Why is this movie low rated?
-
rsc11560 — 17 years ago(January 24, 2009 03:44 PM)
People probably rated it low because they didn't really like it
Maybe the same people who thought hellboy 1 deserved a 5 are the same ones who gave pan's labyrinth a 10.
"Peter Jackson has neven been a fantasy director and certainly he doesnt have the intelligence to interpret Tolkien."
2 things about that ridiculous statement.- Peter Jackson has his experience with horror movies, but if your into cheesey old school special effects its really fantastic stuff. Del Torro is ALL about costumes and effects, I dont't really see huge change coming here Also the screenwriters are the ones who really made LOTR , and if the hobbit is any good, it will be for that reason as well.
- Interpret Tolkien? Did you read those books? There is little to be interpreted, unless your interested in how maybe Tolkien's Catholicism leaked into the stories. LOTR are not exactly some Albert Camus jumpoff, and The Hobbit even less so. (Not to say they aren't my favorite fantasy books). And if you mean interpret visually. Well as long as the Hobbit is at par with the LOTR movies I'd be happy.
Personally I like Jackson, Tolkien, and Del Toro- in case you think somehow I'm biased against the statement. Just think it's ridiculous.
-
op12 — 17 years ago(January 25, 2009 02:03 PM)
On Rotten Tomatoes, this movie has an 89% by top critics, and the sequel has an 87%, so I think IMDB is skewed somehow. It's not often critics appreciate comic book movies, so such high ratings really say something about the quality of these movies.
-
cheedo — 17 years ago(January 31, 2009 08:39 AM)
Because most people today have no refined or cool taste in movies.
I agree. Del Toro does terrific fantasy movies.
My latest husband-
http://www.imdb.com/board/20402271/ -
FrozenLittleBaby — 17 years ago(February 04, 2009 01:09 PM)
It was an enjoyable movie, I gave it a seven but there where scenes I just thought where silly looking, which was down to the hell hound? flinging Hellboy across the windows in the subway station. Now I never read the Hellboy comics so all I know of Hellboy is from the film.
Henshin-a-Go-Go-Baby
By the way I'm a Daywalker.
Suck My Triforce -
Brian_McGee — 17 years ago(February 04, 2009 03:37 PM)
I think they did an awful job at the wirework in this movie. Worst example I remember was when hellboy was running down the bridge as it was collapsing under him. For a while he was just hovering over the bridge, spinning his legs Wile E. Coyote style. Also I wouldn't call 6.8 low rated.
-
dolenraug — 17 years ago(March 23, 2009 10:08 PM)
Whoa whoa whoa. Hold up. I agree that Del Toro is an amazing fantasy director. In fact, he's one of my top 3 directors. But Jackson is an amazing fantasy director as well (he's my number 1 favorite director, thanks to his outstanding work on Lord of the Rings).
Blah blah quote blah.
http://asinyne.deviantart.com/ -
sErpEnt_v — 17 years ago(March 31, 2009 09:28 AM)
I don't see why people (someone in this thread, but others too) refer to Hellboy as being an intelligent movie.
I thought it was heavy on the cliches, and had an overall "men in black-ish" feeling to it, which I found genuinely unattractive.
Once
Broom died
, what little interest I had for the characters vanished. The plot was mindless and boring for the most part, and that generally does not bode well for any movie.
I gave it a 5/10 because it wasn't a complete waste of time, but I will definitely not recommend it to friends.
What's funny is, like someone in this thread said, I too rated Pan's Labyrinth rather highly (I think I gave it an 8). In some ways I feel, this is indeed only half the movie that PL is. I can't quite put my finger on what makes the difference though.
I don't know, Butchie, instead.
-
bing-57 — 16 years ago(May 03, 2009 10:29 PM)
Both Hellboys are brilliant fantasywise,
This movie was just too random to be enjoyable. Well, if you liked an endless series of explosions and fight scenes I guess it would be enjoyable.
But I tend to look for a plot in a movie. Honestly, I watched the movie last night and today I cannot even remember what the plot was.
I couldn't really relate or sympathize with any of the main characters and I really didn't care whether they lived or died.
And I kind of objected that every problem could be quickly solved by punching it.
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)? -
trescia-1 — 16 years ago(January 02, 2010 08:15 AM)
It's low rated because the film has some basic problems telling a story. It's confusing and there are holes in the logic so big that they bothered me, and I'm not the type of person who insists on logic in movies! The biggest issue is about the "Samael" monster. This creature reproduces in two ways it multiplies when you kill it AND it lays eggsand since much of the plot of the film revolves around Samael population control, this is just confusing and dumb. Del Toro may have been able explain it, but he chose to devote much of the film to huge, mindless fights between Hellboy and the monster (which comes back, double, when you kill itso killing it is counter-productive). Really, the second big Hellboy/Samael fight should have been cut and the time devoted to having the characters stand around and explain the plot. Not a good way to tell a story, I know, but better than nothing. I'm actually a fan of Hellboy and I liked this movie, but I'm a fan. I can understand why the rating is low. The storytelling is bad.
-
shartmann — 16 years ago(January 05, 2010 02:37 PM)
Hellboy was ho-hum for me. I will say that I am not the intended target audience for this film - don't read comics and I don't get excited by special effects.
My problem with Hellboy is that is didn't hold my attention, and that is with multiple attempted viewings. As such I found the story tedious (if their was an intelligent plot I don't know what it was).
However, Lord of the Rings - loved it! Can't wait to see how Del Toro puts his influence into the Hobbit. Del Toro is certainly good a creating visually appealing films (for what that's worth), but should probably leave script writing to others (IMO). -
west3210 — 14 years ago(August 16, 2011 03:02 PM)
I don't care about ratings on this site. There are many people who watch and rate movies for all the wrong reasons. Some guys above said 'awful wirework' or 'some scenes are too silly in a movie with big red guy with horns and fish-friend' etc.etc. Different genres must be watched with different expectations. Hellboy and its sequel are masterpieces in their genre mostly because they succeed to be positively different in terms of characters, visuals, humor and overall tone.
You go Glen Coco -
brushfyr — 14 years ago(September 15, 2011 03:30 PM)
Everything is subjective, and not everyone likes the same thing.
Personally I didn't like the movie, other then Ron Pearlman and the guy doing Abe.
I liked the comic book, not an obsessive fan but it's nice that Mike Mignola was doing wanted instead of doing other people's characters.
I also liked most of del Toro's work, liked Chronos despite it being low budget, and thought Mimic was great, loved Pan's Labrynth. Didn't bother with Blade because they looked kind of stupid. I was going to pick up his vampire novel but found out the vampires have 6 ft long tongues, which doesn't seem like a vampire. I know he likes weird things, but at some point it's just to damn goofy.
As far as this movie, first they added some nonsense that since Hellboy will live for so long that despite being 'born' 60 odd years ago he's closer to a teenager in attitude. That was just needless, someone decised to make kids like the character was to make him more relatable in the most absurd way.
I also hated Jeffrey Tambor's character, it was also needless, the most simple minded character ever - the dickish boss. He's added nothing, they could have conflict with better characterization but Tambor is jut onscreen to be booed.
Also in the comics, there are alot of weird things that are general knowledge. The BPRD is well known, hence the insignia. If it's a super secret underground group no need for an insignia. The whole 'secret monsters running amock' crap is pretty played out, and honestly in the age of youtube and cell phones that take pictures it wouldn't stay secret for long. You could say people who posted Hellboy pictures would be considered crazy like UFO nuts but that's kind of how people found out about him in the movie, plus the whole purpose is to keep people from finding out would be ruined as some people would start to think something's up.
And really, considering that they deal with things that could kill millions, being super duper double secret noone knows us doesn't make sense. The FBI doesn't publish and names and pictures of all their agents but people know who they are. If an FBI agent shows up at your door you're not going to seriously say "who? never heard of you guys!". So people knowing who the BPRD is cuts down on the whole "ok, you've never heard of us but trust the fish man and devil person, we're obviously here to help you!" it was yet another needless element added because noone thought the storyline through to realize the cliche doesn't make sense.
This seemed like a movie geared towards 14 years more then a well done action movie. Costumes and sets were cool, story was lacking.
SOmeone said that some people had problems with scenes that are silly considering the character is red with horns. Really, Hellboy's look doesn't bother me, I watched alot of horror and scifi, read alot of comics as a kid, so it is possible for something with Hellboy to be to silly.
What if the did a Bollywood song and dance scene before the fights? What if Hellboy can jump high be have super sulferous farts? Passes gas and he goes up 20 feet! What do you mean it's to silly he's red and has horns! Why not have it turn out that Abe is Hellboy's father? Why not that was the best scene in Empire Strikes Back, sure they're no enemies, but noone will see it coming! It's going to be awesome!! -
TheManInOil — 14 years ago(October 12, 2011 03:52 PM)
It's got some cool monsters in it and it's well-made, but what it comes down to is that the story is weak and convoluted.
"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."