I don't get why this one's rated higher. Hellboy II has some incredibly cheesy scenes - the young Hellboy scene ( i thi
-
Darwinskid — 12 years ago(October 08, 2013 06:41 PM)
I agree, for me the first Helloby was the best out of the two becuase it had a perfect blend of drama, action, suspense, art, and humor. While Helloby II is a good follow up it just feels a little moreLight by comparison.
I have an unbelievably long ignore list. -
bradknopf — 12 years ago(November 03, 2013 11:00 AM)
This movie, while it had some nice visual elements to it, was all schtick in the story department. Drunk scene, beyatchy pregnant wife, rebooting the Manning/Hellboy relationship back to pure hostile. etc.
The first film is far better.
You're forgetting one thing- I just started using laser cats again! -
clark_gillies — 12 years ago(January 22, 2014 01:15 AM)
First one for me also.
2nd one just felt like a total reboot, to the point I was wondering if there was a in-between mini movie/cartoon movie to extend the story from the 1st and introduce us to the 2nd, as there just felt like far to many changes done far to fast. -
first-things-first — 12 years ago(January 22, 2014 06:37 AM)
To me the second revealed growth in the protagonist. They were no longer looking, but found each other. It also highlighted the need for more growth. What I found repetitive was the battles, probably what everyone else liked. The second had more focused action and was goal orientated. The first movie was all over the place, but connected in my opinion. I will the supernatural story is better in the second.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world -
CatelynTullyDidNothingWrong — 12 years ago(February 04, 2014 07:29 PM)
Because audiences (especially American ones- and I really hate to say that, but it's true) LOVES slapstick and explosions and the like. They just want ENTERTAINMENT RIGHT NOW and don't care about gorgeous scores, deep emotional scenes or great symbolism, like the first had. 2 had lots of cartoony violence, cheesy jokes and stuff to make anyone with the attention span of a hummingbird love because it was easier to understand and pay attention to.
And I love 2 as well, so don't get me wrong. But more action and more slapstick humor do NOT make a movie better. The first is superior in many ways, one being that it DOESN'T rely on cheap slapstick and big noises and cool huge manly guns to be thought provoking or entertaining.
The entire world is falling to ruins and poor Cheshire's off his tea. -
cyril_grey — 10 years ago(May 04, 2015 10:06 PM)
Oh stfu! I'm tired of this anti-American crap on these boards. There are plenty of people in other countries who lap up slapstick and explosions- how else do you explain Transformers and the Fast & Furious franchises selling so well overseas.
I have no issue with the other points about 2 being too slapstick (I think it has a better villian and much stronger story), but this "blame America" crap is really getting old. The problem with big budget cinema is more money is needed. More money means more investors. More investors mean more people to please. So edgy, arty films come from smaller studios. It has nothing to do with American audiences. In fact, all I ever hear is how sick we all are of these crap franchise films, and it's other countries who keep handing money hand over fist to films like Transformers 4 (look at the numbers. Also take into account population) -
knowledgefiend — 12 years ago(February 28, 2014 06:19 PM)
I agree. Hellboy 2 was pretty much special effects driven filler. It meanders, it's adolescent, and it lacks tension. The first film created the fun bada$$ that is Hellboy and the second film made Hellboy into a doofus.
Who replaces Hellboy as a bada$$ in the second film? Prince Nuada. Man, that dude was better developed than Hellboy here. It's pretty bad when you start empathizing with the bad guy more than the hero
Admittedly the creature designs and effects were
phenomenal
, but the subpar writing really ruined it. -
Xtremegt2 — 11 years ago(July 25, 2014 05:04 PM)
I agree completely. The 2nd one felt like a diorama. All it was were big, carefully constructed pretty scenes to look at, but never really to feel or enjoy too much. The story wasn't really a story, just an excuse to flex the creature shop. And there was no bad guy. It was a foregone conclusion how things were gonna end immediately.
It just felt like there were no stakes, and no real hook beyond, look how pretty things are.
It was a disappointment, because I really loved the first one. And more than that, I couldn't understand why everyone was going over the top, singing the praises of this one. It didn't surprise me at all when the box office came in for it.
Had they had a less literary and inconsequential bad guy/driving force to the film, than maybe something more could've come from it. -
Kent_Kainer — 11 years ago(July 27, 2014 01:30 AM)
I agree as well. I rated the first one 6 and the second one 5 but not because of cheesy scenes. The second one was much more predictable and thus pretty boring. Good for me it had these nice visuals.
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe! -
Morbius_Fitzgerald — 11 years ago(December 09, 2014 04:12 AM)
I find a problem with the first film is that it has a good first and third actthe second act just drags! You have to suffer through that "Hellboy is jealous of Myers" plot point and his relationship with Liz being complicated and do we really need this?
"I have always valued my lifelessness."