Hulk

I was disappointed with this, for pretty much all the reasons the nay-sayers have listed.

My main beef is all the extra 'drama' crap they added in...my understanding of the Hulk is this: freak accident, Banner rushes to save oblivious innocent, gamm bomb goes off, Banner is hit by rays, Banner becomes Hulk when angry. Pretty simple.

Instead, we get close to an hour of pointless crap, this huge focus on science and the sins of the father passing to the son, and blah blah blah. NO. Hulk SMASH. Seriously, I have one of those old "What if?" issues, where it was "What if the Hulk went berzerk?"...he got to fight the military, the Fantastic Four, Iron-Man, and frickin' Thor. If they had made a movie out of that, it would have been one of the greatest things I have ever seen. I just don't think Ang Lee's vision and direction really fit the license well at all.

-also: Having since trimmed down those monster eyebrows, Jennifer Connelly is indeed hot.

Quote:

---

just don't think Ang Lee's vision and direction really fit the license well at all.

---

That's a good point. With his drama background, why did he decide to take on the hulk franchise? Was he feeling his acttion oats after doing Crouching Tiger or something?

i don't think any of you guys understood (where ang lee was going with it) the movie at all, hence all the hating. if really look at it, you'll see that although it's a comic-based movie, it doesn't look or feel like one (with the exceptions of the panels). this was done on purpose for two main reasons. one, to "untrivialize" what comic book characters go through, and two, to make a subtle jab at the whole thing in the process.

overall, i thought it was a great movie. although it's a bit hard, you can't look at it as a comic book movie. it's more of a drama (although not a greatly written one) with a few action scenes thrown in. i think this is where the movie is going to fail with audiences. they're looking for an x-men/spiderman-like movie, but are getting something else. however, i really liked the direction ang lee went with. it just needed a better written script.

Chopper is one of my favorite movies, and I'm currently reading his 1st book.

/thread hijack

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nash
i don't think any of you guys understood (where ang lee was going with it) the movie at all, hence all the hating. if really look at it, you'll see that although it's a comic-based movie, it doesn't look or feel like one (with the exceptions of the panels). this was done on purpose for two main reasons. one, to "untrivialize" what comic book characters go through, and two, to make a subtle jab at the whole thing in the process.

---

Ugh, not the "you guys just don't get it" fascist spiel.. :bang:

Lee shopped it as a psychological drama with action. Stan Lee called it a struggle of duality and man being his own worst enemy. Some called it a "comic book movie". All are correct. What's not to get? And after Sci-Fi's "Hulk: The Lowdown", anyone who didn't get it by then surely does now. So I think alot of people "get it" just fine. And I think you're mistaken; it looks ALOT like a comic-book movie.

I understand what Ang Lee was trying to accomplish here, but the end result doesn't have the legs to support the idea. Even you admit, it's not a well-written story. The characters of David Banner, Betty Ross and Glenn Talbot are unrecognizable to comic fans, and unlikable to non-comic fans (well, those that can escape Connelly's alluring eyes).

The pacing of the film is seriously disjointed. And let me take a moment to talk about the panelling: Why do we need to be reminded that this is a comic-book movie? In an actual comic, the panels are necessary. They help move the story along and in effect, instead of enjoying a book on a panel-by-panel basis, we envision the panels as a cohesive, single moving picture.

But, the panelling in this movie achieves the exact opposite effect. We go from a smoothly moving picture to several, fragmented scenes, taking the viewer out of the movie and INTO the comic. We don't have time to sit there and piece the panels together into a cohesive entity as we do a comic book, and the result is a disjointed and ultimately distracting element. Of course, maybe I didn't "get it", and the panelling was used to artistic effect. Actually, I did get that. But it failed on that level more so than it succeeded.

Then there's THE Glenn Talbot scene... Art, indeed. Comic book movie? Nah..

The night scenes were shot too damned dark. The dog battle I could make out, but does ANYONE know what the hell was going on at the end?

The military seems perfectly okay with attacking the Hulk in heavily populated areas, even shooting missiles at a bridge full of traffic! But Ang Lee wanted to drive the point home that everyone wsa okay. Hulk spares soldiers' lives by shaking them out of tanks before destroying them, (unwittingly) saves a jet fighter from crashing into a bridge and "YO JOE!!", the helicopter pilots radio each other with "We're Okay" after each craft is destroyed. I know, it's a comic-book movie, right?

Seeing Hulk tower over Betty (he's about 2.5 times her height, literally, picking her up like a Cabbage Patch doll) was unnerving. I think he should've topped off at 10ft, but that's the comic fanboy in me talking. There's one scene where his growing bigger gets him out of a jam, but I still think this plot point was unnecessary.

Notice I haven't downed the CG at all. It wasn't always perfect, but it was acceptable. I had no major problems with it, except Hulk's transformation to Bruce in San Fran. I thought that looked horrible.

Things I liked about this movie were the scenes with Hulk behind the door, waiting to be unleashed, Hulk bashing through said door, Hulk in the mirror, and David Banner claiming the Hulk as his son, not Bruce. And of course, the desert military battle was well-executed. Is it me or was the Hulk not referred to as the Hulk at all, not once in the entire movie?

The story that is wrapped around these events, however, is jarringly weak. The movie's parts are greater than it's whole. This movie really reminds me of another movie, the superior DARKMAN, which also used comic elements and dealt with a man struggling with his dark side, but to greater effect. Raimi and Lee need to exchange notes on how to make psychological action thrillers. Maybe Raimi didn't get it.

For all it's (my) faults, I still want it to do well and I have every intention of buying the DVD.

I think the movie was good, above average anyway. B-. My only real problem with it is that the main character David Banner as a person was bland and uninteresting. When Betty professes her love for him, yadda yadda, all the drama is lost because there was no real magic or chemistry beyond her words. Also, there should have been more humor. I love the artsy angle to the movie but it seemed to take itself a bit TOO seriously. Even still I enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than Reloaded and is a "marginal buy" on dvd.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bloodyarts
Ugh, not the "you guys just don't get it" fascist spiel.. :bang:

Lee shopped it as a psychological drama with action. Stan Lee called it a struggle of duality and man being his own worst enemy. Some called it a "comic book movie". All are correct. What's not to get? And after Sci-Fi's "Hulk: The Lowdown", anyone who didn't get it by then surely does now. So I think alot of people "get it" just fine. And I think you're mistaken; it looks ALOT like a comic-book movie.

I understand what Ang Lee was trying to accomplish here, but the end result doesn't have the legs to support the idea. Even you admit, it's not a well-written story. The characters of David Banner, Betty Ross and Glenn Talbot are unrecognizable to comic fans, and unlikable to non-comic fans (well, those that can escape Connelly's alluring eyes).

The pacing of the film is seriously disjointed. And let me take a moment to talk about the panelling: Why do we need to be reminded that this is a comic-book movie? In an actual comic, the panels are necessary. They help move the story along and in effect, instead of enjoying a book on a panel-by-panel basis, we envision the panels as a cohesive, single moving picture.

But, the panelling in this movie achieves the exact opposite effect. We go from a smoothly moving picture to several, fragmented scenes, taking the viewer out of the movie and INTO the comic. We don't have time to sit there and piece the panels together into a cohesive entity as we do a comic book, and the result is a disjointed and ultimately distracting element. Of course, maybe I didn't "get it", and the panelling was used to artistic effect. Actually, I did get that. But it failed on that level more so than it succeeded.

Then there's THE Glenn Talbot scene... Art, indeed. Comic book movie? Nah..

The night scenes were shot too damned dark. The dog battle I could make out, but does ANYONE know what the hell was going on at the end?

The military seems perfectly okay with attacking the Hulk in heavily populated areas, even shooting missiles at a bridge full of traffic! But Ang Lee wanted to drive the point home that everyone wsa okay. Hulk spares soldiers' lives by shaking them out of tanks before destroying them, (unwittingly) saves a jet fighter from crashing into a bridge and "YO JOE!!", the helicopter pilots radio each other with "We're Okay" after each craft is destroyed. I know, it's a comic-book movie, right?

Seeing Hulk tower over Betty (he's about 2.5 times her height, literally, picking her up like a Cabbage Patch doll) was unnerving. I think he should've topped off at 10ft, but that's the comic fanboy in me talking. There's one scene where his growing bigger gets him out of a jam, but I still think this plot point was unnecessary.

Notice I haven't downed the CG at all. It wasn't always perfect, but it was acceptable. I had no major problems with it, except Hulk's transformation to Bruce in San Fran. I thought that looked horrible.

Things I liked about this movie were the scenes with Hulk behind the door, waiting to be unleashed, Hulk bashing through said door, Hulk in the mirror, and David Banner claiming the Hulk as his son, not Bruce. And of course, the desert military battle was well-executed. Is it me or was the Hulk not referred to as the Hulk at all, not once in the entire movie?

The story that is wrapped around these events, however, is jarringly weak. The movie's parts are greater than it's whole. This movie really reminds me of another movie, the superior DARKMAN, which also used comic elements and dealt with a man struggling with his dark side, but to greater effect. Raimi and Lee need to exchange notes on how to make psychological action thrillers. Maybe Raimi didn't get it.

For all it's (my) faults, I still want it to do well and I have every intention of buying the DVD.

---

i'm not saying the movie was flawlessly done. there were a few things i didn't like, such as (as you mentioned) the constant reminder that it's a comic book movie with the paneling and the glen talbot explosion scene, among a few others. however, i do think people are bashing it unwarrantedly and for bad reasons. i understand people expected a summer blockbuster-type movie, but to say that it's a bad and poorly done movie is inaccurate. it may not be what everyone wanted, but we should also try to see it for what it is as well. at least you appreciate it enough to want to buy the DVD.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bloodyarts
The pacing of the film is seriously disjointed. And let me take a moment to talk about the panelling: Why do we need to be reminded that this is a comic-book movie? In an actual comic, the panels are necessary. They help move the story along and in effect, instead of enjoying a book on a panel-by-panel basis, we envision the panels as a cohesive, single moving picture.

But, the panelling in this movie achieves the exact opposite effect. We go from a smoothly moving picture to several, fragmented scenes, taking the viewer out of the movie and INTO the comic. We don't have time to sit there and piece the panels together into a cohesive entity as we do a comic book, and the result is a disjointed and ultimately distracting element. Of course, maybe I didn't "get it", and the panelling was used to artistic effect. Actually, I did get that. But it failed on that level more so than it succeeded.

---

The panelling didn't bother me all that much. I know exactly what you're saying with comparing comic book panelling to film. I didn't find it that obtrusive as others would though. The few times that it showed multiple angles you don't neccesarily have look at all the different panels, as disjointed as they may seem, to get the whole scene but they kept things interesting.

Sure a couple of times it seemed out of place but I thought it was executed well.

Quote:

---

Then there's THE Glenn Talbot scene... Art, indeed. Comic book movie? Nah..

---

The explosion scene with Glen was pretty funny though, I don't know if Ang wanted that to be intentionally funny because of his mistake or what but it was.

Quote:

---

The night scenes were shot too damned dark. The dog battle I could make out, but does ANYONE know what the hell was going on at the end?

---

Heh yeah all I remember is Hulk breaking one of their necks/bones, smacking another away and smashing one into submission on top of Betty's car. The scene wasn't all that clear though.

Quote:

---

The military seems perfectly okay with attacking the Hulk in heavily populated areas, even shooting missiles at a bridge full of traffic! But Ang Lee wanted to drive the point home that everyone wsa okay. Hulk spares soldiers' lives by shaking them out of tanks before destroying them, (unwittingly) saves a jet fighter from crashing into a bridge and "YO JOE!!", the helicopter pilots radio each other with "We're Okay" after each craft is destroyed. I know, it's a comic-book movie, right?

---

I didn't pay much attention to that detail but if X2 can get away with Wolverine tearing soldier ass then I don't know why they couldn't have had some casualties in the opposing forces fighting the Hulk.

I think he was just using scare tactics for them to leave him alone and in the bridge when Hulk saved the pilots life he didn't want any civilian casualties because a part of Bruce was still sort of there or maybe it was just part of Hulk's more gentle nature. I would love for the next film to have the Banner personality Hulk as I always loved the fact that he was super smart and super strong.

Quote:

---

Seeing Hulk tower over Betty (he's about 2.5 times her height, literally, picking her up like a Cabbage Patch doll) was unnerving. I think he should've topped off at 10ft, but that's the comic fanboy in me talking. There's one scene where his growing bigger gets him out of a jam, but I still think this plot point was unnecessary.

---

I haven't seen him quite that big in the comics and yeah I would have preferred a set height, but I thought it was something they could get away with since he wasn't like Godzilla big or anything. In the comics sometimes he was bigger than his bio description at times due to the artists rendering.

Quote:

---

Is it me or was the Hulk not referred to as the Hulk at all, not once in the entire movie?

---

Bruce referred to him as "..that Hulk."

Holy shit, it was just like a comic book!

One that I would have burned by page 10.

Worst comic book movie in the history of ever. EVER!!!

Worse than Batman and Robin?

http://www.manakifilm.com.mk/kino/ba...s/magcover.jpg