Hellboy (2019) - Insert Obligatory "Purgatory" Subtitle Here

Going into a film with an open mind is sometimes difficult. With the media hype machine being what it is and the slew of viewer scores and opinions one can find online, being purely objective is nigh on impossible. What you can do though, is make a conscious effort to filter it all out and give whatever it is you’re watching a super large benefit of the doubt. Which is exactly what I did with the rebooted Hellboy when I rented it the other night. I willed myself into a state of ready acceptance, blocking out the critic reviews I’d already seen and the trailer that had underwhelmed, to achieve a near zen like peace.

Then, I sat back and discovered that it is possible to feel ripped off at only £1.99. It must be said that I am a fan of Ron Perlman’s Hellboy and that the meditation I underwent before hitting play was, in no small part, to give David Harbour a fair shake. This, however, proved unnecessary. Not because he was miscast, his voice and general temperament actually supporting his inclusion, but because with direction and writing this woeful they could have brought in the actual Devil and it would have been all for nought.

Neil Marshal is best known for his low budget horror film Dog Soldiers, bouldering with monsters, The Descent and, if you’re me, post-apocalyptic cheese fest, Doomsday. He’s never really broken out into mainstream Hollywood and has made his name more recently directing various episodes of shows such as Westworld and Game of Thrones. On the face of it, with a relatively small budget of 50 million dollars and what is a monster property to boot, he seems like a good choice to blend the comic book world with that of cult success. What we get instead is a smattering of passable action sequences, some genuinely interesting creatures and cinematography and a storyline so botched and rushed it will give you whiplash.

Many of these narrative problems stem from Summit Entertainment’s deranged notion of creating their own cinematic universe, with a further five films originally planned to spin off from the many poorly fleshed out sub plots Hellboy introduces over its two-hour run-time. Corporate greed once again trumping the business of making a good, standalone movie. *Cough*, Joker. The fact that Marvel has been the only success in this area has never deterred the financial adventurism of other and arguably lesser mortals. The film, therefore, has the unfortunate feeling of being simultaneously overlong while also underdeveloped.

The cast, meanwhile, is a decidedly mixed bag. As already mentioned, David Harbour was a fine choice to take on the role of hell’s greatest hero, but some others were distinctly lacking. Most notably Daniel Dae Kim as Major Ben Daimio and Sasha Lane as Alice Monaghan. I can’t tell you whether their characters are true to the source material, rather what I can tell you is that both American actors put on the worst English accents I have ever heard. It really does border on parody more than once and puts the final nail in any hope of a successful group dynamic. Thankfully, Mila Jovovich is in her element as Nimue, the wicked Blood Queen but due to deficiencies in the writing is criminally underused and can only provide light relief. Similarly, Ian McShane delivers a spirited, if oddly characterised performance as Hellboy’s adopted father. Where John Hurt of the original was nurturing and patient, McShane is biting and sarcastic, creating an adversarial relationship which fails to engage or be borne out by the finale.

Albeit, a very pretty lady.

The plot itself is confused by its corporate origins and attempt to tell a personal story. In both prior movies, Hellboy was depicted as a tortured hero, desperate for acceptance in a world which reviled him. In The Golden Army this gave Prince Nuada’s arguments weight as the film played upon Hellboy’s isolation and bitterness, forcing him to make a difficult choice. Hellboy (2019) however, simply ramps up the character’s angry outbursts and tempts him with a pretty lady. It’s not an improvement and as always with reboots, if it doesn’t go beyond the original work it’s not worth making. The only new addition of note being the buckets of blood and violence that litter the film's run time for no actual reward, other than a quick glance at the clock. As for the script, I knew all was lost when Hellboy uttered the phrase, “Shit of God,” while battling a giant. It was genuinely cringe inducing. Other pearls sprinkled throughout the film include, but are not limited to:


“Could you Google translate that for me?” in response to some magic gobbledegook.

“We make sure she doesn’t come back for the sequel,” when discussing what to do about the bad guy.

“Why does this book have so many words in it?” Need I say more?

All in all, not the best and surprisingly, not the product of a bloated team of staff writers. One mind was this bad all by itself.

Between the breakneck pace of the story, the shoddy writing and lazy direction, there is very little to recommend the new Hellboy. It doesn’t surpass it predecessors, other than perhaps in the CGI department and falls flat more often than not. It’s sense of humour is juvenile, its plot predictable and teaser ending, laughably optimistic. If there was any love in the film’s production, it was clearly buried under poor financial decisions and worst of all, has likely destroyed any hopes of seeing the former cast ever reprise their roles. A sin for which there can be no forgiveness.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The real concern when considering the unstoppable Marvel movie juggernaut is, when will it end and how? There are literally billions of dollars tied up in Thor, Iron Man, Captain America and the rest of the coterie.  So one has to wonder when, if ever, the studio will pull the plug in order to preserve the overall quality?  A serious question when you realise that some characters are signed up for a nine movie contract.
   
With that being said I approached Captain America: The Winter Soldier with a fair amount of excitement. From initial reviews and the trailer it looked like we were in store for a more rounded and engaging outing in comparison to the first film, a film I am still not particularly fond of.  There might have even been a certain wilful naivete on my part, having been mortified by the disaster that Man Of Steel would turn out to be after an apparently solid trailer and reaction.  Therefore I wanted The Winter Soldier to be a success if only to stave off becoming any more jaded to the comic book universe as a whole.  Whether that be DC, Marvel, Dark Horse or the funny pages.
             

Some heroes are prettier than others, eh?

Following the Avengers there was always the likelihood that one superhero wasn't going to be enough to sate an audience, at least not without a stellar story line, that it would feel like taking a step back.  A little like Thor: The Dark World turned out.  An entertaining, but uninspired walk around the Marvel block.  The Winter Soldier on the other hand delivers on both counts, treating us not only to the stars and stripes Captain himself, but Natasha Romanoff, assassin, spy and all round composite badass.  This is then capped with a tight narrative that is not only better than it's predecessor, but actively builds upon it.  It almost makes you think the execs and producers have some kind of plan for the series.  Crazy.
                             

It's quite clear from the off that the writers wanted to develop the Cap beyond his origin story, beyond being a clean cut goody who wouldn't put a toe wrong.  We did get a little of this in Whedon's tour de force, but it was fleeting and only hinted at a rebellious streak rather than featuring it.  In the Winter Soldier we get a more in depth look at Rogers as he tries to adapt to modern life, at one point pulling out a list of films, music and events he needs to catch up on after his sixty years on ice.  It's a nice touch that highlights the man out of time element.  We are further drawn to his sense of displacement and loss when he visits the museum exhibition depicting himself and his team during the Second World War, and by a conversation with the now dying Peggy Carter.  It all instils a sympathy for Rogers that was sorely lacking in the Avengers, in which his age was more of a joke than genuine character trait.

Air superiority is a serious SHIELD consideration.

                                   
This all blends seamlessly with the main plot and the Captain's increasing disillusionment with the way in which SHIELD operates.  As he says to Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury, "This isn't freedom, it's fear."  While he's talking about the helicarrier weapon systems, it sums up the juxtaposition between the murky world in which characters such as Black Widow live, breathe and take lunch, and the star spangled honesty that Rogers perceives himself as hailing from.  It's a clash of ideologies between the old and the new, acting as a fairly accurate allegory for the modern world.  It poses the question, how far would you go to maintain order?  How many principles and how many decent men would you sacrifice for the greater good?  I actually think it's the most grown up and well executed Marvel film to date.

In a surprise turn the relationship between Captain America and Black Widow was one of the film's highlights.  There was a genuine chemistry on screen as they played off one another, their differences making for an ensemble team that proves highly effective.  Given Romanoff's Russian background I had been hoping for a closer tie in with the Winter Soldier himself, for what there is proves to be little more than a token story. Although with the amount of self doubt and treachery that plays throughout the film, perhaps it was best to avoid anymore tangled subplots.  To ask for more could be construed as plain greedy and we do get to see the two face off in a classically well executed set piece.  So don't worry, there's action aplenty to compliment the story.
     
The Winter Soldier is a film that plays well upon it's connections, whether that be to the Marvel lore, between Captain America and SHIELD or the modern world and how we respond to threats in reality.  It doesn't molly coddle the viewer with special effects and quippy one liners (although there are plenty to be had) instead of asking questions that you might not expect from a comic book movie.  Steve Rogers in many ways serves as a mirror to an idealism that could be said to no longer exist, maybe it never did.  When you faced your enemies head on, when morality was less clouded by the intricacies of politics and extremism.  He is a straight shooter in a time when double speak and harsh action are the norm and in that sense it's hard not to love him.  He's honourable, he fights for what he thinks is right and most of all, he's human.  Sure he's beefed up with super human strength but his doubts, his worries and the traits that define him are undeniably mortal.  Unlike Thor or even Iron Man, he's grounded and serves as an empathetic vehicle for the stories trials and challenges.  Not to oversell it or anything.  Overall then this latest Marvel outing is a must see, if only so you can say you were there when comic movies took a leap forward, or there when they piqued.  Either way, this isn't one to miss.

There's a Reason They Call Them Joes: Retaliation

I am a guilty man. Not Operation Yew Tree guilty but certainly skimming the lines of good taste all the same. I, humble reader, enjoyed G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra. That's right I am an insurgent, a terrorist, a threat to good wholesome cinema and by god I will not apologise. It was fun, it was over the top and probably dumber than a bag of retarded cats, but it tickled that inner child (appropriately) with all it's techno ridiculousness and shiny explosions. It was before Channing Tatum even tried to act or Jason Gordon Levitt became a household name and for that we were gifted with the film equivalent of action crack. Cheap, nasty and oh-so satisfying. So when I heard there was to be a second outing for the Joes I was accordingly quite pleased. The withdrawal had become near terminal.  I almost watched a Van Damme movie.

But after sitting for the 110 minute runtime willing something interesting to happen I can safely say any and all previous excitement has been extinguished. This wasn't a G.I Joe movie and much like the new Star Trek films bears a brand, not a franchise. Gone are the exciting sonic weapons, the exo suits, the Pit and the majority of the original cast.  Instead we're left with a bunch of everyday soldiers who quite frankly have almost nothing of interest going for them. They're a special forces team with regular weapons and regular tactics. Sure we get to see a couple of bullets that can be guided round corners but it's all too grounded, as if the producers desperately wanted to prove that G.I Joe can be taken seriously after being savaged by the critics. But that doesn't work because, lets face it, G.I Joe is dumb. It's based on a toy line and really right there is enough said. Battleship and theTransformers franchise are two of the worst creations not only in cinema, but the history of language, art, literature, theatre and any other definable entertainment medium. And why dear reader do I not throw The Rise of Cobra on the bonfire as well? Because it had the common decency to do exactly what it said on the tin and not bullshit the viewer that we were watching a serious, dramatic action film. It was clear we were in it for the laughs, the lights and the explosions. Retaliation violated this sacred accord.

It suffered the Call of Duty effect. It came to believe that action was best expressed by contemporary militaries doing contemporary things with a hyperbolic story line thrown in to convince us fun was afoot. In CoD 3 the Russians invade America. In Retaliation Cobra seizes control of the US government by supplanting the president with an impostor. It sends the entire focus of the film into a tail dive, for on the one hand a terrorist organisation led by a toaster faced baddy has used high tech nannite equipment to replace the most powerful man on earth, but at the same time a couple of Green Berets led by the Rock are going to save the day? Talk about a juxtaposition. Now even if you can buy into this massive discrepancy and think maybe it'll have lots of cool explosions and set piece battles, you'd be wrong. Dead wrong. WMD wrong. For an "action" movie there is surprisingly little actioning going on, with the entire middle of the film meandering around the shocking revelation that the president isn't the president and how super evil Cobra is. There's also a plot focussed on Storm Shadow (a Cobra agent who was tricked into diabolical world machinations) but this hardly qualifies as Sherlock Holmes. If anything it's insultingly obvious. Even the 13 year olds in the audience could figure it out.

So having torn the film a new one maybe you're thinking this is the part when I say, "But at least it stars Bruce Willis." Surely any action film is immediately improved by none other than John Motherfucking McClane, hero of bald men everywhere and had he actually starred I might be saying that. He has about 20 minutes screen time, period. Far, far less than the trailer would lead us to believe and you come out feeling more than a little cheated. He was one of the main reasons I wanted to see the damned film, even mitigating my concern at the new, super real look with good old fashioned star power. Instead he appears briefly midway through the movie, buggers off and comes back for the under whelming showdown. Playing ex General Joe Colton he's supposed to be the creator of the G.I Joes, but we never get any exposition or an explanation of any kind. We really are supposed to just be impressed that Bruce Willis is Joe, a revelation which means nothing without any context. I would have killed to have General Hawk come riding in, declare the whole thing retconned and get back to fighting bad guys with Eiffel Tower eating missiles.

Hawk:  "That's right kids, it was all a horrible Cobra trick to convince you the studio are dumbasses."

Retaliation failed because it wanted to be something it wasn't. It wanted to be serious, a film that the critics wouldn't laugh at, a new and more respectable kind of G.I Joe. Whoever decided that whether it be Jon M. Chu, the writers or some suit they deserve pistol whipping. Preferably with one of those big Cobra rifles from the first film. You ruined a ridiculous premise with a need for vindication. You traded science fiction for the Rock. You destroyed your franchise not by making a commercial flop but by making a totally forgettable movie that while possibly spawning a third has no personality, no sense of fun. Retaliation deserves to be consigned to ignominy as a warning to every other studio out there that some films don't need a sequel, even if you're desperate to turn a buck. Rather that you should call a Channing Tatum movie a Channing Tatum movie and move on. Leaving those who despised the first to their fist shaking and we happy few who loved it to our drooling and much fuller wallets.

I Obeyed the Law

I'm not a big fan of personal posts, they feel all touchy feely and that's not really in keeping with my distaste for social interaction. But for this special, nay monumental event I've decided to throw my neurosis out of the window for the next few minutes to show off my latest DVD acquisition. It's my favourite movie of 2012, holds the title for the best comic book movie ever made as voted for by myself and the constituents of a rotten borough somewhere near Swansea and most of all puts your faith back in good old fashioned violence. That's right, it's The Amazing Spiderman. I just can't get enough of Andrew Garfield and his exciting new take on web slinging and the power/responsibility paradigm. Just take a look.

Nope, that's not Andrew Garfield.

As you can see I was misleading you with super sleuth like cunning. This isn't some two bit cash in that no one asked for, this is Dredd and as you may know from my previous review I am something of a fan of Karl Urban's take on Mega City Ones greatest law enforcer. I won't regale you with the specifics again so take a look here.  But if you haven't already, check this gem of mature comic book film making out. It didn't do well at the box office being an 18 and for that reason alone we're probably not going to see a sequel, but maybe if we mobilise, shake our fists and flush the studio with exemplary DVD sales we can see Dredd kicking ass and taking names sometime in the next twenty to thirty years. So buy it and make sure it's the right copy as no one should suffer Sly, especially if taken unawares.

Failure to purchase this DVD will result in a sentence of three years in the Cubes with no opportunity for parole.  Carry on citizen.

2500 Years in the Making: Coriolanus

I used to hate Shakespeare.  Not because it was bad or I couldn't understand it, but because like every other English school child I was forced to read it.  Not just once, but again and again as we painstakingly analysed every single sodding line.  It would, I think, make an excellent form of punishment.  Imagine the horror of being told to make notations for every nuance, every metaphor or else to do it all again with a whole new play.  Kids would learn very quickly to shut the hell up and behave, lest they want to bleed from the ears, I can tell you that much.  Yet, now I'm older and no longer have the educational gun to my head, I've found that I rather enjoy SOME of Shakespeare's work, most notably being Kenneth Branagh's Henry V and Leonardo Dicaprio's modern retelling of Romeo and Juliet.  So, when I saw the trailer for Coriolanus my interest was naturally piqued.  Modern warfare and classic literature?  Just try and stop me.
 

The armour of contempt: Caius Marcius.

Having been written between 1605 and 1608, the first thing I have to say is how well the story has aged.  Obviously revamped and brought into the 21st century by director Ralph Fiennes, Coriolanus and it's tale of pride and treachery is still as relatable and tragic as it was 400 years ago.  General Caius Marcius, played here by none other than Lord Voldemort and director Ralph Fiennes himself, is a hero of Rome, bane of their hated enemies the Volscians and noble to the core.  His disdain for the plebeians, the common folk is well known, demonstrated early in the film as he faces down a rioting mob.  Awarded the title Coriolanus he is set to be Consul, before the machinations of politicos and his own pride banish him from the very city he has given everything to protect and into the arms of his greatest enemies.  As a character it is hard to like Coriolanus, his arrogance and brutality too overbearing for the modern pallet, but you can respect him for staying true to his convictions.  Fiennes's portrayal is intense and moving, bringing to life a legendary general who is now believed to have never existed.  While his fall from grace is as deserved as engineered by those who would seek power themselves.
         

"This is Shakespeare!"

The supporting cast is an impressive array, with Brian Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, an under used Jessica Chastain and Gerard Butler as Volscian leader Tulfus Aufidius .  Each performance, while not necessarily stunning, is in line with Shakespeare's characters.  Each wrangling for their own agendas, their own advancement while Coriolanus is immovable in his convictions.  Relegated to being a pawn as he singularly refuses to play the games of those around him.  I have to say that Butler took me by surprise, his roughness, his inner Leonidas giving him the perfect counterpoise to Fiennes's calculated yet refined Roman general.  The parallels between the modern West and the Middle East are clear to see, but aren't forced in our faces, the tale of a 2500 year old struggle between the civilised Romans and the more barbaric Volscians successfully being preserved and not sacrificed to contemporary politics.  This is still first and foremost the tragedy of one man.
                   

Modern Warfare, 2500 years in the making.

Overall the modern setting is successful if a little jarring at times.  It's odd to see a military figure lauded as a hero or a man in a suit spouting Shakespearean cant, but once you get past the initial disorientation the story takes care of the rest, as do the action scenes.  While these aren't extensive, they are well choreographed as is the fight between Caius Marcius and Tulfus Aufidius.  My only complaint was that there wasn't more of it, that a few more explosions and a bigger battle would hardly of compromised the Shakespearean tone.  But hey, that could just be my Die Hard side talking.
                               
The problem Coriolanus has is that it's a little too far outside the norm for literary buffs and not Hollywood enough for the majority of film goers. It would definitely explain the films overall poor performance, but it would be unfair to judge it by this alone.  Shakespeare naturally puts many of us off, memories of hours pouring over one work or another forever seared into our brains.  So, what I would say is give Coriolanus a chance to change your minds.  Now that you're a little older, a little wiser, the language is far from insurmountable and leaves you feeling pretty clever come the closing credits.  How many movies can claim that?

You Disobeyed the Law: Dredd

These days violence is everywhere, be it in movies, video games or right outside your living room window if you happen to live in Hull. So it's fair to say that it's hard to really effect an audience, draw them in with a little mindless gun play and pints of fake blood. It has to be crafted, it has to seem necessary and most of all it has to toe the line between being gratuitous and justifiable. It is in this sweet spot that Dredd operates. Is it brutal? Yes. Does it make you cringe at times? Yes. Does it fit the tone, the character, the entire movies focus? Hell yes. You see being an 18 Dredd has the license to push boundaries and be downright bloody, but director Pete Travis seems to have twigged that gore alone doesn't make a film. It can in fact ruin one. So he set out to make a flick that is adult, in keeping with the Judge Dredd universe and doesn't lose itself in the process to childish Saw V antics. Something which could have easily been done with a character like Dredd, a one man wrecking machine with the ability to dole out justice straight into the brain pan of any would be criminal. A Dredd directed by Paul W.S Anderson really.

Smiling's for pussies and criminals.

So it was going to take a pretty stoic and outright badass actor to take on the role of Mega City Ones most unstoppable Judge. Someone like Bruce Willis, Jason Statham or the guy who played the green Power Ranger for instance. They got Karl Urban, and by the end of the movie I could barely comprehend why I would have ever wanted anyone else. Never removing his helmet the entire film it was going to be quite the challenge to portray Dredd as anything but an automaton, maybe packing a few quips but lacking in any real personality. For while not a complicated character to portray in any other action movie, being unable to express yourself with a full set of facial features is one huge handicap. Yet somehow, Urban pulls it off. With a voice that sounds like he chugs gravel like normal men down coffee, a mouth which has never even seen a picture, of a ghost of a smile, and an intimidating screen presence he brings Dredd to life and revels in it. He is the law and I'll be damned if I'm going to disagree.

Judges Dredd and Anderson enforcing the law.

Lena Headey as Ma-Ma: She's a wholesome lady.

Now that we have our enforcer, our title character it was up to writer Alex Garland to put Dredd in just the right situation for his select number of personality traits to shine. There couldn't be a repeat of Stallone's rambling mess or the franchise would never rise again. So enter a rookie Judge (Olivia Thirlby), a drug lord with serious anger management issues (Lena Headey) and 200 levels of degenerate criminal scum and you've got yourself a Judge's worst nightmare. Any Judge that isn't Dredd of course. Even with Olivia Thirlby's trainee Judge Anderson in tow he's a one man army and completely devout in his pursuit of justice, which amounts to some exceptionally cool set piece shoot outs and you leaving the cinema feeling pumped up to the eyeballs with manly testosterone. Anderson, it must be said, acts as a fine counter pose to Urban's slab of concrete emotional dysfunction, bringing a much needed human element to the film. As between Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) and Dredd there are some very extreme and psychotic personas flying about vying for attention, sometimes in the form of mini guns and brutal executions. So it's nice to have Anderson's grounding influence to remind us we haven't strayed into an asylum for gun wielding sociopaths.

Fear not citizens, I'm only out for a jog.

Being a post apocalyptic setting Dredd has to come with a certain desperation, a battle for survival that is defining of the time. In this area Dredd pulls off a more than passable depiction of a world in ruins, of corruption and crime running rampant. Every now and again the sets do seem a bit bear but it fits the aesthetic of the movie and doesn't feel like a cop out on the part of the budget. A few times I was reminded of the original Total Recall by the general murkiness of the world, minus the venerable Shwarzenegger that is. Without a doubt the entire movies success stems from it's serious tone, pulling away from the ridiculous campiness of the original in favour of a grittiness more in keeping with the series.

Coming to a conclusion Dredd is easily my favourite movie of the year, beating out The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises for the top spot. And this is for one simple reason. It achieves everything it sets out to do. There are no moments where I felt the plot, the script or the action had dropped the ball and to me that's just plain impressive. It's boxes of action, violence and comic book loyalty are all neatly ticked. It was tightly executed from beginning to finish and I really hope to see another in the offing, as where else can anyone be both a bit nerdy and bloodthirsty in cinema these days?