Change Your Image
kurt49
Reviews
Hellboy (2004)
Obvious potential wasted
Hellboy revolves around classic comic book/action/superhero genre story lines. Essentially Hellboy is a kind of demon who has found his way on earth. He is brought up from a child by a priest and within a government society and has chosen to protect the people of earth from the supernatural, rather then be a menace (the normal career route for a demon).
The set up of the story involves creative uses of history, combining Nazi experiments with the occult. It's preposterous, but so is the whole idea of a demon roaming the streets. I find the explanations of the characters, who they are and how they came to be very well handled. The sequences are to the point and very entertaining. In fact the opening is the best part of the film, therein lays the problem
.
Essentially Del Toro who both writes and directs this piece bottles it. The film is absent of all tension or any major conflict. Hellboy is essentially established as invincible within the first act and so the rest of the film comprises of scenes in which any conflict is automatically rather crass because we know inevitably Hellboy will be OK and the bad guy will die. I hear you cry that this is the case for any action/hero film. Well yes it is, but once we are drawn into a well made action film we can't help but feel the hero may die. Die Hard works because John Mclane looks likely to die at all parts. He escapes death by the slimmest of margins. The stakes are raised as his wife is also in danger etc etc
Terminator and Terminator two work because in both cases the villain is far superior than the hero. The threat and tension is constant.
Some of the other major weaknesses are: Del Toro is also guilty of employing deus ex machina. Characters generally disappear and reappear as their skills are needed within the story. The villain is featured in maybe three scenes. He has no motives. Turns up unexpectedly and inexplicably. In the one scene Hellboy looks to be up against a real threat (groups of monsters) a character unleashes her abilities - the screen fades to white and inexplicably the monsters are dead but everybody else lives. A minor character established in an irritating and undeveloped love story becomes the key to the conclusion of the film. Her character is so thin, the relationship so undeveloped. It is clear she is nothing more than a prop of sorts to push the plot along and to make it all make sense. I don't want to ruin the ending of the film but essentially a character that is dead is miraculously and unbelievably brought back to life
.
The film suffers from poor dialogue and one liners that just aren't smart or funny. After a while it all starts to grate.
What's more Del Toro blows the action scenes with some uninspired visuals. And whoever made the creative decision to make hellboy's primary weapon a gun instead of his clunking arm should be fired. Essentially the use of the gun weakens the concept of the film, degrading the fights to nothing more than a one sided shoot out
The few positives include: The cinematography is very good. At all times a sense of mood is established by the dark lighting and the darker colour palette. As well as the use of interesting locations. Yet perhaps it is all a bit samey as well.
The use of cgi and Fx is well done. Never do we get an over load. When effects are used they are used well and the sense of realism is kept. Rather similar to how Nolan used FX in batman. I much prefer this method to the overtop effects we often see.
All in all this is a pretty poor film. The real shame is that (despite not reading the comics) I found the film wasted a lot of potential. Hellboy as a character has a lot of instantly apparent fascinating dimensions which are completely unexplored. The film has watch-ability, in the sense that if it comes on TV and nothing else is on it might be worth a viewing. But in any other situation I wouldn't bother with it.
The Plague (2006)
A triumph and a failure
The plague is a slice of life film about a group of youths in a London council estate. The use of underground music, improv, some non actors and authentic locations lend the film a real energy. Greater yet they leave the audience feeling as if they have really experienced the estate, as if they have physically visited it.
In interviews the director (Gregg Hall) has said he grew up in a similar estate like that from the film. This really comes across here. A man in the trenches view.
And to be honest this is what the film does best, as a portrait it works well.
But as a film it's a bit of a failure.
At times the acting slips. Lines are delivered poorly. Bodies become wooden. It's only here and there but it's distracting enough. The micro budget means one has to take or leave the production values - but at time shots are just plain soft and out of focus which is nothing but sloppy.
The radio DJ who seems to over see things is lifted straight from Do the right thing. In do the right thing Lee uses the character to expertly control the tone of the film. Gregg hall uses his character to preach at us. Is there anything worse than a preachy film? The director's visual style leaves us wanting. Jump cuts are the tell tale sign of a young, just out of art school director and they rear their ugly head here. Someone's drinking. Someone's doing drugs. Someone's angry let's throw in a jump cut to show their disorientation. It's all a bit tired.
Moreover a large majority of the long takes fail. Scene's are sucked of any real bite by the unblinking camera. We all remember the intensity the long take brought in 'that scene' in secret and lies but it has the reverse effect here.
The visuals fail down to the very basics, such as framing and blocking are often very poor.
The big event ending of the film is terrible. A plot that has been almost non present suddenly pops up again for us to be 'shocked' by violence and death. Why writers/directors can never shun a clichéd ending is beyond me. Especially when we consider this film was 100% independent.
This film is a classic kitchen sink realism job. Ugly. Predictable. Nonetheless it works as a slice of life piece. Variety have said the film 'recalls the early, no-budget work of Brit director Shane Meadows' and that's the problem. This film could be compared to any realist Brit director. One formulaic film after another just like Hollywood.
Lola rennt (1998)
don't believe the hype
This is a film that often hides behind the guise of being completely original and its fans often use this as the defense for it. However, the theme of different realities and the possible outcomes following cause and effect relationships is a common theme in theatre, literature and film and so for one this film cannot be considered completely unique as it is by many. Yet this is of no real concern for me, if it's a good film then it's a good film despite it being formulaic.
The problem with this film for me is that it is not particularly interesting. We simply see 20 mins of action repeated back to us three times with slight variances. By the third time of seeing such events one is bored and really not that interested in the outcome for the characters(besides, the third time around it seems as if everything is too contrived and unbelievable, with plot elements such as time dissolving). In fact I found myself caring very little for the characters and I believe this was in the most part due to the lack of roundness to the people involved in the story. We are shown stereotypical two dimensional characters eg . lola - headstrong young female who has trouble with parents. The father - aggressive,untrustworthy executive. Then again I suppose we cannot expect much more from a 'concept' film. To me it seems that the filmmakers knew they weren't dealing with anything particularly brilliant here and so did their very best to make up for it in post. The fast paced nature of the editing makes the film like one long music video and most of the time succeeds in hiding the lack of depth to the film and keeping an audiences attention. Moreover there is a constant thumping drumbeat soundtrack to create tension which would be non existent otherwise.
As such i recommend this film to any young filmmaker as it would surely provide inspiration on the editing sides of film and perhaps even highlight the worth of a good editor which is something that is sadly often ignored. For everyone else this is a fun but pointless film that relies on form and not depth.
13 Tzameti (2005)
A great concept - though not completely original
This is a film all about the middle. The first 35 mins are boring and frankly are motivated by nothing except to make the middle section slightly plausible. As such the first section comes across as wooden and unbelievable. The ending was predictable, and I didn't care for it much but it didn't take anything away from the film. However the middle act is extremely good. The roulette scenes are handled beautifully by a director who succeeds in maintaining tension and tone. The acting is great and shows a subtlety which helps to support the tone of the film which is always teetering on the edge of falling into the absurd.
One thing that was very poor about this film was the use of black and white photography. It came across as nothing but pretentious and is a cheap device to create that cinematic film and tension - It add's to the power of the film but ultimately comes across as amateur and undermines the whole piece. If the director could have kept the same tension in the roulette and middle sections in colour photography then it would have made the scenes all the more impressive.
Be warned though, this is a purely concept film. No characterisation. No engaging dialogue, It's all about the middle roulette sections - so if you're part of the art house crowd and interested in seeing this film then keep that in mind. The beginning and end are forgettable and as such I cant help but think this would have been better as a short film, in fact it feels like a great little short with inconsequential beginning and end tacked on to get it widespread theatrical release and DVD sales. But ultimately this is a vehicle for the young director and it has got him attention in Hollywood, so it certainly has worked.