I must be getting old. Everyone seems to be raving about Del Toro’s sequel but I found myself bored at what I consider to be a lame attempt to take Hellboy mainstream.

Oh sure, there are plenty of gore and gross, albeit not in the least scary, moments, but that clearly falls under mainstream these days and does not in any ways grant Hellboy II with coolness or cult credentials. Whereas the first Hellboy seemed content to target a geeky and comic book audience (and that was one of the film’s strengths – that it did not aim to please too many people) and kept the silly one liners to a minimum, Hellboy II just goes way overboard and noticeably goes after the common denominator Hollywood blockbuster crowd. The monsters and creatures come and go as Hellboy robotically blows them to smithereens, removing in the process any type of tension and suspense and leaving us with a feeling of frustration and boredom at this gratuitous spectacle of recycled ideas. Hellboy is no longer the cool, dark and misunderstood fallen devil, he has become simply a circus clown, made to deliver as many ‘comic’ lines as possible for our cheap amusement. And the acting also seems to have taken a step back with Selma Blair in particular being quite excruciating to watch.
However, credit must go to what Del Toro’s and his crews usually excel at: creating fantastical and magnificent decors as well as sublime costumes.
Disappointing for a director whom we know to be much more talented than this.

So here I am, hanging out in the flavellas of Rio de Janeiro, taking some well deserved time off from my busy schedule and hoping to find inspiration for my next screenplay, when, sadly, I come across a film shoot: Hulk número duas.
I observe silently for a few minutes until Louis Letterier comes over, greets me and proceeds to tell me about how this Hulk movie is going to kick some serious ass but also how it will skilfully marry action, adventure, mystery and emotional depth. A new level in comic book adaptation, a work of such intensity that people will quickly forget the mediocrity of Ang Lee’s first Hulk, he says…a portrayal of emotionally troubled creatures who long for the acceptance of the world and the normalness of others…a story of love, betrayal, courage and sacrifice…a timeless piece that, yada yada yada yada…

At that moment, feeling a sudden craving for a Mojito, I pull one of my best disappearing acts, leaving this man behind who is still talking to no one, and knowing only too well that this Hulk film is going to be a disaster of monstrous proportions.

A friend of mine recently commented that, as a child, he couldn’t get into Iron Man because as far as super heroes went, IM was pretty lame. I also never quite got into the exoskeleton-wearing playboy myself, and I must agree that without fancy super powers, radioactive bugs, hammers from the Gods, extravagant nemesis, or mystical origins, Iron Man in fact offered very little to tickle the imagination of young men looking for something beyond what can sometimes be perceived as the boring limitations of reality.

Iron Man in 2008 tries to connect us to the realities of terrorism and war, attempting perhaps to distance itself from the traditional comic book approach and target market. The Man of Steel (of nano fiber would be more appropriate) can help us win the war on terrorism and the world would be a better place if all the greedy businessmen like Tony Stark, Iron Man’s alter ego, would realize that there is more to gain by helping their fellow human beings than by profiting from them. Thus, a weak and overly simple morality angle underpins a film that also happens to have very little action in it. Following unsuccessfully in the footsteps of the Spiderman franchise, Iron Man tries to be too smart for its own good and is filled with cheap lessons about life. Oh and it banks all of its coolness factor on everyone’s latest and most favourite celebrity: Robert Downey Jr.

Don’t get me wrong; I like the guy as much as anyone else. He oozes so much coolness, he ought to patent it. And ever since I watched Less than Zero (1987) eons ago, I learned to appreciate his mannerisms and the overall modus operandi that is so specific to his acting. But I have also come to understand that this is exactly where the problem is with his performances. One is always watching Robert Downey Jr., and rarely the characters that he portrays. Whatever film of his one watches, one can always expect to see Robert Downey Jr. turning up. But because he is so likeable, and now bankable, roles are made to fit around this set of mannerisms. Whether in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005), Fur (2006), A Scanner Darkly (2006), Zodiac (2007), and now Iron Man, the Robert Downey Jr. persona is stronger than the character he is supposed to impersonate, even if this character is perfectly suited to his mannerisms.

There are so many comic book film adaptations these days that each film must find an edge, a unique selling proposition, to make it appealing and marketable. Personally, I think the angles that they found as an excuse to resuscitate Iron Man - current world events, Robert Downey Jr., and possibly the relevance of some of the technology (building such an exoskeleton with the capacity for enhanced strength, vision, communication, endurance, etc…has today nothing to do anymore with Sci-Fi. This is one of the many things that DARPA has been working on for years) on display in the film - are not enough to make this a compelling picture. The characters are by and large poorly developed (which can sometimes be tolerated in comic book adaptations, as long as something else compensate for it), the storyline is fairly weak and predictable, and the action sorely lacking. If one is not going to include much action in such a film, they should ensure that at least other aspects of the film are strong enough to support the overall experience. The end result is that Iron Man is unfortunately a bit bland.

And then, as surely as Luke knew in his heart that Vader was his father, it downs on me that George, who knows a thing or two about silly movies, is right: ‘Spider-Man 3 IS silly’.

The problem with V for Vendetta is that it uses too many ‘fear-of-the-near-future’ cliches and stereotypes to tell its story. There is nothing in its vision of the future that hasn’t been shown on screen before, and better. Still, the film has an overall good pace, some fine British actors, great production design, a few electric action/music moments which the Wachowski Brothers are so good at. And, finally, the film has that Voice. Who wants to see behind the mask when we have that Voice? I still sometimes shout ‘Mr Anderson!’ randomly, just to see if i can imitate that Voice…i could listen to Hugo Weaving all day…

Sin City is a fairly entertaining film to watch, mostly because of its visual aspect. In a truly comic book style, separate stories seem to be taking place in parallel and connect to each other in some way.

Some stories and characters are more interesting than others (Mickey Rourke’s tale is absorbing while Bruce Willis’ is dull and uninspiring) and the violence often becomes too gratuitous.

Film architecture and design has existed almost as long as cinema itself. In 1976, Leon Barsacq argued in Caligari’s Cabinet And Other Grand Illusions that the fantasist sets developed by Georges Melies at the beginning of the 20th century were a considerable improvement over anything that had been done previously in that they created a deeper reality and gave the image a more substantial meaning. He further added that cinema escaped its primitive phase once it moved away from simple backdrops to three-dimensional sets, thereby creating an architectural space within cinema[1]. Post World War I, the German Expressionists fully explored this new architectural space through the creation of sets that attempted to reflect the inner emotions of the characters in the films. And David O. Selznik’s use of the term ‘production design’ in reference to the work of the American director and set designer William Cameron Menzies on Gone with the Wind (1939), finally helped film design and architecture gain the official recognition and visibility that has since become an integral part of the cinematic experience and of the output of most film industries.

Following fairly closely the emergence of production values in the history of cinema has been the rise and acceptance of science fiction cinema. It is indisputable that the two are interconnected and that a process exists where both feed off from one another. Cinema learns from architecture and architecture learns from cinema. As far back as 1926, many architects were said to have been impressed and influenced by Metropolis (1926). Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 (1968) also apparently became a source of inspiration for the world of architecture, with the director himself having sourced a lot of his inspiration from several existing architectural and design trends and concepts. Today, terms like ‘science fiction architecture’, ‘high-tech architecture’ or ‘cyber architecture’ are commonly used to refer to a new and ‘modern’ style of architecture that draws heavily on science fiction and new technologies. For many architects, ‘science fiction is an imaginative form of design’[2], making its visualizations worth studying.

  Read more »

If cinematic representations of hell, heaven, and demons tend to either bore you, make you lament the sad state of Hollywood cinema, or trigger uncontrollable giggles, then stay away from Constantine. If you are looking for another Blade, a parade of non stop mindless action, then also stay away from Constantine.

The film threads a fine line between Hollywood action and darker, edgier, more serious cinema. The subject matter itself, based on the comic book Hellblazer, is bound to automatically alienate many people, including most art house critics who have better things to do than to to spend their precious gray matter on such implausible rubbish.

Unlike me, who, occasionally, loves to absorb large quantities of such rubbish, as long as the film manages to remain serious in its exploration of the subject matter (and is reasonably well made). I was definitively pleased to see that, for the most part, Constantine avoids those supposedly funny one liners that are a trademark of Hollywood cinema and that are too often used as ‘comic’ relief. Constantine tries to be dark and serious, and while it does not always succeed, it still provides for very good entertainment.

I am actually torn between giving it a 3 and a 4. As with no. 1, Raimi tried to avoid making a brainless action and special effects-driven blockbuster and he must be credited for this. The film is in fact a character-driven piece, and Tobey Maguire makes Peter Parker the kind of guy we can relate to and understand. Doc Oc makes a great villain (his metallic tentacles are spectacular) in spite of his somewhat unbelievable quick back and forth between good and evil. However, as much as i enjoyed the morality aspect of the tale, i felt that by the end of the film we had been given too much of it, and, interestingly, i was craving for a bit more action.

This is a fairly solid effort by the director of Cronos and Blade II.

Guillermo Del Toro is an exciting and promising director with an interesting taste for the bizarre and unusual. He also seems to be attracted to stories that combined elements of the surreal with plausible and realistic settings.

Ron Perlman is indeed very charismatic, as many critics have pointed out, in the role of a demon raised on earth and dedicated to fighting the forces of evil that gave birth to him.

The film contains some truly wonderful special effects that make the experience very entertaining.

Yet, the constant deluge of jokes and comic relief moments ruined what could have been a very serious sci-fi flick.

British Science Fiction cinema has always lived in the shadow of its American counterpart, either as a result of a direct effort to emulate an American style to enable the films to reach broader markets or as an indirect consequence of the fact that, since the 50’s, Science Fiction cinema has been associated with America, drawing on its rich heritage of comics and magazines.

But British Science Fiction cinema has in fact a much greater legacy than is often given credit to. Since the beginning of the 20th century, various British directors and producers have explored the genre, often taking it into new directions, pushing its boundaries, and drawing on the wealth of ideas and masterful works which British Science Fiction writers like H.G Wells, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Arthur C. Clarke, John Wyndham and Michael Moorcock have produced over the years.

Read more »