(2004) Guillermo del Toro – w/ Ron Perlman, John Hurt, Selma Blair, Rupert Evans, and Doug Jones, Brian Steele & Ladislav Berain in roles as characters you’d never ever recognize in any other film, ever

Synopsis: You’ve got yer evil, last ditch Nazi plot to unleash demons, etc., which is oh-so-fortuitiously interrupted before too much evil can be unleashed. A demon’s unleashed, but it’s only a wee sprout, and it’s plucked up by the Allies and raised to fight on the side of good. This good demon is the eponymous Hellboy, raised and nurtured under the aegis of the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense. This set-up brings you maybe 10 or 15 minutes into the movie; from there on out it’s present-day USA, with Hellboy fighting evil alongside the likes of telepathic fish-man Abe Sapien [Doug Jones, completely unrecognizable under all the costumey goop] and his FBI caretakers. Throw in FBI newbie John Myers [Rupert Evans], Hellboy love-interest and firestarter (pyrokinetic) Selma Blair [Liz Sherman], and old foes stirred up from the past, and you have ‘Hellboy’, the movie.

Review: ‘Hellboy’ is not the most brilliant movie you’ll ever see.

(I hope I didn’t startle you too much.)

It’s decent. As long as you accept the initial premise—which, as movies like this go, is the unspoken requirement—the rest of the movie isn’t that bad, and in fact is not a waste of 125 minutes, generally speaking. The monsters and various bad guys (particularly Sammael and Kroenen) are fun to watch, and the dialogue is rarely awful. I know that the fact of dialogue being “rarely awful” doesn’t sound like high praise, but I didn’t start out with terribly high expectations. All things considered, I was pleasantly surprised. Also, the movie’s not raucously funny, but there are a few dryly comedic parts (and other less dry parts) that helped to improve the overall quality of the movie. Watch for a fun gag after the credits (or part way between, I couldn’t say for sure which). In a less charitable mood, I might rate a movie like Hellboy at only 3 star-type-things, but as-is, I’m giving it 3 1/2.

Rating: [•••½] out of [•••••]

In lieu of an actual review, since I’m guessing a movie like Spider-Man isn’t one you need a synopsis and/or thoughtful review for, I’m going to present a pro/con list—reasons why you might like Spider-Man 2 more than you’d expect, and reasons why you might not.

Reasons why you might like Spider-Man 2 more than you’d expect:

1. The story is written in part by Michael Chabon, who wrote the tremendous novel, The Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (if you’ve read it, you probably know why this is an asset to Spider-Man 2; if you haven’t, you should). It’s hard to sum up in one sentence what happens in TAoK&C, because a lot happens, but one salient detail of which you should be aware is, it’s about comic book artists. And WWII and growing up and friendship and all sorts of good stuff like that, but in its most basic incarnation, comic book artists. It’s also exceptionally well-written, as books go. And the story (i.e., plot) is phenomenal. I’m guessing that these are the three major reasons (to recap: [1] focus on comic book artists, [2] quality of writing, and [3] brilliance of story) why Chabon was brought on board to help write the story for Spider-Man 2, but I could be wrong.
2. Bruce Campbell has a cameo, with the role of a “snooty usher.” (As it turns out, he had a role in the first Spider-Man, too, but I’d forgotten that. [He was the announcer in the wrestling ring.])
3. There are a couple surprisingly brilliant comedic moments, some that figure into the movie at large and some that do not, but [almost] all of which are hilarious. The montage with “Raindrops keep falling on my head” as the background music comes immediately to mind, as does an incident involving spiderman waiting in an elevator (guy standing in elevator: “Nice Spidey outfit…” PP: “Thanks.” g.s.i.e.: “Where’d you get it?” PP: “I… made it.” g.s.i.e.: “It looks uncomfortable.” etc.). But there’s more, too.
4. J.K. Simmons, filling out the role of the sharp-tongued, fast-talking newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson once again, is pretty much one of the stand-out characters of the film.

Reasons why you might not:

1. The ending’s predictable. Hell, a lot of the movie is predictable to one extent or another. There are surprises, there are (a few) twists, but on the whole, it’s not the same as seeing a movie like Usual Suspect for the first time. What were you expecting, Spider-Man gets killed 45 minutes into the film?
2. There’s some goop. Yes, Spider-Man 2 is not without goop. And by “goop,” I mean dangerously trite dialogue that may potentially threaten the very sanity of the viewer. Spider-Man 2 has a story to tell, what story deals with romance and the like in a very circumspect way; seeing as there are a few things for the movie to resolve other than Spidey & MJ (like the total destruction of NY, for instance), it’s not like there was a lot of choice here. It was either 1: goop or 2: cut out some of the action. You would have preferred…?
3. You hate big-budget action movies on principle and/or you have particular disdain for comic book characters. If either of these statements describes you, I’m not going to lie and say you’ll love the film. You probably wouldn’t.

Rating: [•••½] out of [•••••]