Just back from seeing HellBoy with the Anonymous Economist’s posse. It was the perfect reverse of my experience with Riddick. That one was supposed to be expensive rubbish; this one was a Hollywood blockbuster that the critics had given us permission to like. They were wrong again. It was so empty and lazy that I can’t even be bothered to review it. Just don’t be tempted to give the bastards responsible any of your cash.
18Sep04 — 11
Could you post a list of when you are going to see films? If I had read this last week I would have saved myself £3.75. I even fell asleep at one point.
It should win a prize for the most ridiculous use of Nazis on celluloid.
Argh! I should’ve warned you to save your money, D. Total waste of time. I wouldn’t even pay for the pirated version.
I haven’t seen either of them, but the critical reaction is easily explained just by looking at the credits: Hellboy was directed by a recognised auteur (and one who alternates between big-budget blockbusters and small, intimate pieces like Cronos and The Devil’s Backbone, making him even more of a critical darling), while The Chronicles of Riddick wasn’t.
The utter absurdity of this approach is that it assumes the director of a $100 million blockbuster actually has much creative clout beyond physically making the thing and sticking to schedule – with very few exceptions (Tim Burton springs to mind, and he’s been badly off the boil of late), these are not vehicles for personal expression or statements of any kind of artistic credo.
I’ll add that the “Hellboy” movie is also an insult to the comic. Not that I enjoyed the comic book much, but I just wince at what this guy could do to John Constantine or Lobo.
“Daredevil” on the other hand, was a fun ride just as the comic book is… unfortunately, I think it was a casualty of the anti-Ben Affleck sentiment. It wasn’t a great movie, but I didn’t resent every minute I was in the cinema either.
“the critical reaction is easily explained just by looking at the credits”
As we sat in the cinema at the end of the film, dazed with disappointment, and the director’s name appeared, that’s exactly what I thought.
Remember when everyone agreed that Pitch Black was crap? Now it’s an “under-rated low-budget horror classic”. You can bet in ten years that history will have been rewritten and the critical consensus on Riddick and HellBoy will have flipped perfectly—“We have always been at war with HellBoy…”
“‘Daredevil’ on the other hand, was a fun ride just as the comic book is… unfortunately, I think it was a casualty of the anti-Ben Affleck sentiment. It wasn’t a great movie, but I didn’t resent every minute I was in the cinema either.”
Couldn’t agree more. I watched Daredevil over the Atlantic and it was a blast. One day, I hope, someone will do justics to The Dark Knight Returns.
Or Wonder Woman…. 😛
I thought you should know that according to my Daily Mail (dread words!) there is a film on tonight called “Below” by the same director who directed that ‘Riddick’ film you’re all wittering on about.
Also, given our host’s prediliction for ‘pulp fiction’, I note that Charles Cumming has just published his second book. His first featured a smart, morally ambiguous, metro 20/30 something who becomes entangled with MI6, called “A Spy by Nature”. Deeply cynical and hugely enjoyable, and with the sort of ‘hero’ that I suspect many contributors to this page will identify with. Highly recommended, but then again, I am a Daily Mail man!
I just wince at what this guy could do to John Constantine
Well, not “this guy” per se but you get the idea.
AUGH!!! How can they put Keanu Reeves as Constantine?! He thinks that looking constipated approaches an expression of angst. Jeet, ignorance was bliss, but now you’ve shattered that, haven’t you?
Hello, Jeet. I’ve noticed your ‘Blog on the roll at Norm’s place and hadn’t gone any further than thinking, “Cool name”. I had a read this morning and I enjoyed it.