(no subject)
This weekend we went to see Hellboy II. We've both been super excited for this as it was essentially the last blockbuster of the summer and now has to tide us over for 12 months as we've all been screwed over on the Harry Potter film this year. Oh yes, I'm sore about that one. First person to mention Twilight gets smacked.
Anyway, I'd heard amazing to middling reviews of Hellboy and, optimist that I was, I expected something sliding below the Holy Trinity of comic book films. I have good reason for this! I will explain:
The first Spider-Man film was Ok, right? So was the first X-Men, the first Pirates, the first Batman, the first Alien. They were a romp but always kinda fell short of the mark. The follow ups to all these, however, totally blew what came before out the water. This is what I expected of the next Hellboy film.
Prior to this year, I didn't particularly care for Hellboy. On first watch I didn't rate it much at all but I came to find it endearing and, of course, Ron Perlman is fabulous. But now Del Toro has established himself as a mix between Henson and Burton on acid I figured his second attempt would be slightly less silly and beautiful. Hellboy II had a lot going for it and not just by a member of Bros.
Alas, it was not to be. It was a romp, yes, but I didn't really ever connect to it. Oh, it was pretty! So pretty! But it knew it was pretty and it meant to be pretty and gosh darn it I better admire it. To be honest, it was so pretty I feel like Del Toro was trying to distract me from his own film. He's yapping at my heels with his visionary-ness, all "look at me look at me" and I'm all "SIT DOWN HO, I'm trying to watch". I like more subtlety with my superheroes... luckily, I got that because there was a complete lack of characterisation.
Now, that's not to say it wasn't fun. It was. It was fun and it was pretty, but there was a whole section where I thought "ffs, this is long". And it's not, really, so that's a flaw right there. But it slides comfortably in the "above average" section of the Comic Book Movie Scale Of Awesome alongside, I don't know, maybe the first X-Men. A bit above the first Hellboy film.
I get the impression it suffers from Middle Sibling Syndrome. This is rare in films nowadays, I reckon, and is more prone to television (see: Joss Whedon and his second rate Welsh clone, RJD). It's the episode just before the finale which is setting everything up for a big finish. Unfortunately, this causes the pentultimate episode to be dull and irritating, and considering HBIII will be another few years ago I'm left unsatisfied. Certainly there are quite a few things in HBII that surfaced and were never tied up and it's clear that they're just there to steer the future third film home. There's one particular thing that's going to effect the last film quite a bit and in my opinion *that* kinda thing has the potential to ruin it. There will be hijinks akin to Dawn joining Buffy I suspect. Do not want.
And that's what I think about Hellboy.
See, I love comic book films. They're always a lot of fun. They make me go "ooooh" a lot. I like that shit. I like that there's nearly always sequels and that I'm about to get immersed in a whole new world. It's geeky and fun and ticks all my boxes.
But there's a thing happening in Hollywood right now, and that's the trilogy. Mostly because they're out of ideas, but more and more I'm noticing a pattern: The first is usually pretty good fun but still finding it's feet, the second is ASTONISHING and the third is shit. Don't believe me? Well fuck you. Observe:
Spiderman. That was Ok. It was really fun! Spider-Man 2 is one of the best comic book films ever made, FACT. Indeed, for direction is was the best there is because Raimi knows his shit and there were frames that could've been taken straight from the books.
Anyway. Third Spider-Man? Wasn't THAT a pile of shit? YES. Apparently everyone had pissed of Raimi by this point.
X-Men. The first was pretty good! It fell over in parts but that was held together by motherfuckin' Hugh Jackman and MOTHERFUCKING Patrick Stewart. The second was really really quite brill (excluding Halle Berry). The third was arse and I don't even know how because it had Beast. Maybe because Bryan Singer had fucked off to do Superman? I don't know. Singer was pretty awesome.
Pirates of the Carribean is not a comic book film but still follows the pattern. Well, the third wasn't arse but it was the worst of the three and had glaring plot holes, whereas I really did think the second was amazing. Apparently this is an unpopular opinion?
Alien. No, I'm not saying Alien 3 was terrible but ffs everyone, Aliens is the most amazing film ever. Alien 3 doesn't even want to measure up to this and let's not even get into Alien: Resurrection. Bad Joss! Bad!
I know I'm missing shit here. I have thought about this a lot this morning and forgetten it all.
So, this leaves me with the question: What does it mean for two of the three aforementioned Holy Trinity (see scale below)? Well. Nolan's Batman Redux is certainly following form - the first is good (gooder than most firsts, all told), the second is AMAZING... the third is shit? I don't know how well I'd cope with that. And Iron Man started off absolutely stunningly, so what's in store for that?
And now, Hellboy? It's all gearing up to it - could it end on a high after all? I'd like to think so. There's much untapped potential there.
Unfortunately, solid good trilogies (comic book or no) appear to be a thing of the past. Back to the Future is the only exception I can think of. Star Wars has been made null and void since episodes I, II and III. So. 20 years since the last good trilogy? UNACCEPTABLE.
And now:
At least, that's how it stands at the moment. Yes, it's missing a lot I know but I've not the time to overcomplicate it!
Okbyebye.