on the same playing field.

When Hellboy’s in the movie, you can’t go wrong, but when you’re left with the supporting cast, the film drops a few notches.

LS: Aw, you’re a crybaby. Sure Hellboy is the best thing in these movies. That’s why his name’s in the title. Perlman is terrific in the role. He’s a wise-cracking, cigar-chomping demon with one oversized stone hand that looks like it was swiped off The Thing from the Fantastic Four. Perlman’s tongue is firmly in his cheek throughout his performance, and it keeps the movie consistently entertaining. I even think there’s something very Jack Kirby-esque about the character, which I really like.

But what about Abe Sapien? He’s good, too. The talented movie chameleon Doug Jones (who has played everything lately from the faun in PAN’S LABYRINTH to the Silver Surfer) portrays Abe as an intelligent, sensitive outsider, and I actually liked him falling for Prince Nuada’s sister, Nuala (Anna Walton). Abe’s never been in love before, and it’s all new and strange to him. How can you not be touched by such a lovely little romance? How can you not have your eyes well up with tears when Abe and Hellboy sing a drunken rendition of Barry Manilow’s “I Can’t Smile Without You?”

MA: Duh, maybe because I was laughing my ass off!  It’s one of the funniest scenes in the movie. What the heck are you talking about, anyway, “eyes welling up with tears” and “lovely?”  Don’t tell me you’ve suddenly gone all romantic on us.

LS: (burps): Naw, I’m just drunk, is all. But I really do like Abe a lot. I think Jones makes him a very fleshed out character, as much as Hellboy. And I don’t know why you don’t give the fishy guy some credit. His scenes are good, too.

MA:  You know, people really love Abe Sapien. He’s kinda cool, I’ll grant you that. I like him, but he’s not on the same level as Hellboy. Could he carry a movie on his own?  No. Does his scenes without Hellboy rock?  No. He’s like Robin to Batman. He has his place, but he doesn’t kick ass.

And I missed the voice of David Hyde Pierce (from TV’s FRASIER) this time around.  Pierce provided the voice for Abe Sapien in the first HELLBOY movie in an uncredited performance, but he’s not in the sequel.

LS: Aw, forget about David Hyde Pierce. I like Abe’s voice better in this movie. Doug Jones can speak for himself just fine.

Also, you failed to give these nice people a real overview of what Prince Nuada is up to.

MA:  Maybe because I didn’t really care. You said it yourself. He’s an elf.

LS:  He’s not just ANY elf. In ancient times, the elves and the humans were in a long war, with the humans starting to win, until the elf king had the mechanical golden army created. These glittering automatons were merciless, unstoppable warriors and quickly turned the tide of the battle. But the king felt guilty over all the carnage they caused and decided to take pity on his enemies and make a truce with the humans. To keep the peace, he broke up his golden crown into three pieces – one to the humans, and two for himself, so that the golden army could never be revived again.

MA:  YAWN!  Wake me when they start baking cookies.

LS:  Poor Nuada feels that his father dishonored himself by making peace with the humans, especially since now his kind are forced to live underground and stay hidden as the humans dominate the earth. And he wants his birthright back. Of course, this involves reuniting the three pieces of the crown.

And that, my friends, is the story of the Golden Army.

MA: You’re blubbering. And no, explaining the plot doesn’t make it any better.

LS: You must be made of stone, Arruda. You’ve got a hole where your heart should be.

MA:  Maybe I should call Tony Stark and order an iron one.

LS:  And what about the hilarious Johann Krauss? It took three actors to portray this delightful bag of ectoplasm, including Seth MacFarlane of FAMILY GUY to do his voice, which reminds me of what Sigmund Freud might sound like.

MA:  Fascinating. It took three actors to create an unimaginative character who’s about as exciting to watch as an upright vacuum cleaner. What an accomplishment!

LS:  Krauss isn’t unimaginative at all! Agent Manning calls him in to control Hellboy, who he feels is jeopardizing the secrecy of the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense, but Krauss is as weird and dysfunctional as Hellboy is. He’s more or less a ghost housed in one of those old time diving suits, who can inhabit and control objects when he releases himself from his costume. His gears and hissing vents reminds me of a steampunk character – a mixture of old technology and new. And the fact that he and Hellboy can’t stand each other leads to some hilarious scenes – especially the one where Krauss controls locker doors to pummel Hellboy into submission.

MA: That is a funny scene. HELLBOY II is not without laughs, that’s for sure. I have no problem with the humor in this movie. There are lots of scenes that are laugh-out-loud funny. The line about the troll baby is hilarious.

LS:  And I like Selma Blair, but I do admit, she isn’t given a lot to do in this movie. And her big “secret” is kind of an attempt to make the quirky Hellboy series more mainstream and sweet. I could have done without that. Hellboy’s a character who should revel in his quirks!

MA: I didn’t think the special effects were that great either. While the tooth fairies are creepy and effective, and a lot of the make-up on the various creatures is quite good, some of the effects, like the actual golden army, for example, are disappointing.

LS: I thought that the movie felt a lot like PAN’S LABYRINTH. From the tooth fairies (actually vicious little creatures with huge teeth who can strip you down to a skeleton in minutes) which reminded me of the fairies in PAN, to the eyeless Angel of Death whose eyes were on its wings – which reminded me of a similar monster in PAN.

I liked the special effects in this movie. And there were other cool creatures, like Nuada’s big henchman Wink, and the giant plant monster that towers over Manhattan like the son of CLOVERFIELD!

MA:  Yes, that scene was very reminiscent of CLOVERFIELD. And speaking of other monster movies, the giant plant monster bears a strong resemblance to the Japanese monster Biollante from GODZILLA VS. BIOLLANTE (1989).

LS: And the way Hellboy is trying to save a baby during all this action reminded me of John Woo’s classic movie HARD-BOILED.

I also really like del Toro’s attention to detail. All of his movies have scenes where we watch intricate moving parts, which adds a more intimate dimension to the big CGI moments. I also think that CGI works better here, in a movie that’s more outside of the real world, than it does in a more reality-based world like Spider-Man’s.

MA:  I disagree. I thought the CGI looked fake here, very cartoonish.

LS: CGI ALWAYS looks fake to me. But it didn’t bother me as much here. Except for maybe Selma Blair’s flames, which looked kind of lame.

But I really do dig del Toro’s artistic vision. I love the creatures he comes up with. And the strangeness of his unique style is a welcome relief to all of the standard by-the-numbers comic book movies out there like IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK. Don’t get me wrong, I like those movies, too. But I think del Toro’s much more stylish films are a pleasant change of pace.

MA: I agree with you about the cool creatures he comes up with. I enjoy them too, but for me, it’s the story. I think both HELLBOY movies lack a good story. With it, both films would be a helluva lot better.

LS: What about the fun use of the soundtrack to add to the humor of the movie? From Eels’ “Beautiful Freak” while Hellboy takes a shower, to the aforementioned Manilow ditty (which I admit, might have been used a little too much).

MA: They’re funny.

LS: Then what is there to complain about? You had a good time, didn’t you? I know I did.

MA:  I had a great time. HELLBOY II is a hoot. But it would have been better if it had a stronger plot, and I could have done without all the elf and troll stuff. I prefer Hellboy on the streets of New York City, rather than under the ground in some elf fantasy land.

LS:  There seem to be two Guillermo del Toros. One is the guy who makes arty Spanish films that have a real emotional punch to them (THE DEVIL’S BACK BONE, PAN’S LABYRINTH), and then there’s the guy who works in Hollywood and has given us such horror/action films as BLADE 2, MIMIC and the HELLBOY movies. Personally, I prefer the arty guy a lot more, but I think HELLBOY 2 might be the best thing he’s done so far, in Hollywood mode.

I also had a mixed reaction to the first HELLBOY movie. I thought that the characters were great, but I wasn’t all that into the plot. I actually liked this plot better, and think HELLBOY 2 is the better movie.

MA:  I expected HELLBOY II to be the better movie, but I don’t think so. To me, they’re the same deal – a mixed bag of hilarious humor and stiff plots.

LS:  But I also think that something like HELLBOY 2 shows that del Toro’s sensibility is much more in tune with Lovecraft than Tolkein. His fantasy worlds are darker and creepier than the LORD OF THE RINGS type, and I still think that a Lovecraft adaptation would be far superior to making those HOBBIT movies.  Haven’t we overdosed on Middle Earth yet? But hey, Tolkein is where the money’s at these days. I just hope he actually makes AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS some day. He would do a magnificent version.

MA: Good enough. So, while I enjoy the character of Hellboy very much, so far, I don’t think either HELLBOY film has done him justice. Still, I wouldn’t mind watching a third try.

LS: Well, I liked this movie, so I’d be happy to see a third one, too.

(The door opens and HELLBOY comes in)

HELLBOY: Who the hell are you guys? And what are you doing drinking all my beer!!

MA: We’re the guys from Cinema Knife Fight. We review horror movies.

LS: Sit down and have a cigar, we’re done with our review anyway.

HELLBOY:  Critics?  Oh crap!

MA:  It’s okay.  We had permission to be here, remember? Agent Manning said—.

HELLBOY: Manning? I hate that guy. Get the hell out of here!

(LS and MA run for the door while Hellboy loads bullets into a gigantic gun.)

HELLBOY (aims gun): You better run! (look at the open fridge and frowns) Damn, I’m outta beer!

(FADE OUT)

—END—

(Originally published on Fear Zone on 7/13/08)

© Copyright 2008 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers