Traitor

Throughout both 2007 and 2008, moviegoers saw what seemed like an endless string of movies focusing on or around the ongoing War on Terror. For a majority of these films, which ranged from character dramas (“Stop-Loss” or “Grace is Gone”), political thrillers (“Lions for Lambs” or “Rendition”), to just good ol’ fashioned action films (“The Kingdom”), the response from audiences was far from welcoming. Most of these titles, along with a few others I didn’t mention, suffered through a rather brief stint at the box office and didn’t enjoy much more success on DVD. To me the lacking success for these films would seem to be enough to get the studios’ attention, and make them aware that audiences just don’t want to go to the movies to watch something that involves a topic that can be seen daily on any news channel known to man.

Regardless of all of this, the political thriller “Traitor” starring Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce was released to theaters this summer. If memory serves me, this is merely the latest film released in the War on Terror genre; I’m calling it a genre due to the surprisingly large number of movies based on the subject that has been released thus far. I personally question the reasoning behind even releasing this movie in the first place, especially in light of all the losses the studios have accrued over the previous films; but I guess the various studio executives share a sort of “It only takes one to make a difference” mentality. So, does “Traitor” have what it takes to win over audiences even with the touchy subject matter or does it fall prey to the same general lack of interest that has befallen the rest of the genre?

After a series of terrorist attacks in various locations around the Middle East and Europe, along with a prison break in Yemen, the U.S. government is desperately seeking answers as to who is responsible, especially in light of a new threat targeting the country’s heartland. Assisting in the investigation is FBI agent Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) who finds himself with a rather short list of suspects, and one man on his list is raising his suspicions more than the others. The person of interest is a former U.S. Special Operations officer named Samir Horn (Don Cheadle), who appears to have become involved with the very group that may be responsible for the attacks. However, appearances may be deceiving as the further agent Clayton digs, the more evidence he discovers to suggest that perhaps the truth is much more complicated than it initially appeared to be.

What are the key components that are vital to a movie for it to be considered a thriller? Is it a great story, terrific actors and actresses, a hefty dose of the unexpected, or a general sense of uncertainty that will cause the audience to be on the edge of their seats at all times? The answer is that it’s not just one of these items, it is all of them. Each of these components are key to creating a top-notch thriller that will keep audiences entertained and enthralled from start to finish, and possibly creating repeat business if all goes well for the film.

In the case of “Traitor” many of those items were present, but not all of them. For the ones that made it into the film, there didn’t appear to be any emphasis on consistently maintaining the quality of these components throughout the duration. What I mean by that statement is when there were genuinely thrilling sequences or moments of the unexpected, they would either end in a way that made them feel unoriginal or be followed shortly thereafter by something so obviously tired and cliché that you would have to be a fool not to notice. Basically just when the movie seems to be heading in the right direction it falls apart prematurely.

The story for this film is intriguing, and the fact that we are delivered a viewpoint from both sides, lends the film some credit for trying to flesh out the how’s and why’s of the ongoing war. However, writer/director Jeffrey Nachmanoff (writer of “The Day After Tomorrow”), fails to create a completely engaging film due to falling prey to numerous movie pitfalls; such as, an overuse of character stereotypes for both the terrorists and the government agents, predictability within the story, and essentially becoming too trite and generic in the end. Perhaps if the screenplay had been more polished and willing to go even deeper into the more unexplored areas of the war, which it drifted in and out of throughout the film’s duration, and not been so overbearing with its various messages it was trying to get across; then perhaps the final product would have been better received, at least by this viewer.

Even if the movie’s storyline did run into its fair share of problems, one aspect of the film that cannot be slighted is the generally high-caliber cast, led by the talented Don Cheadle (“Hotel Rwanda”). Cheadle gives a terrific performance as Samir, a man who has sacrificed so much in this war, to the point that he wonders if it will ever be enough; especially in light of the regret he feels over some of the decisions he’s had to make along the way. In the role of the closest person Samir has to a friend, and one of the terrorist group’s masterminds, is actor Said Taghmaoui (“Vantage Point”). Said brings a fresh, new approach to the terrorist type of role, not allowing him to be portrayed in a hackneyed, cookie cutter cut-out sort of way that I had expected. At times he almost gives his character a sense of morality (twisted as it may be), while providing some form of reasoning and motives for why he is willing to do and plan the horrendous acts his group will commit.

As far as the quality of the characters goes, the two listed above is where the truly developed characters meet their end, and the stereotypical ones begin. Leading the way are actors Guy Pearce (“The Count of Monte Cristo”) and Neal McDonough (“Walking Tall”), who are both very talented actors in their own right, yet find themselves misused in this film. The two actors portray your typical, garden variety FBI duo; one of the agents is a level-headed, eternal optimist (Pearce) who believes in a suspect until he or she is proven guilty, and the other is a hot-headed pessimist (McDonough) who would rather lock a suspect up and throw away the key than actually get to any answers. Alongside them is Jeff Daniels (“Gettysburg”) as your typical government handler who knows much more about what is occurring than he is letting on, and for the sake of his mission and secrecy (and the storyline), he keeps the facts from everyone.

Lastly, the various actors portraying the many members of the terrorist group were given the least to do in the entire storyline. Aside from Said’s character, the other terrorists were nothing more than a bunch of nameless, evil men with no rhyme or reason to their apparent madness, who want nothing more than wanton violence and destruction to engulf the “evil” United States and its allies. Please, spare me the same old semantics I’ve seen and heard so many times before, it’s beginning to grow tiresome. It’s a shame that more wasn’t done to capitalize on the talent at this film’s disposal. At least, the entire cast did the best they could with the material they were given, so even at its most predictable and unoriginal moments, the film remains better than average.

While “Traitor” did manage to keep me moderately interested from start to finish, albeit to varying degrees of interest; the movie’s various pratfalls causes the film to devolve into being just another generic political thriller with high aspirations, yet poor execution.

“Traitor” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

The Punisher

With the recent release of Marvel’s latest film, “Punisher: War Zone”, I decided to check out the second film Marvel made focusing on their killer anti-hero with 2004’s “The Punisher”. Apparently, after amassing a considerable string of blockbuster hits, Marvel decided to dust off their not-so well known character of The Punisher to see if they could finally make a movie about him that audiences would respond to, not to mention make up for the dismal performance of their previous attempt starring Dolph Lungdren (also simply titled “The Punisher”).

“The Punisher” is the story of Frank Castle (Thomas Jane), a federal agent who desperately wants a quiet, peaceful life for his family. After his latest mission results in some unexpected casualties, namely the son of a mobster named Howard Saint (John Travolta), Frank finds his life all but destroyed as Saint exacts bloodthirsty vengeance upon him. Due to the horrible events that tore his family apart, Frank returns a changed man, once he was a loving family man, now he is consumed by an irrepressible rage and a desire to punish those responsible for his family’s demise.

I was very pleased with this movie for its fairly faithful interpretation of the comic book source material. I thought it captured the character of Frank Castle very well. This newest incarnation allows the viewer to forget all about the previous attempt way back in 1992. This movie features a much stronger cast that does an excellent job of bringing one of Marvel Comics’ most unlikable characters to life on the big screen. Thomas Jane (“Original Sin”) is great as Frank Castle; his performance perfectly captures the devastation and depression his character feels over his family’s murder, along with the subsequent channeling of those emotions into a bloody quest for punishment. John Travolta (“Swordfish”) gives another entertaining turn in the villainous role, something he seems to revel in portraying more and more these days, and you can tell he’s enjoying his role in this film as well. The rest of the cast delivers strong supporting performances, especially Rebecca Romijn (the “X-Men” trilogy), who is playing against type as a downtrodden and homely waitress, it is her kindness and compassion that assist Frank in beginning to mend his emotional wounds. Chameleon-like actor Ben Foster (“3:10 to Yuma”) brings Frank’s eccentric, and excessively pierced neighbor Dave to life; portraying him as someone who wishes he could be more than he is, and one who will do whatever it takes to help his friends.

The story for “The Punisher”, as written by first-time director, and long-time screenwriter Jonathan Hensleigh (“The Saint”), wisely takes the time to show the audience that Frank’s quest is not hastily thrown together, but is perfectly and precisely planned for a near flawless execution. So many revenge/payback types of movies just try to rush through the preparations the avenging person goes through, if they even cover that aspect at all; whereas in this film, the story helped you to understand the methods and means behind the mayhem. I also enjoyed that the script took some moments out of the action set pieces to show the audience bits of Frank’s humanity slowly coming back to the surface, while at the same time showing the grief and anguish he still feels regardless of his vengeful acts. As for the violence within the film (an element that some gripe about in movies of this genre), a wise decision on the part of the writer and director was in keeping the violence at an appropriate level. Sure, it’s present in over half the film’s duration, but the bloodshed never goes over-the-top to become gratuitous in any way. Regarding the character depictions within the story, everything was near perfect (in my opinion); especially the adaptations of the characters Mr. Bumpo, Dave, and Joan from the Garth Ennis comic book storyline “Welcome Back, Frank”. I also liked the way the story brought in the skull T-shirt that Frank frequently wears in his role as the Punisher, plus giving us a reason for why he chose it as his symbol. It’s these little tidbits of information and details that I welcome from screenwriters, especially within a comic book movie, because it shows that they are taking the material seriously and hoping to gain more respect for the genre.

Even though most of the story elements within this movie rank from good to great, there were a couple of points that I have some minor problems with. First, is the fact that not one single aspect of the story occurs in or even mentions the city of New York, the location in which the majority of Marvel Comics’ famed characters reside, this includes the Punisher. Secondly, they altered Frank Castle from being a veteran of the Vietnam War into an undercover agent, which is fine, generally speaking. I understand taking some license with certain elements of the character for the sake of the story, not to mention by setting the story in the modern day, as it should be, Frank would have to be in his 50’s at least, were he still a Vietnam veteran. As I said, the gripes are minor, and the second one I completely understand and agree with the reasoning for, but I felt the need to mention it because it technically is an omission of the Punisher’s classic origin. To be fair, they did mention that he served time during Desert Storm (I believe), before becoming a federal agent, so at the very least they kept him as a soldier at heart.

Overall, “The Punisher” is a very well done action film and comic book adaptation, despite what the critics say about it. With very few problems, great action scenes, and solid acting, “The Punisher” is about as ideal an adaptation of Marvel’s cold-blooded anti-hero as one can expect. In my humble opinion, this is the kind of film Punisher fans were waiting for.

“The Punisher” is rated R for violence, language, and brief nudity.

No Country for Old Men

When I visited my local video store recently I was having a difficult time deciding on what movie I wished to see. Several new titles of interest had been released, yet I knew that there were still some from earlier in the year that I had yet to watch. This thought led to a new problem for me, choosing which not-so new release to pick up. After much internal debating with myself, I finally decided I wanted something that had some substance to it, and wasn’t going to be a movie where I could just turn my brain off and watch it. I wanted a movie that was going to demand my attention, thus I decided I would pick the film chosen as Best Picture at this year’s Academy Awards, the critically acclaimed “No Country for Old Men”, written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (“O Brother, Where Art Thou?”).

“No Country for Old Men” follows an intense couple of days for a man named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), who happens to come across a drug deal gone bad and discovers for himself two million dollars in cash. However, taking the money may just prove to be the biggest mistake in his entire life. As a sadistic killer (Javier Bardem) is hot on his trail, and leaving a mess of dead bodies in his wake, the likes of which the local sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) and the West Texas area has never seen.

If there’s one thing I can say with the utmost certainty about “No Country for Old Men”, it’s that this is definitely one film that demands your attention, and if you get too distracted at any point you will quickly become lost in the intricately detailed story. With that in mind, even though I gave the movie my undivided attention, I still found myself somewhat confounded by the events in the closing moments of the movie. For roughly 85% of the film I was right there with it every step of the way, perfectly understanding everything, but in the final five to ten minutes it just got strange for me, and I didn’t quite understand how it had ended. I do believe that I have a decent grasp on it now, having given more thought to the film and even re-watching the final moments, but even with my newfound understanding, it’s still a strange and disappointing ending to what appeared to be a superb film.

That brings me to my problem with this film; I was really into the story and thought that perhaps this was going to be a movie that I would want in my collection, but the ending ruined it for me. For starters I’m somewhat surprised by the fact that I even remotely enjoyed “No Country for Old Men”, because lately it seems that most Best Picture winners and nominees for the Oscars tend to be these high-brow dramas that don’t appeal to me in the least, yet here was the most recent winner enthralling me with its excellent storytelling. I thought the many concepts that the film dealt with, such as fate and/or destiny (which the killer, Anton Chigurh, mentions to many of his victims), the depravity of society as reflected by the more sadistic killers being unleashed upon the world, or how pride always comes before a fall, were all very well presented and thought provoking. Yet, as great as the story was, the extremely unsatisfactory final act and resultant ending that left me puzzled, managed to bring the entire movie to its knees. I believe I am a smart man, and I can’t remember the last time that I watched a movie that left me feeling so stupid because of my inability to grasp what I had just seen, but that’s how this movie made me feel. I understand that the Coen brothers are extremely talented and smart writers, no argument there, but perhaps they could have rethought the final portion of this movie. Not necessarily changing all the events, but at least the final moments that confused me, and from what I’ve heard, it did the same for many other viewers as well.

As far as the acting goes every single performance was fantastic, not a single one felt out of place or off the mark in any way. Josh Brolin (“W.”) convincingly portrays just a down-home, good ol’ country boy who just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and allowed his pride to stand in the way of finding the means to save himself. Veteran actor Tommy Lee Jones once again portrays a law enforcement official, something he has done all too often since winning an Academy Award for “The Fugitive”. At least in this movie Tommy didn’t play the same old guy as he has so many times before. This time around he played an aging lawman who is struggling desperately to find relevance for his brand of justice in a world that has become so dark that it may have passed him by. Javier Bardem (“Vicky Cristina Barcelona”) delivered a chilling performance as killer Anton Chigurh, a man who believes killing to be a perfectly natural solution to any problem, no matter who or what may be involved. Lastly, Woody Harrelson (“Semi-Pro”) gives a surprisingly strong supporting performance as a man hired to track down Chigurh and stop him by any means necessary. I personally never thought Woody could act all that well, but he definitely brought his A-game to the table in this picture.

“No Country for Old Men” is one of those instances in movies where virtually every element works perfectly together to create an engrossing experience. From the superbly written screenplay, thought-provoking ideas and concepts, and excellent performances, this movie delivers in almost every way imaginable; however, the troublesome final act of the film brings the movie crashing down amidst a cacophony of confusion and disappointment. It’s such an unfortunate fate for such a promising film.

“No Country for Old Men” is rated R for violence and language.

Hancock

Superhero films generally do very well with me, nine times out of ten I will enjoy these types of movies, with some of them ranking amongst my favorite films of all time. With the recent superhero release of “Hancock” starring Will Smith, I wasn’t sure, when sitting down to watch it, what I was going to think about the movie. Based on all the reviews I had heard or read regarding the theatrical release, I found myself having little to no expectations for this movie. The only way I could think of for even remotely psyching myself up to see it, were two standout features for the release; one, Will Smith always delivers terrific performances, no matter the source material, and two, the unrated extended cut was to include ten extra minutes of footage not shown in theaters. However, even the critics agreed that Will Smith was engaging, even though they found the movie to be lacking. Leaving me with only one question, “Were the ten minutes of additional content enough to salvage what many felt was a disaster of a film, or was there no hope left for this superhero to cling to?”

“Hancock” follows the adventures, or should I say misadventures, of an alcoholic superhero named Hancock (Will Smith) as he goes about the business of saving lives in and around Los Angeles. The problem with Hancock is that even when he’s doing the right thing, he’s going about it all wrong, and typically he causes more harm than good. Enter publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), an idealist who, against his wife’s (Charlize Theron) possibly better judgment, attempts to turn Hancock’s life around, and transform him into the hero he should have been all along.

Unrated editions and extended cuts are words and/or labels that Hollywood likes to slap across the cover of DVD’s and Blu-ray’s in an effort to lure gullible customers (like myself, sadly) into believing the movie to be an even better version than the one they may or may not have seen in theaters. Generally, these new editions of a movie are little more than one or two extended or altered scenes that add little to no value to the overall movie. But, there are rare occasions where these unrated or extended editions actually prove to be a completely new movie experience, and many times allow for a much more improved final product than the theatrical cut. “Hancock” happens to be one of those rare occasions, because the newly added ten minutes of restored footage gives the story a much more cohesive structure, giving audiences the sense that they now have a complete movie to enjoy. As opposed to one that was chopped to bits in the editing room to appease the wishes of executives that didn’t have the film’s best interests at heart.

In a summer when superheroes reigned supreme at the box office, “Hancock” as a superhero film was sort of an oddity. On one hand he’s a super-powered hero that saves the day, when all is said and done, even if he isn’t nearly as efficient as other heroes may be. While on the other hand, he’s the antithesis of everything beyond having some super powers that makes a hero so great. It’s this dichotomy within Hancock’s character that makes this superhero movie all the more appealing to me. Sure, having some Academy Award nominees in your cast will help almost any movie, especially when they are the likes of Will Smith and Charlize Theron; but the inner conflict raging within Hancock over trying to do what’s right and saving humanity versus not caring anymore, and just drowning his sorrows, is what creates the dramatic element needed for a film such as this to succeed. I also appreciate that by taking this approach to a superhero film, writers Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan, have combined traditional comic book elements such as an allusion to a greater destiny, massive action sequences and great visual effects, together with some off-color, at times raunchy comedy, and even a little bit of mystery to shake up the genre.

I will admit that as fun as “Hancock” was, it’s still not a perfect film. There could have been even a little more story added in, and a few more elements could have been explained about the hero and other factors within the film; however, had too much detail been added back in, then a majority of the mystery surrounding Hancock would dissipate, which could possibly make for less interest and places to go with the inevitable sequel. Now, don’t get me wrong when I say that there could have been a little more added content, what was added back in did indeed bolster the story even further, and the movie does not appear (in my opinion) to have any gaping holes left that distract from the experience, as was the case with the theatrical cut. Although, there are still some elements within the story that did leave me curious, but these were most likely left in the movie intentionally to give some direction for where the sequel needs to go.

Will Smith (“I, Robot”) once again proves that he can overcome virtually any competition and rule the box office, not to mention he was once again the king of the 4th of July weekend. I believe “Hancock” marks his fifth movie to debut in first place at the box office over the holiday weekend, and his eighth in a row to debut at number one period. Will’s charismatic, and at times commanding, performance made even this seemingly unredeemable hero enjoyable even when he essentially hits rock bottom and has to begin his ascension to become the hero the world needs. Jason Bateman (“Juno”) provides some quick one-liners that hit the mark every time, effectively countering the darker elements within the first half of the film. Surprisingly, Ray (Jason’s character) was actually given a decent story arc throughout the movie. I suspected that because he was the PR guy that helped to get Hancock back into the public’s favor that he would slowly drop out of the story once this was achieved, but he turned out to be a central figure throughout the duration of the movie.

Lastly, Charlize Theron (“Monster”), as Ray’s wife and someone with an obvious link to or knowledge of Hancock’s past, was underused in the early portion of the movie; however, the latter half provided her character with much more development and importance, rather than being just the eye candy for the film. Her performance was strong for the most part, although she perhaps played it too overtly that something about Hancock bothered her, and her attempts to play that off were lazily handled. It is possible that this was done in such a way because of how the script called for it or it was director Peter Berg’s wishes. Whatever the case may be, I was surprised that this was how she was made to act in the early moments her character was around Hancock, and I found that it made her performance feel uneven, and her delivery even seemed a little unenthused as if she wasn’t entirely into the story early on. Once these early moments passed, Charlize quickly found her stride, and her performance greatly improved (as is expected with such a talented actress) throughout the remainder of the film. Overall, had it not been for the generally strong performances of the cast of “Hancock”, the film’s subject matter may not have worked so well with audiences, especially when compared to the other exceptional superhero films released this summer and of those past.

With heroes such as Batman, Iron Man, and The Incredible Hulk knocking out competition left and right this summer, it’s a shame that the powers that be wouldn’t allow the better version of “Hancock”, found in the unrated edition to air in theaters. Had this occurred, I believe critics would have given the movie a much warmer reception, most likely not as warm as they did for “Iron Man” or “The Dark Knight”, but without a doubt better than they did for the film’s theatrical release. Even with most critics bashing “Hancock” all over the place (to be fair there were some that did like the film), Will Smith’s magnetism with audiences still allowed him to overcome the adversity posed by negative reviews and come out on top for a week or two in one of the most competitive blockbuster summer’s in history.

“Hancock” is available in PG-13 and unrated editions; both contain violence, language, and sexuality.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

Out of all the comic book based movies that have been released over the last several years, I can only think of one that I just knew would have difficulty striking a chord with audiences; and yet, I found myself to be completely surprised when the end result turned out to be a great success. The film I am referring to was the 2004 surprise hit, “Hellboy” starring Ron Perlman as a bright red, demonic monster hunter. Before the original film arrived in theaters, the promotional images looked impressive, especially the make-up effects work being done to create Hellboy’s devilish visage; which was something I never thought would look even remotely realistic. Yet, somehow what I once thought impossible, without going cheesy, B-movie-esque with the whole production, was brought to an entertaining reality. With the release of “Hellboy” and its anxiously awaited sequel “Hellboy 2: The Golden Army”, both films directed by critically acclaimed director Guillermo Del Toro (“Blade 2”), a once obscure comic book hero has broken into the mainstream, and a new franchise is taking Hollywood by storm.

“Hellboy 2: The Golden Army” finds our crimson hero (Ron Perlman) grappling with personal issues centering around his fiery relationship with Liz (Selma Blair) and his desire to become widely known and accepted by the public that still believes him to be a myth. Meanwhile, an ancient truce is unraveling, and dark forces, led by the power hungry Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), are gathering to wage a devastating war upon humanity the likes of which have never been seen.

Earlier in 2008, when the first trailers started appearing to signal the upcoming arrival of “Hellboy 2: The Golden Army”, I was excited about seeing the movie for two reasons. One, the original film was so much fun and a truly great comic book adaptation; and two, from what I could tell of the story from the previews, the second film looked as if it was going to be another exciting adventure starring our favorite demonic devil buster, and early buzz had it sounding as if it could even be a bit better than its predecessor. From my perspective, I don’t know if I can say that this is one of those rare instances where the sequel surpasses the original film, but I do believe that it is easily an equal to “Hellboy” in every way.

The story for the original film was two-fold, first and foremost, it seemed to be a very faithful film adaptation of a semi-popular Dark Horse comic book that had yet to break into the mainstream with the heroes of DC Comics or Marvel; secondly, it was a terrific jumping on point for typical movie audiences (obviously), and for those comic book fans that had not been introduced to the character yet, and perhaps had only heard about him in passing or whatever the case may be. With the first film, writer Guillermo Del Toro obviously had to get the obligatory origin tale out of the way for audiences to be able to relate to and understand this rather atypical superhero. With “Hellboy 2: The Golden Army”, Del Toro (once again returning as writer and director) was able to essentially dispense with the pleasantries, so to speak, and just dive into the two main driving forces of the story.

The primary plot of the film, in my opinion, centers on Hellboy and Liz’s chaotic romance, and his need for acceptance from anyone and everyone around him. Generally, I get kind of annoyed when comic book films make a romance the focal point of the story (for example, the Spider-Man series; great films, too much romance though), yet in this instance the romantic angle was handled with an appropriate dosage of humor and seriousness, that it never feels too heavy-handed or bogs the story down in any way. The secondary plot revolved around Prince Nuada’s bid for power in his realm, and his quest for vengeance upon the human world. It was this latter storyline that propelled the action/adventure aspect of the story, while the former provided the dramatic element needed to keep the film interesting.

What was nice about having these two major plots running concurrently throughout the movie was the fact that Del Toro was wise enough to intertwine them at various points throughout the duration of the film. Sometimes when two major plot lines drive a story, they tend to not intersect with each other all that much, and at times this can result in one of the stories not feeling quite as resolved as the other (most likely as an attempt to cash in on a sequel). For “Hellboy 2: The Golden Army” the two plots both come to satisfying conclusions providing the audience with a sense of resolution should another sequel not occur; while still leaving enough of an opening for a follow-up should the opportunity arise.

If I were to judge “Hellboy 2: The Golden Army” purely from a visual effects standpoint, then it is by far a superior film to the original. Of course this is the result of a heftier budget, thanks in no small part to the success of “Hellboy”. Even with a sizeable budget increase, Del Toro continues his somewhat rebellious ways within Hollywood, by taking the road less traveled these days. Meaning that he does not solely rely upon CGI to create his fantastical world of creatures. Sure there was a generous amount of CGI dispersed throughout the film, and without a doubt it all looked excellent; however, assisting the CGI, Guillermo Del Toro opted to use a large array of practical effects for many of the creatures he wished to bring to life. Make no mistake when you see this movie the CGI is virtually impeccable, but the costumes and creature designs created for the practical (on-set) side of things is simply astounding. After watching this film, it’s easy to understand why Hollywood has branded Guillermo as being a visionary director from his work on both “Pan’s Labyrinth” and now “Hellboy 2: The Golden Army”.

The actors and actresses in this film are all top-notch, and considering that roughly 85% of them are wearing some form of prosthetics or heavy make-up or something of the sort, it’s surprising how strong the performances turned out. Ron Perlman (“Hellboy”) as the titular character, once again nails the role perfectly. I firmly believe that there is no other actor in Hollywood that could have captured this role any better than Ron has; from his sardonic wit, gruff voice, and the fact that he looked as if he simply walked off the comic book page, there is no doubt in my mind that Ron Perlman was born to be Hellboy. Selma Blair reprises her role as Liz Sherman. No longer a victim of her powers, Liz is in complete control, and has accepted her role in protecting humanity from those who wish to do it harm. Even though she has conquered one problem, she still has to deal with her often immature boyfriend, Hellboy, which causes more than just a few fiery arguments to say the least. It is their frequently heated relationship that makes for some of the most fun and entertaining moments of dialogue within the film.

The extremely talented, yet rarely heard from, Doug Jones once again personifies Abe Sapien; but this time Doug actually gets to provide the voice for the character as well. In the previous film, Doug’s vocal performance was replaced by actor David Hyde Pierce (TV’s “Frasier”), much like his performance in “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” when Laurence Fishburne was brought in to provide the voice for the Surfer, while Doug provided the physical performance for the character. Luckily, Doug’s voice is similar to David’s so if a person isn’t paying close enough attention, or if it’s been a while since they last watched the first film, they’d never even know it was another actor’s voice providing the line readings. This does beg one question though. If Doug and David’s voices were so similar, then why have David provide the voice in the first place, or for that matter why switch to Doug for the sequel? Perhaps, David Hyde Pierce wasn’t available at the time to work on this film. Who knows? Lastly, Luke Goss (“Blade 2”) as the villainous Prince Nuada, gave a performance that was equal parts dangerous and creepy weird, oftentimes he was both at the same time. The only thing that I felt was odd about Luke’s performance was that he sometimes seemed to have a slight accent in his delivery, yet other times nothing out of the ordinary. Other than those sporadic bits of an accent, I thought Luke was a good choice for the lead villain, and that he gave a fairly strong, if not slightly inconsistent performance.

“Hellboy 2: The Golden Army” is an absolutely entertaining, action-packed adventure that perfectly expands upon everything that was great about the original film without ever seeming repetitive or unoriginal. While not necessarily surpassing the original film, this movie doesn’t fall short of it either, which is an achievement for any sequel to attain.

“Hellboy 2: The Golden Army” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.