Hellboy

First the bad and they aren't that bad. 1) While David Harbour does a pretty good job as Hellboy. But he lacks the natural charm that Ron Perlman had in the title role. Not to say that there aren't times that he comes off prefect for the part. 2) It is a well made film. But it doesn't have the spit and polish that Guillermo del Toro put into his film duo. One the good side Neil Marshall and the writers stayed true to the story Hellboy. The role of the big bad was beautifully played by Milla Jovovich (fair warning on this part I have been nursing a 20 + year crush on her). Daniel Dae Kim and Sasha Lane were great in their roles of Domino and Alice. They add a little more depth to help flesh on the new world created for the film. And the adding of Church as Lobster Johnson was great. On a whole it was a solid film. If you like modern fantasy, and want to move away from the Marvel/DC fight of which is the better superheroes. You could do worse than Hellboy.

517 A.D.: King Arthur defeats the Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich) with the help of his trusty magical sword Excalibur, chopping her into pieces and burying her still-living body parts in the far reaches of the land. 1500 years later, changeling Gruagach (voiced by Stephen Graham) pieces the queen back together so that she can destroy mankind and rule the Earth with monsters as her loyal subjects. Hellboy (David Harbour) is given the job of preventing this from happening.

The majority of fans and critics gave this film hell on its release. So what did it do to deserve such damnation?

For many, the simple fact that it wasn't directed by Guillermo Del Toro and didn't star Ron Perlman was enough to demonise the movie, but even overlooking the change of director and leading man, there is still plenty to dislike: the creature-filled action scenes are over-reliant on unrealistic CGI; the comedy frequently mis-fires; Daniel Dae Kim and Sasha Lane are lousy as Hellboy's sidekicks; and the plot is rather scattershot. Oh, and there's a REALLY bad ectoplasmic Ian McShane.

Having said that, there is also quite a lot to enjoy: the R-Rating allows for plenty of graphic gore (although, sadly, much of it is also digital); there are some delightfully absurd moments (Hellboy's encounter with hideous witch Baba Yaga, who lives in a house on giant chicken legs, is excellent, and Eastenders fans will enjoy seeing Mo Harris brandishing a machine gun); the links to Arthurian legend are fun, and apparently make the film more faithful to the comics than Del Toro's movies; and director Neil Marshall occasionally shows us what he is really capable of (the single-shot fight scene in a Siberian complex at the end of the film is wonderful).

All in all, a very mixed bag of a movie: not the completely hellish experience that I had heard it was, but far from great.

Had to write this review seeing how so many others give it a 10, seriously? There's almost nothing to like or admire about this compared to the great 2 previous hell-boy movies directed by the great Guillermo del Toro. So disappointing and so forgettable, it's a tragedy and sin to moviegoers they opted to make this ramshackle ruinous flick instead of ending the initial hellboy trilogy by making hellboy 3. The horde (audience) wins over the others who appreciate really good things I guess!!!

Never liked the previous hellboy movies. Found them incredibly boring!!!!! Really enjoyed this version. Lots of action and gore!! I was surprised there were so many young kids in the theatre. Definately not for youngsters!!!!!

Harbour does a great job in this film playing the anti-hero Hellboy. The script was not great and after reading reviews I thought it would be garbage. There are enough redeeming qualities to watch this movie in theaters. It has solid action sequences with plenty of gore. It's disappointing critics tore it apart. I give it a solid 7 it's entertaining just try not to take anything away from it and enjoy the ride.