data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1189b/1189b777adf9aca0e27286d6fc3fffdf229b8831" alt=""
What really leapt out at me was the stunning visuals. I know, too often movies devolve into eye-candy, but I thought it all made a lot of sense. A buddy of mine who watched the first film recently for the first time told me he was dissappointed how few of the "weird creatures" we got to see on screen in that adventure (and it's true, really they fought the same monster throughout as it respawned and multiplied). In this one, we get to see a wide variety of beasts as the gang travels to a troll market and ancient catacombs. It's like Del Toro used last year's Pan's Labyrinth to test-drive new creature ideas after the distinctly non-treat that was the first Hellboy movie.
I also need to mention however, that hardcore fans need not apply. While I much prefer a good movie rather than a carbon copy transfer of a book (I'm looking at you, 300), I'm told my fellow movie-goers that this film "didn't feel like" the comics. Granted both films changed things around to suit a one-shot adventure, but I'm told the first film captured Mignola's style better than this one. In the end, does it really matter? Let me ask you this: is the sight of a demon and a fishman drunk and singing songs of heartbreak worth the price of admission? Damn straight.
No comments:
Post a Comment