Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

IMO this guy is quite the Director. Is anyone Else familiar with Del Toro's Workings? He Directed and co-wrote Hellboy. Which IMO is an excellent Film, although other may disagree. It is in Talks that He is scheduled to Direct The Upcoming 'Halo' Project. Personally, I think He is an Ideal choice. Although there are others who could do just as good, if not better. I'm also looking very much forward to Hellboy: The Golden Army. Anyone else seen some of his other films such as Blade II, or The Devil's Backbone?

Let the Discussion begin.

I don't see anything outstanding in what he's done, personally. Blade 2, he managed to make Blade a pansy-ass, even more so, if that's what he was given to work with. "The Devil's Backbone" is a little creepy, as was "Cronos", but nothing spectacular, IMO. "Hellboy" had great characters, but he also had great talent, who probably didn't need much direction. In a comic book movie, you're supposed to ham it up, and that doesn't necessarily "need" direction.

I seem to Recall 'Hellboy' Being in your Favorites.

I thought Hellboy was far better than any of the wave of recent comic book movies (apart from X-2), it's so much more likeable than the Hulk, Spiderman, Fantastic 4 etc school of sucking the life out of popular characters. Didn't take itself too seriously either, which is a massive bonus in that kind of movie.

I didn't know he directed Blade II, but that is easily the best of the trilogy, really easily. Blade was one of the few comic book characters I really liked as a kid, and I feel Del Toro nailed the whole atmosphere.

I'm not too familiar with Halo, but I hugely enjoyed it the few times I've played it, and with his adapted action movie pedigree, I'll certainly be looking out for it.

Originally posted by Deathblow
I thought Hellboy was far better than any of the wave of recent comic book movies (apart from X-2), it's so much more likeable than the Hulk, Spiderman, Fantastic 4 etc school of sucking the life out of popular characters. Didn't take itself too seriously either, which is a massive bonus in that kind of movie.

IMO, Hellboy, X1/2 and Batman Begins are the top 3.

I love Hellboy, and Blade 2 is the only Blade movie that I enjoyed.

So far Mimic and Cronos are the films I liked. Hellboy and Blade 2 were not so bad. I don't know much about him but he has really caught my interested since he and PJ will working on Halo.

btw-is he related to Benicio Del Toro?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
btw-is he related to Benicio Del Toro?

Take a look at pictures of the two. You'll get your answer.


I would also Like to add, that Hellboy had some of the best Makeup effects I have ever seen.

Urgh I am so looking forwards to his Pans Labyrinth!

I agree with the Blade 2 comments, that was by far my favourite out of the first two, third needs no comment on. Did a great job on Blade II imo, and Donnie Yen was a bonus

Hellboy I enjoyed a lot also, fun fun movie. Have not read the comics myself, but I heard it was very well adapted. I am looking forwards to the next one.

The Devil's Backbone was rather good, had a lovely atmosphere, same for Cronos.

Mimic I'm not too keen on, has some good moments and a fab score by Beltrami, but not one I enjoyed a lot.

Haven't seen any of his stuff before Cronos.

Originally posted by MildPossession
Hellboy I enjoyed a lot also, fun fun movie. Have not read the comics myself, but I heard it was very well adapted.

I'm a reader myself. It was a good Adapting job IMO. Liz's Character was changed a tad though. She seems a lot darker in the Film. But aside from that, it was good.

Originally posted by DarkWizard
IMO, Hellboy, X1/2 and Batman Begins are the top 3.
.....'A History Of Violence', 'Sin City', The 'Lone Wolf and Cub' series.

I'm sure 'The Watchmen' will be somewhere up there when it's time comes.

Hated 'Hellboy'.

Originally posted by DarkWizard
I seem to Recall 'Hellboy' Being in your Favorites.

Never said I didn't like "Hellboy", didn't say anything disaparaging at all, actually.

Originally posted by Deathblow
I thought Hellboy was far better than any of the wave of recent comic book movies (apart from X-2), it's so much more likeable than the Hulk, Spiderman, Fantastic 4 etc school of sucking the life out of popular characters. Didn't take itself too seriously either, which is a massive bonus in that kind of movie.

"Fantastic Four" was as light-hearted as it gets, IMO. I think they're on par with one another, but "F4" edges out "Hellboy" because it flows smoother, has a shorter runtime, and isn't weighed down with characters and backstories.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
So far Mimic and Cronos are the films I liked. Hellboy and Blade 2 were not so bad. I don't know much about him but he has really caught my interested since he and PJ will working on Halo.

btw-is he related to Benicio Del Toro?

"Mimic" was just a silly story to begin with, IMO. Bug people in a subway? Entirely too cheesy, and the talent enlisted was minimal.

Originally posted by Solo
.....'A History Of Violence', 'Sin City', The 'Lone Wolf and Cub' series.


"A History of Violence" was David Cronenbergs biggest failure since "Rabid". He doesn't belong in the mainstream, and that contrived piece of shit with Aragorn proves it, IMO.

As for "Blade 2", at first I championed it because it gave Blade some character development. It softened him up, but IMO, a little too much, especially after having come off some mama drama in the original. The highlight of "Blade 2" was the Damaskinos clan and the Blood Pack, with none other than Ron Perlman, whom del Toro has been throwing bones to for YEARS, including Cronos and later, Hellboy. I still think the original is still the best. Best soundtrack, best characters, best storyline, best dialogue, best acting, best direction, which makes me wonder where the hell David Goyer went wrong in 3.

I really enjoyed Hellboy. I'm getting irritated with the lack of updates on the sequel because I'm really looking forward to it.

I haven't seen any of his other movies.

Of the movies listed here by him, I only enjoyed Mimic but that was a long time ago and my taste in movies has developed more since then. Even Mimic was a 2nd rate "Relic".

Not really seein' the connection between the two...

I think he has a good visual sensibility

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction


"Mimic" was just a silly story to begin with, IMO. Bug people in a subway? Entirely too cheesy, and the talent enlisted was minimal.


I found the story of big bug people living underneath the NY Subway station original. Besides it beats that old urban myth of alligators in the sewers. A master race living beneath our world....interesting fiction...

I prefered the soundtrack to the first also, but the score by Beltrami for Blade II was a lot better compared to the firsts score imo.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I found the story of big bug people living underneath the NY Subway station original. Besides it beats that old urban myth of alligators in the sewers. A master race living beneath our world....interesting fiction...

Same story different setting, and has been done 100's of times before in Sci Fi. Aliens, The Thing, Leviathan, The Fly. I could go on, but you get the point. Plus, they're far from a "master race". At best, this little colony threatened A city.

Sci Fi is a derivative genre, granted, but you can only be so original, Hence, human/cockroach hybrids. Original, but that's where the ingenuity ends.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Sci Fi is a derivative genre, granted, but you can only be so original, Hence, human/cockroach hybrids. Original, but that's where the ingenuity ends.

Precisely. Thank God for Riddick.

F*ck God for Riddick.

Originally posted by Myth
F*ck God for Riddick.
Definitely.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Same story different setting, and has been done 100's of times before in Sci Fi. Aliens, The Thing, Leviathan, The Fly. I could go on, but you get the point. Plus, they're far from a "master race". At best, this little colony threatened A city.

Sci Fi is a derivative genre, granted, but you can only be so original, Hence, human/cockroach hybrids. Original, but that's where the ingenuity ends.

They were the result of a genetic experimentation. And since there is the popular belief that roaches can survive a radiation and all that atomic stuff these Uber-cockroaches qualify for the title "master race".

You can say mimic is a typical sci-fi monster movie. But I don't recall anything involving superpower roaches prior to this movie. So in that perspective...is original.

Originally posted by Solo
Definitely.

You Fella's didn't enjoy it?

They had some stuff that wasn't thought of before, and I thought it was intriguing. Nevertheless, I hope you enjoyed 'Serenity' for exploring the Sci-fi genre. I know I did. Firefly fo life!

Did anyone notice, at the beggining of 'Blade 2', Scudd had on a B.P.R.D shirt on?

Which is, The 'Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense' from 'Hellboy'

Originally posted by DarkWizard
You Fella's didn't enjoy it?

They had some stuff that wasn't thought of before, and I thought it was intriguing. Nevertheless, I hope you enjoyed 'Serenity' for exploring the Sci-fi genre. I know I did. Firefly fo life!
Serenity was good. Really, really disliked Riddick.

"Serenity" is a poor man's "Star Wars".

Originally posted by DarkWizard
Did anyone notice, at the beggining of 'Blade 2', Scudd had on a B.P.R.D shirt on?

Which is, The 'Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense' from 'Hellboy'

Originally posted by papabeard
I think he has a good visual sensibility

I definitely agree.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
"Serenity" is a poor man's "Star Wars".

Hahaha. Nice way of putting it.

Originally posted by DarkWizard
Did anyone notice, at the beggining of 'Blade 2', Scudd had on a B.P.R.D shirt on?

Which is, The 'Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense' from 'Hellboy'

No, I didn't... I'll have to watch it again sometime.

Originally posted by DarkWizard
You Fella's didn't enjoy it?

They had some stuff that wasn't thought of before, and I thought it was intriguing. Nevertheless, I hope you enjoyed 'Serenity' for exploring the Sci-fi genre. I know I did. Firefly fo life!

It was ridiculous. Depended way too much on visuals and had tons of holes in it. Also, it was dumb that it went from a Pitch Black which was a hypothetical situation of what would happen if they crashed on a planet with an unknown alien race. Riddick delt with fighting godly figures. Its not a good mix to go from aliens to gods. Its like Ripley from Aliens in a movie with gods.

As for Serenity. I avoided it. I've heard a lot people say its good but I go more off the description and from the descriptions of the movie, it didn't sound good. I may see it sometime though.

Originally posted by Nevermind


Hahaha. Nice way of putting it.

..and it's entirely true. At times, the similarities were so blatant, I think Joss Whedon was borderline plaguerizing.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
..and it's entirely true. At times, the similarities were so blatant, I think Joss Whedon was borderline plaguerizing.

Characters=Similar
Plot=Different

I agree when you say the similarities were blatant. But Serenity Explored the side of criminals in space, that Starwars Didn't. Making it a relatively fresh movie, IMO.

Originally posted by Myth
It was ridiculous. Depended way too much on visuals and had tons of holes in it. Also, it was dumb that it went from a Pitch Black which was a hypothetical situation of what would happen if they crashed on a planet with an unknown alien race. Riddick delt with fighting godly figures. Its not a good mix to go from aliens to gods. Its like Ripley from Aliens in a movie with gods.

It didn't have to rely on visuals, it had a very rich and intriguing storyline, not to mention a central focus that took a character from antagonist to hero, which is throwing that plot device in reverse.

"Pitch Black" is Science Fiction. Just like "Chronicles of Riddick", and just like "Aliens". Something that isn't presented as fact to begin with can't really have holes, now can it? It's not fair. I'm sure you like "Donnie Darko" and "Back to the Future" and the like, and as a friend as told me, the concept of time travel is inherently flawed because the characters in said movies are fast forwarding to a time where they don't even know if they exist or not, which ruins the whole movie. Being so overly analytical can ruin the fun of any movie, which as why it's entertainment, and not Science Fact.

Back to Riddick. Riddick is one of the most original Sci Fi characters of all time, as "Pitch Black" was as a movie. Riddick obviously had a lot of backstory, and who's to say that all of this didn't exist BEFORE "Pitch Black" was even written?

There's hardly anything really far-fetched in "Riddick". He's on the run from a bounty hunter, tracks down Imam, being one of the only people who knew where Riddick went, finds out Riddick's hometown is being taken over, and takes them on. There are no gods to speak of. They're warlords, plain and simple. The Elemental's are just another crazy race of spirit-based begins. It's Science Fiction, guys. I don't hear anyone complaining about Riddick having eyes that allow him to see in the dark? That's impossible, but it's obviously "forgiven" in a movie that was otherwise pretty "normal" aside from a bunch of ****in' aliens.

So, no, "Riddick" was much more than eye candy, the quality of which put the movie over the top for me. It's one of the better, more cohesive and plausable Sci Fi storylines of the past decade.

Except towards the end Riddick became "Gladiator in space".

Ummmm....................How did this discussion go from Guillermo Del Toro to a sci-fi flick that isn't even one of his movies? bored

Originally posted by Impediment
Ummmm....................How did this discussion go from Guillermo Del Toro to a sci-fi flick that isn't even one of his movies? bored

Thread Evolution. It's the need to move off of the subject when someone disagrees with another. Or Someone Compares something on the subject to something remote, but comparable. I started it.

But to get on the subject. Del Toro has a nack for the CG fights. Although they aren't very believable. I think his crew does a great job making the switch from CG to Real-time people. Which is a good quality to have.

Cool. Personally, I didn't care for Blade 2 all that much. Hellboy was awesome, and Cronos is eerie and interesting, but sometimes a little awkward. What film is the debut of Del Toro?

I don't think a thread discussing the works of a talented director going off topic into discussion about a generic Sci Fi/Tough Guy in space movie is what I'd call "evolution". Maybe devolution.

Originally posted by BackFire
I don't think a thread discussing the works of a talented director going off topic into discussion about a generic Sci Fi/Tough Guy in space movie is what I'd call "evolution". Maybe devolution.


or.........

Pooplution!

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
It didn't have to rely on visuals, it had a very rich and intriguing storyline, not to mention a central focus that took a character from antagonist to hero, which is throwing that plot device in reverse.

"Pitch Black" is Science Fiction. Just like "Chronicles of Riddick", and just like "Aliens". Something that isn't presented as fact to begin with can't really have holes, now can it? It's not fair. I'm sure you like "Donnie Darko" and "Back to the Future" and the like, and as a friend as told me, the concept of time travel is inherently flawed because the characters in said movies are fast forwarding to a time where they don't even know if they exist or not, which ruins the whole movie. Being so overly analytical can ruin the fun of any movie, which as why it's entertainment, and not Science Fact.

Back to Riddick. Riddick is one of the most original Sci Fi characters of all time, as "Pitch Black" was as a movie. Riddick obviously had a lot of backstory, and who's to say that all of this didn't exist BEFORE "Pitch Black" was even written?

There's hardly anything really far-fetched in "Riddick". He's on the run from a bounty hunter, tracks down Imam, being one of the only people who knew where Riddick went, finds out Riddick's hometown is being taken over, and takes them on. There are no gods to speak of. They're warlords, plain and simple. The Elemental's are just another crazy race of spirit-based begins. It's Science Fiction, guys. I don't hear anyone complaining about Riddick having eyes that allow him to see in the dark? That's impossible, but it's obviously "forgiven" in a movie that was otherwise pretty "normal" aside from a bunch of ****in' aliens.

So, no, "Riddick" was much more than eye candy, the quality of which put the movie over the top for me. It's one of the better, more cohesive and plausable Sci Fi storylines of the past decade.
I'm sure you liked "The Pacifier" also, no?

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
It didn't have to rely on visuals, it had a very rich and intriguing storyline, not to mention a central focus that took a character from antagonist to hero, which is throwing that plot device in reverse.

"Pitch Black" is Science Fiction. Just like "Chronicles of Riddick", and just like "Aliens". Something that isn't presented as fact to begin with can't really have holes, now can it? It's not fair. I'm sure you like "Donnie Darko" and "Back to the Future" and the like, and as a friend as told me, the concept of time travel is inherently flawed because the characters in said movies are fast forwarding to a time where they don't even know if they exist or not, which ruins the whole movie. Being so overly analytical can ruin the fun of any movie, which as why it's entertainment, and not Science Fact.

Back to Riddick. Riddick is one of the most original Sci Fi characters of all time, as "Pitch Black" was as a movie. Riddick obviously had a lot of backstory, and who's to say that all of this didn't exist BEFORE "Pitch Black" was even written?

There's hardly anything really far-fetched in "Riddick". He's on the run from a bounty hunter, tracks down Imam, being one of the only people who knew where Riddick went, finds out Riddick's hometown is being taken over, and takes them on. There are no gods to speak of. They're warlords, plain and simple. The Elemental's are just another crazy race of spirit-based begins. It's Science Fiction, guys. I don't hear anyone complaining about Riddick having eyes that allow him to see in the dark? That's impossible, but it's obviously "forgiven" in a movie that was otherwise pretty "normal" aside from a bunch of ****in' aliens.

So, no, "Riddick" was much more than eye candy, the quality of which put the movie over the top for me. It's one of the better, more cohesive and plausable Sci Fi storylines of the past decade.

First, I'm not a big fan of Back to the Future (although a lot better than Riddick) or especially Donnie Darko (highly overrated).
2nd, didn't rely on visuals? What do you call WWF moves and the constant CGI?
3rd, do you honestly think Aliens would have been good had Ripley started fighting god-like figures instead of aliens?
4th, no holes? Not fair? You can't defend movies by saying its not fair to say a genre can have holes and then immediately say Back to the Future has flaws. Thats simply flawed reasoning. Anyway, much of the storyline had to do with brainwashing. The holes I'm referring to are how the brainwashing works on everybody except every main character magically isn't effected by it.
Another big problem was the god awful acting.

As for the eyes and stuff. Its one thing to start out in the first movie with some concepts. Its another thing to completely change the direction the 1st film was in. Like the Matrix. The concept was that they could do crazy shit because they were not in reality. Part 2 started to f*ck that up when Neo could do mental powers against the robots in reality.

Originally posted by Solo
I'm sure you liked "The Pacifier" also, no?

I can't comment, because I've never seen it, and if I did, I don't think I'd need to justify it to anyone here. I'd suggest not baiting me; especially when your only retort so far has been "Definately" to an equally as shallow and unweighted remark/opinion as "**** God for Riddick".

Grow up, guys. This is for hearty movie discussion, not threadcrapping.

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I can't comment, because I've never seen it, and if I did, I don't think I'd need to justify it to anyone here. I'd suggest not baiting me; especially when your only retort so far has been "Definately" to an equally as shallow and unweighted remark/opinion as "**** God for Riddick".

Grow up, guys. This is for hearty movie discussion, not threadcrapping.

Was merely a joke.

the '' Smiley goes good with jokes.

Originally posted by Myth
First, I'm not a big fan of Back to the Future (although a lot better than Riddick) or especially Donnie Darko (highly overrated).
2nd, didn't rely on visuals? What do you call WWF moves and the constant CGI?
3rd, do you honestly think Aliens would have been good had Ripley started fighting god-like figures instead of aliens?
4th, no holes? Not fair? You can't defend movies by saying its not fair to say a genre can have holes and then immediately say Back to the Future has flaws. Thats simply flawed reasoning. Anyway, much of the storyline had to do with brainwashing. The holes I'm referring to are how the brainwashing works on everybody except every main character magically isn't effected by it.
Another big problem was the god awful acting.

As for the eyes and stuff. Its one thing to start out in the first movie with some concepts. Its another thing to completely change the direction the 1st film was in. Like the Matrix. The concept was that they could do crazy shit because they were not in reality. Part 2 started to f*ck that up when Neo could do mental powers against the robots in reality.

I was merely suggesting that you're bound to like some Sci Fi films, where you're supposed to just enjoy them, and not critique their flaws, given the genre itself is flawed because nothing created in that genre even exists. Like I said, if it did, it would be Science Fact.

There are have been a handful of Science Fiction movies that don't incorporate CGI into their films, and those are usually based in some sort of "real life" scenario. Riddick isn't. Riddick is fantasy. Riddick doesn't exist, and when things don't exist, you have to make them. Are you on some kind of Sci Fi smear campaign, because a lot of Sci Fi flicks DO rely on special effects, i.e. Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" to mask a poor storyline, or one that has been used over and over again, like alien invasion, cloning, precognitives, whatever.

David Twohy put together a fantastic universe with an original storyline, a solid lead character, and of course, some killer special effects, created in part by none other than ILM. It's not fair to fans of the films, nor the creators, to suggest it was all visuals, when it was obviously more innovative and original than many other films from the genre in the past decade.

As for yet another Ripley vs Riddick comparison, it's still pointless. Two different worlds, two different characters. "Aliens" premise was simple, to the point, and was rehashed 3 times over in the following 20 years. Riddick was the main focus of "Pitch Black", and he had a dark history, no pun intended. I know they flipped the script and went "Dune" like with the sequel and storyline, but they didn't forget to incorporate past characters, Butcher Bay and the like, all of which were hinted at in "Pitch Black". You just can't compare the two, because "what if's" are irrelevant when they're "already are's", by way of sequels.

I never said that "Chronicles of Riddick" didn't have plot holes. I mentioned that it can't really be critiqued in that regard because it's entirely Sci Fi, with no human or realistic elements implied. "BTTF", as light-hearted as it may be, used a real scientist, real cars, a modern day setting, and promoted a real possibility in time travel. "Riddick" is a straight up fantasy, never presenting itself as anything other than that. As for the brainwashing of the main characters, did you get angry when Luke Skywalker denounced the dark side? If everyone was seduced by a stronger, more powerful opponent, that wouldn't leave anyone to save the day, and that's not how Sci Fi, or movies in general, work. "Riddick" didn't go from protagonist to hero in "Pitch Black" only to puss out in the sequel. Expecting such isn't fair. Much like expecting Oscar caliber performances from an action movie star and a couple of notable supporters. If you were expecting such, then you just don't watch enough Sci Fi, because the genre relies on storylines, with good acting and dialogue as a bonus.

Like I mentioned before, after "Pitch Black" rolled into credits, the story was over. It's no more. Now, it's Richard Riddick's story. Nobody can claim all of this didn't exist before, because we don't know. It's an ENTIRELY different story in any regard, and trying to make comparisons between the two, save Riddick himself, isn't fair, and shouldn't make any impact on reviewing "Chronicles", because they're otherwise unrelated subject matter.

Originally posted by DarkWizard
the '' Smiley goes good with jokes.



That's why I used it. People should know better than to even joke with me when we're in a serious debate; it's been two years now. Jeez.

To get back on the subject.

How would you put GDT's movies in order?

Best to worst..

Hellboy
Blade 2
Devil's Backbone
Cronos
Mimic

I seriously had NO idea that Del Toro directed that steaming turd "Mimic". Never saw Devil's Backbone. Is it worth a damn? or at least a rent?

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I was merely suggesting that you're bound to like some Sci Fi films, where you're supposed to just enjoy them, and not critique their flaws, given the genre itself is flawed because nothing created in that genre even exists. Like I said, if it did, it would be Science Fact.

There are have been a handful of Science Fiction movies that don't incorporate CGI into their films, and those are usually based in some sort of "real life" scenario. Riddick isn't. Riddick is fantasy. Riddick doesn't exist, and when things don't exist, you have to make them. Are you on some kind of Sci Fi smear campaign, because a lot of Sci Fi flicks DO rely on special effects, i.e. Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" to mask a poor storyline, or one that has been used over and over again, like alien invasion, cloning, precognitives, whatever.

David Twohy put together a fantastic universe with an original storyline, a solid lead character, and of course, some killer special effects, created in part by none other than ILM. It's not fair to fans of the films, nor the creators, to suggest it was all visuals, when it was obviously more innovative and original than many other films from the genre in the past decade.

As for yet another Ripley vs Riddick comparison, it's still pointless. Two different worlds, two different characters. "Aliens" premise was simple, to the point, and was rehashed 3 times over in the following 20 years. Riddick was the main focus of "Pitch Black", and he had a dark history, no pun intended. I know they flipped the script and went "Dune" like with the sequel and storyline, but they didn't forget to incorporate past characters, Butcher Bay and the like, all of which were hinted at in "Pitch Black". You just can't compare the two, because "what if's" are irrelevant when they're "already are's", by way of sequels.

I never said that "Chronicles of Riddick" didn't have plot holes. I mentioned that it can't really be critiqued in that regard because it's entirely Sci Fi, with no human or realistic elements implied. "BTTF", as light-hearted as it may be, used a real scientist, real cars, a modern day setting, and promoted a real possibility in time travel. "Riddick" is a straight up fantasy, never presenting itself as anything other than that. As for the brainwashing of the main characters, did you get angry when Luke Skywalker denounced the dark side? If everyone was seduced by a stronger, more powerful opponent, that wouldn't leave anyone to save the day, and that's not how Sci Fi, or movies in general, work. "Riddick" didn't go from protagonist to hero in "Pitch Black" only to puss out in the sequel. Expecting such isn't fair. Much like expecting Oscar caliber performances from an action movie star and a couple of notable supporters. If you were expecting such, then you just don't watch enough Sci Fi, because the genre relies on storylines, with good acting and dialogue as a bonus.

Like I mentioned before, after "Pitch Black" rolled into credits, the story was over. It's no more. Now, it's Richard Riddick's story. Nobody can claim all of this didn't exist before, because we don't know. It's an ENTIRELY different story in any regard, and trying to make comparisons between the two, save Riddick himself, isn't fair, and shouldn't make any impact on reviewing "Chronicles", because they're otherwise unrelated subject matter.

Well, you of course are entitled to your opinion. I guess when it comes down to it, I don't like much big "blockbuster" movies (especially if a lot of CGI is used), I couldn't stand the acting (so many guys had to have that horrible rough tough guy voice) and generally didn't care for how the story was about brainwashing that generally only worked on insignificant characters.

Everybody has some movies where many people like it and while it pushes others in the direction of not being able to stand the movie. For me, it was just one of those movies.