I agree. I give the first Hellboy a 9 and this one a 6.

disagree, i thought 2 was slightly better than 1, it has more interesting characters and it's equally visually stunning as the first
so many movies, so little time

HELLBOY
1: 8/10
HELLBOY
2: 6/10

Agreed. First movie is better.

I much prefer the original too.

Hellboy 4/10
Golden Army 6.5/10
II gets the edge for being so beautifully shot and action scenes done a bit better.

This message has been deleted.

Exactly, it's a problem i've had with the first film since I saw it.
Why people prefer the first because it's "scripted better" when it clearly isn't, is beyond me.

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."

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!

"They were no bad guy", yes there was, prince Nuada, an he was stronger than Raspoutine from the first movie
"I don't care what you believe in, just believe in something ! No matter what"

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.

IMO they made a big mistake by not bringing the FBI agent back for the sequel. He kept the movie grounded and was a buffer between HB and Liz.

Hellboy 1 was so bad and cliche. How can you guys even compare? The prince and the forest scene was so much more epic then the entire first movie.

Agreed. Original's pacing and general script are slightly better.
I = 7.5
II = 7.0

Hated HellBoy 2
So awful so disappointing
David Hyde Pierce really needed to do the voice of ABE

Hellboy 2 is the superior film and does gets a higher rating.

Hellboy II has some incredibly cheesy scenes when Hellboy and Abe get drunk.
I actually thought the Barry Manilow singalong was a highlight.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

I liked the first better too.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world