nickjones-96546

As a kid in the 1980s I watched pieces of The Goonies when it popped up on broadcast television during weekend afternoons and I could never last to the end, as I found the movie weird and boring. Finally watching it from beginning to end as a middle-aged adult, I find it loud, obnoxious, stupid, overly-long, and boring, though not so much weird. I guess the last bit is a small victory, but still a net loss since I noticed even more negative qualities. For some unknown reason, the entire cast is constantly shouting, even though kids half the age of the main characters know that when you're trying to hide from murderous criminals it's best to be quiet instead of EVERYBODY NEEDLESSLY YELLING!!!

I will say this: The kids' performances were generally quite good, it's the script they were given was absolutely terrible. If they'd been able to provide more actual dialogue instead of constant pointless screaming, the movie would've been immediately elevated. Adults Ramsey, Davi, and Pantoliano as the Fratelli family additionally did the best they could with crappy material. The effects were also top notch. Unfortunately, none of that can save bad writing.

Man, the original Hellboy comics were great! The first couple of movies were great, too!

Then there's this crap. Overly-long, trying to do too much and fit modern sensibilities into a movie that should've been more clever, more pulp-noir-y, more interesting in general. Hellboy is whiny and emotional where he should be world-weary and lackadaisical (also, he appears to be much shorter than any other depiction for some inexplicable reason). Multiple stories from the comics are jammed together in a way that doesn't remotely work. There's a subplot where Hellboy sympathizes with demons that goes nowhere. Boring. Boring. So boring.

One Hellboy story doesn't require two full hours to adapt, good lord. This is inferior in every way to the source material and prior films, but I guess that the endless parade of remakes and sequels must go on, for whatever reason.

I realize that this might be a controversial statement, given that one film (2004) won a Best Picture Academy Award and the other film (1996) is a sex pervert movie that won an Adult Video News Award, but I feel the need to take a stand. Despite the niche appeal of Crash (1996) to sex perverts, Crash (2004) is the far superior film.

Crash (2004) deals with a variety of contemporary social issues, while Crash (1996) deals with a weird, niche sexual fetish. Crash (2004) manages to be unsettling in a realistic and grounded manner, whereas Crash (1996) seems to be shooting for a deliberately provocative and offensive tone. An average viewer is going to come away with more to think about from the former than the latter.

The raw style of Crash (2004) is more visceral and involving then the cold, detached style of Crash (1996). It's easy to dismiss Cronenberg's film as sensationalistic softcore pornography, whereas Crash (2004) very obviously and deliberately is attempting to strike at deeper issues of the American experience. One can't fault Crash (1996) for doing exactly what it set out to do, but one does wonder if it's as valuable as the goal of the message that Crash (2004) was attempting to send.

...

It's not even that sexy.

There. I said it. Just have two sexy people having sex without car crashes being involved and this film is immensely improved.

Fight me.