There was a lot going on beneath his whittled-down horns and lava-red skin. Throughout my screening, I found myself checking the time when, I wondered, would the end finally be nigh?Īs Hellboy, meanwhile, David Harbour makes a poor replacement for Perlman, who gave the character depth and range, shifting deftly betwen boyish glee, middle-aged exhaustion, and timeless heartache. The story casts Hellboy as an agent of the apocalypse brought on by a long-simmering battle between man and monster, but the script is a tedious, unevenly paced mess. Presumably this is supposed to generate excitement, but mostly it's exhausting. Marshall has directed some fine low-budget horror movies, including Dog Soldiers and The Descent, and he is responsible for some of the most viscerally exciting, action-heavy episodes of Game of Thrones, including the excellent fourth season climax, "The Watchers on the Wall." But working on the larger canvas of a comic-book feature, he's out of his depth: The effects work looks cheap to the point of being trashy, and the action scenes are often sloppy, with frenetic computer-assisted long-takes that whirl hectically through virtual space, as if the camera had been attached to a beach ball, then tossed around for fun. Despite the stronger rating, he has somehow made a film that is less suitable for adults. Its gore is mostly cornball, the stuff of cheesy direct-to-video splatter films and adolescent shock-horror.
Who is in the new hellboy movie movie#
In contrast with the gentle charm of del Toro's PG-13 films, Marshall's R-rated movie is loud, obnoxious, and pointlessly grotesque. Sadly, although they share the same name and central character, Hellboy (2019) and Hellboy (2004) have little else in common. So it's difficult not to compare any revival to the original. The movie and its 2008 sequel, which upped the monster quotient while largely retaining the panache and charm, remain high points in the history of superhero filmmaking. Hellboy was a model of what a comic book movie could be-funny, thrilling, emotionally engaged, a platform for a director's distinctive vision, broadly appealing but not burdened by blockbuster formulas and expectations a perfect balance of niche and mass appeal. His Hellboy was a monster, yes, but a monster you could relate to, because he was a monster who could love.ĭel Toro shot and designed the movie with his usual fussy reverence, creating a slew of startling characters and memorable setpieces on a mid-sized movie budget. Perlman imbued the role with surly, action-hero bluster, but also with genuine feeling, a sense of tragedy and heartache. But he was also a lovelorn, middle-aged sad sack, a curmudgeon who lived in a dingy bachelor pad with a horde of cats and had domestic squabbles with the love of his life, a woman who occasionally burst into literal flames. Although he drew plenty of inspiration from the Lovecraftian pulp of Mike Mignola's cult horror comics, he embedded the movie with his own distinctive sensibility: His Hellboy was, on the one hand, an overpowered comic-book action hero who blasted away at giant demons while spitting out quips and catchphrases.
His Hellboy, which starred the block-headed Ron Perlman as the titular demon, was nothing if not a labor of love. People, in other words, like Guillermo del Toro. Comic book movies were still something of a niche product, made for-and by-people who liked, and even loved, actual comic books.
Spider-Man and the X-Men had been spun into successful big-screen franchises, but Christopher Nolan's Batman was still a year away, and the Marvel juggernaut wouldn't begin until the final days of the George W. When it hit theaters 15 years ago, Hollywood's superhero transformation had barely begun.
As I watched Hellboy, Neil Marshall's sloppy attempt to reboot a franchise begun 15 years ago by director Guillermo del Toro, I could not help but think about the original.