Be Excellent To Each Other

Anyone else seen the trailer for Hellboy 2?

I've not read the comics, so I had no happy thoughts of the original source material to have upset by the interpretation in the original Hellboy film, and I loved it. Ron Perlman was perfect for the role, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was also convinced that Niles Crane was the fishman thing, but that's by the by.

Now, Hellboy 2 is looking pretty good to me. Lots more of the arcane, and lots of monsters and demons and such. Good old fashioned fantasy type film like... well, I can't think of any similar sorts of films, to be honest.

So, I'm looking forward to this coming out. Is anyone else?

Also - in the meantime, can one of you knowledgeable people let me know what else is out there that is in the "if you like this sort of thing, you'll like this" category?

Err - he was. Assuming you mean Niles Crane AKA David Hyde Pierce. Well - he was the voice, anyway.

I am anticipating Hellboy 2 greatly.

I could have sworn I looked it up and it wasn't him.

*looks at IMDB again* No, you're right. Heavens.

Uncredited - as I recall.

Feeling Doug Jones had really done all the work. Which is actually the case in this second one.

Yeah, I thought the first one was really underrated and Ron Perlman was, as you say, perfect for the role. It's a great story how he came to be cast, which I'm sure is in Wikipedia or something. I'm greatly looking forward to this new film.

Also, it's very faithful to the comics, in tone if not exact plotline -- Mike Mignola was closely involved in both films.

I always admire an actor who steps back and offers up credit like that. I ADMIRE NILES.

You should—they're really good, although the new library editions are far too tempting.

Hellboy 2 looks way better than the first film, for two reasons: first, they're free from having to 'set up' the world; secondly, it's more geared towards the myths and legends side of Hellboy, which I much prefer to the Lovecraftian stuff. That said, I still thoroughly enjoyed the first film and the two animated features (which are now only 7 quid each on Amazon).

Blade 2?

I have "only 1st book of Hellboy" heartache. THE PAIN!

I remember looking at one Hellboy graphic novel in Waterstones and not being hugely keen on the art style - and Hellboy looked a bit skinny. Maybe it was "Hellboy, the Early Years"? I shall have another look.



Yes, this is sort of what is appealing to me - there's a lot more with just getting on with the weird stuff, rather than having to try to explain the back story to four main characters. That seems to be a problem with a lot of franchise films - XMen, for example, seemed to spend two films introducing everyone without actually having much happen.


Animated features, you say? I shall investigate - thanks!



Ha! Yes. I do like that film, especially with its added DANNY JOHN JULES. Also, given recent events one can start adding in lines about Blade's tax returns.

Any other similar sorts of things? Underworld springs to mind - which I liked, although Underworld 2 was abysmal.

Night Watch, maybe.

Mignola's one of the all-time best comic-book artists, in my opinion. His style is unique and highly stylised, but you won't find a better artist when it comes to on-page cinematography and lighting. And some of the character designs are chilling. However, if you do delve into Hellboy's print form, read the stuff in order—there's a lot of continuity in there.


The second one's far better than the first, but for seven quid each, they're both worth buying. Lots of interesting extras, too.

But DEAR LORD, make sure you get a copy with the 'Theatrical Version', as it is far, far better than the other version (entirely due to the special effects on the subtitles).

I'm really looking forward to Hellboy 2, the full cinematic trailer is a doozy.

I saw a trailer for Hancock on telly last night which did its level best to make it look like a normal superhero film, unlike the cinematic trailer before Iron Man which made it look aces.

Is that to imply that you preferred the third film to the first two? Because personally I'd prefer having a lemon-soaked knitting needle pushed up my urethra to X3.

I need to watch Hellboy again.

I saw the cinematic trailer when I went to see Indy and it looked absolutely brilliant. A really interesting take on the superhero thing - and that bit about "your head, up his ass" was genius.



Oh good god in heaven, no. Merely that X1 and X2 felt like intros to a longer film. X3 then weed all over everything good that had been set up in the first two, like a very ill behaved ugly puppy.

I didn't mind X3, quite enjoyed it in fact.

Yeah, I do want to see that. Will Smith back to doing what he's quite good at would be welcome.

Make sure you read the book - it's good. I enjoyed the film up to a point (about 90% of the way in I think), but the end seemed... inadequate. Can't remember why I thought that now, but I'd read the book first which may have tarnished it for me.

You appear to be in the process of setting up home in Wrongtown, where Bruce Everiss is mayor. It's comfortably the worst film I've ever seen in the cinema, and coming from someone who paid money to watch The Phantom Menace that's quite an accolade.

It just throws a barrowful of shit at the screen in the vain hope some if it will stick, so that what you end up with is a whole gang of people you've never seen before and don't have time to get to care about doing a load of stuff that doesn't make any sense with the aid of some rubbish CGI.

All third films in comic adaptations are terrible. It's like a natural law of the universe or something.

I'm pretty sure I did quite enjoy it, so I don't see how I could be wrong... hmm. I'll ask myself next time I pass a mirror to make sure.

It may have come from pretty low expectations and watching it on Sky rather than DVD/cinema etc. I have terrible trouble enjoying anything at the cinema due to people. People = bane of my existence.

X2 was worse than X3.

Spider-Man 3 isn't terrible. There are at least two good films in there somewhere.

It's like you're deliberately trying to hurt me.

You've removed my excellent joke though.

That's me. Killing humour on the Internet since 1995.

The books pretty much explain all that, and have a somewhat different direction to the movie anyway. Essentially, Hellboy, despite his 'powers', sees himself as a typical blue-collar worker—just one of the guys. In the comic, pretty much everyone else sees him like that, too (he's not 'hidden' away).


Just the two? It was like "hey, we want to do five more Spidey films, but don't have the cash! What shall we do?" "Mash them all together—no-one will notice". Bleh. Mind you, I never really understood why the Spider-Man films were seen as some kind of yardstick—they're OK (and the organic web-shooting makes a lot of sense), but some of the effects are dreadful, and the acting is sub-par.

I think that comment was directed at my hijacking of the thread for Hancock purposes. Sorry.

True - however Craig's point is equally interesting and valid. Hellboy *is* a good take on it.

When does Day Watch come out?

[edit]So why haven't I got a copy yet?

[edit]And now I've bought six DVDs! Damn you, play.com!

Just the two good ones.

Oh, I dunno about that. I think Spider-Man 2 is really very good, overall. It may even be the best superhero film of recent years in fact. Batman Begins is awesome on first viewing but falls apart, structurally, on rewatching -- I was very disappointed on my second viewing that it just felt... flat somehow. Superman Returns was weighty but a little dull (they took the best scene -- Superman reading lots of old newspapers and seeing all the catastrophies he wasn't around to prevent -- out of the theatrical release. This was a mistake as it introduces the only enemy he is powerless against -- time). The Hulk was very weighty and really quite dull.

I loved Hellboy but many people seem not to, for no reason I can fathom. "Gonna be sore in the morning" is an awesome line. Iron Man was excellent but, again, the structure wasn't all it could be (because it was an origin flick I think, and am therefore greatly excited about the sequels). The X-Men films were essentially all origin flicks as they had too many characters (the Wolverine film coming out has a good shot at excellence though). Both Fantastic Four flicks are fluffy crap. The Punisher, Catwoman, Daredevil, Electra are all pretty second-rate in terms of budget, actors, and writing quality. Ghost Rider I haven't seen but hasn't reviewed well from my mates. V for Vendetta and Unbreakable are not really superhero films.

Have I missed any out?

Oh, and Grim... mades me lolz, plus, Night and Day Watch are fucking great. Grim..., I predict the RX8 driving in Day Watch will make you whoop like a child. You may even find yourself pumping a fist in the air. If so, do not panic, this is normal. Just go with it.

Iron Man is the new yardstick for superhero films. This is fact.

Just the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies off the top of my head (assuming the Dick Donner Superman isn't recent enough). The Crow and Blade in the "not really superhero" categories, maybe.

Batman Begins, The Crow and the second X-Men flicks are head and shoulders over everything else for me, and Iron Man is rompingly good fun somewhat spoiled by a few missteps (really, was there any point in Rhodey being in the film at all?) and a rubbish last half-hour. The first X-Men, the first Batman, Blade and the two Spiderman films are perfectly watchable. Everything else... brrrrrrrr.

The Incredibles.

Watched Batman Begins on one of the flights - man that is darned good movie. I'm a sucker for anything where I can agree with the main villains motivation.

Electra was almost excellent. The opening sequence, with the guy narrating his own final moments was awesome. But for some reason, I find Jennifer Garner immensely dislikeable on screen. She always has this air of "What am I doing in this rubbish? I'm a great actress, don't you know."

I should probably have clarified earlier—I think I meant yardstick for comic-book adaptations, rather than de-facto superhero flicks. If we're just talking about the latter, Spider-Man 2 is indeed one of the better efforts (although having rewatched The Incredibles the other night, I'd say that's probably my favourite of the lot).

Batman Begins—my wife loves that film. I'm... less convinced. It's somehow pretty hollow, even if it looks great, more so (amazingly) than even Sin City.

As for Hellboy, I don't know why so many people dislike it, although I suspect part of it is down to a lack of any familiarly with the subject, and part of it is down to the way Mignola built the setting. In comic-books, there's still an expectation of superheros with lycra (or, more recently, body armour); Hellboy just doesn't fit into that way of thinking, and so people dismiss it as being too far out and not realistic enough. (Seriously—I've heard the last of those complaints regarding Hellboy on a few ocassions, despite the same people happily watching a man in a fucking spider costume swing around a city.)


At a possible push, and only in the movie version, Constantine. And then there's Judge Dredd, which I wish someone in the US would have the balls to remake properly. Interestingly, someone emailed me two of the earlier script drafts a few days back, and a quick glance at them shows that the Dredd film could have been fucking awesome, if stupidly expensive.

Pedantic mode.

Am I the only one who doesn't Batman or Iron-Man should be classed super hero movies as neither of the main protagonists had any super powers at all. Batman was good at fighting an Iron-Man was quite clever and had billions of pounds worth of backing to make a super suit. Both were basically wealthy dudes with too much time on their hands.

I did enjoy some of the Batman films and Iron-Man. However no Batman film comes close to the Adam West film version.

*legs it*

*Shouts while running*

Hellboy was great and I'm looking forward to Hellboy 2

No, you're absolutely correct. However, nyeeeer thppppp.

Well fffst and grrrpppp to you then

OK, now let's see.

Firstly, I think pretty much all these films are both comic book adaptations and super hero films. I don't think the disctinction is that important.

I shoulda mentioned Sin City, The Incredibles, and Blade: all three excellent films (Blade 2 less so, didn't see Blade 3: Snipes in Jail). The Incredibles may be the best film mentioned in this thread so far, actually. I think Sin City fits in here, although perhaps oddly 300 and From Hell don't. Not sure I can justify that classification but it feels right.

I'd ruled out the earlier four Batman films and the four Superman films as not part of "this crop" of films, yeah. Perhaps a little arbitrary; but then again at least half those films are screamingly awful anyway (Superman III, IV terrible editing provoked by well-documented. None of us have mentioned League of Extraordinary Gentlemen either; I wonder why...? "Eyesh open boy!" Constantine seemed so mediocre to me that when I had to turn the DVD off ten minutes before the end to go out I never went back to finish the film.

I maintain that both Batman Begins and Iron Man are not perfect films but merely very good, partly because (as with all super hero films) they seem to get very tied up on the origin of the character. I agree with CraigGannell though that on rewatching Batman it seemed, well, hollow. I think Iron Man will withstand a rewatching better. Anyway, Indiana Jones didn't have an origin pic; I'm not sure clever writing couldn't get around it for a super hero film. And they are both valid super hero films Steve! Just because their powers come from $TECHNOLOGY_THAT_DOESN'T_EXIST instead of $MUTANT_BIOLOGY_THAT_DOESN'T_EXIST doesn't make them non-superheroes. Although a one-line dismissal of Batman I once read "not a superhero; just a pissed off guy who does a lot of pushups) does provoke amusement still.

Man, that film is awesome.

"Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb!"

Right a discailmer. I have just been out on the piss.

First point. Distinction of superhero. A super hero is someone who has personal abilities above those of the most exraoidinary human and who lives with their "abnormalities", not someone who builds/trains to be thier own vengence machine or can take a few years off to learn kick arse martial arts.

Secont Point. I think The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fits the super hero bill perfectly. A bunch of messed up misfits brought together to fight something that is not really their problem fits the bill perfectly.

I really was being pedantic about the whole thing. I have enjoyed pretty much all the films mentioned. However I think the Alien "whateveroligy" can be included then, as Ripley takes a peronal grudge against aliens and is viewed as some kind of major herorine despite just being a bit pissed off.

Sorry if that was a bit rambolic.

Done my typical missing a point.

"Some days you just cant get rid of a bomb" as a family of ducks bobbed past made me laugh as a youngster. I still think it holds up in a kitsch way.

Fantastic word.

True, but they are a shed load more interesting as a result. Look at something like Watchmen - a study in why "normal" people put on a cape and fight crime.

I can't stand superhero stuff TBH. "Due to a mysterious set of circumstance, he was bitten by a radioactive giraffe and from that moment on, became GiraffeMan, resolved to fight crime in the city through the use of peering through top floor windows whilst still on the ground."

I can't stand giraffe man. He spends all his time fighting crime by being an observer when he could have become a perv and see ladies in their scanties EVERY SINGLE DAY

If you've got a definition of "superhero" that includes Jesus but excludes Batman, then your definition needs more work.

Superhero means 'costumed adventurer' or 'in possession of Super Powers'. At least it does to the majority of people, ever.

Everyone knows Batman is a superhero, and so is Spiderman. The whole argument is utterly pedantic. Because otherwise, Superman isn't a superhero, as the stuff he does is normal for his species, same as I went to a restaurant yesterday, and that doen't make me a superhero. But he wears a costume and does things to help and puts his ass in the line. And is boring and shit, but that's another thread.

Absolutely. See also - Punisher.



This is why Hancock is looking like such a good film - man mysteriously gets superpowers, acts like complete cock and everyone hates him. Which is the far more likely outcome, to my mind.

Christ, if I developed superpowers, using them for fighting crime would be furthest from my mind.

Also: How the chuff did this thread become an argument about what constitutes a superhero? You lot are such nerdlingers, honestly.