Excellent, excellent article! Couple of minor corrections, though - DelToro brought a few interesting details to Krauss' suit, but he, as well as the other characters that 'reject humanity' at the end of the movie aren't actually his creations. They're Mignola's. :-)
Okay, and you may have found that duet to be bad, but if you can name one other superhero movie daring enough to have their rubber-suit heroes pull a stunt like that, I'll buy you a cupcake. I give that scene a 10 for sheer chutzpah if nothing else. I found the whole Abe-romance bit to be by far the weakest point of the film.
Well, to get really pedantic, the film's characters are del Toro's, the comic's are Mignola's :-) But I hear ya.
I really regret not finding room to talk about Mignola in the article, but I hadn't read the first two Hellboy collections in years, and while I had a lot of problems with them, story-wise, I didn't think it would be fair to trash it without a fresh read. ;-)
Of course the characters are one dimensional. It's a FAIRY TALE. Even if there aren't that many dimensions to some of them(which is arguable, but which I also think is completely false-the little girl was an incredibly well rounded character) there's not a one of them who isn't relatable in some way or another. And yes, soldiers really WERE that vicious during the Spanish Civil War, so they're not really caricatures.
I've been meaning to ask this of you for some time, and there is honestly no snark intended: What's the point of this column? Is it to review movies, or is it to poke holes in them? I honestly want to know, I'm not being a smartass.
The point is to simply talk about a comic-book related movie (or movies) in some way -- usually a piece of criticism. However, I don't see where I'm "poking holes" in anything -- I'm simply giving an honest reaction to what I see and attempting, however successfully, to explain where that reaction comes from. If you're reacting to what you think is a consistent stream of negativity, three things: a) I have high standards, unfortunately; b) if you thought my IRON MAN column was negative, that's my fault -- despite any misgivings about political subtexts, blah blah etc. etc., it's actually my favorite film of the year so far; c) to go along with my high standards, I usually have high hopes for the stuff I see -- probably too high. Anyone who knows me knows that I was very excited for HELLBOY II, and it's a shame how it turned out.
Sad truth is, most of the stuff I'm going to be covering here isn't very good. THE DARK KNIGHT, ideally, will be one of the few exceptions.
(this is a response to Powerwolf, regardless what it might say at the top.)
It's not enough to be relatable, though. As someone said (I think it was George Lucas, God help me), you want get a response out of an audience, strangle a kitten -- that'll get 'em. If you want to get a response out of an audience, show 'em a little girl with a dead dad and a Fascist stepdad. But if it the story is just going to follow those lines to the very end like those robots in WALL-E, without the slightest twist or shading... well, count me out.
Again, us PAN'S LABYRINTH naysayers are in the extreme minority, so I doubt my bitching is going to tarnish its legacy any. :-)
I think there are some movies where characters matter more than others. I think with Pan's Labyrinth(what a goofily-spelled word) the movie was more about the story and the feel then the things that went along with it, if you get my meaning. It's like the movie equivalent of a Portished album.
One-dimensional characters aren't a fairy tale requirement. Hellboy (the comic) frequently delves into fairy tale territory, and while some of the characters might be toss-offs, I would argue that one of the really interesting things about Hellboy/BPRD is the amount of depth given even to minor characters. Mignola does a great job of storytelling, and character development is a big part of that. He gets a huge amount of mileage out of his art, and what his compositions add to the story-- an apropos observation when considering film. And, there are plenty of examples of fairy tale movies that have beautifully drawn characters... the works of Miyazaki comes to mind, or, for my money, those of Jean-Pierre Jeunet. So being a fairy tale isn't an excuse for one-dimensional characters.
And just a note on the point of the column-- isn't it the reviewer's job to look at what works and what doesn't in a film? I don't see how you can have a review that goes beyond "I liked it, go see it," unless you're going to talk about those things. That's not the same as poking holes in the film, which implies just being nitpicky.
You're really going to sit here and tell me that Chihiro from Spirited Away or the kids from My Neighbor Totoro are more well-rounded characters than the girl from Pan's Labyrinth? Or that Miyazaki's films have ANY villains that are more believable than Lil' Franco(since I forget his name)?
Spirited Away is in my top 5 favorite movies of all time, but come on, dude.
Yeah, I would, actually. Spritied Away is a good example. The fact that his villains are not at all black and white, but are very sympathetic, points to how well developed they are as characters. Being able to can understand the villain's motivations (and motivations that go beyond, "I am Evil, muhaha"), is one of the best indicators of multi-dimensionalism in characters.
How are the villains in Spirited Away AT ALL sympathetic? Right off the bat you want Beak-Nose and her horrible little child to die a horrible death. There's not a strain of goodness in either of them until the little kid gets turned into a hamster. They're awesome villains, but they're total caricatures, and the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Thanks for summing up for me what I had never particularly liked about Pans Labyrinth byt had been unable to articulate. It was a pretty movie, but I didn't feel the story or the characters--and I've always needed more than just the prettiness.
You're not alone, I too felt that PL was lacking, it had so much potential, that was wasted... Also it was unnecessarily gory, the brutality of the commander detracted from the story and hampered the viewing experience. Visually it was stunning, but the superfluous Tarantino violence really ruined it for me.
I personally liked PL, but part of that being sucked in to the story, which must have hit my buttons just right. I don't think it did that to everybody -- a lot of my friends disagree.
And just a quick response to Powerwolf -- I think the question of about 'why the column?' is really disrespectful. Why does Roger Ebert have a column? Why does anybody? It's to share opinions and experiences. I personally think Kent is doing a good job. His writing is pretty untypical dense and thoughtful during a time when film criticism is being reduced to its lowest common denominators.
I think it's totally fair to disagree and argue about the topic, but to call somebody's whole thing into question? Dude, that's a little cold.
