Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: 42 on June 20, 2003, 08:21:30 PM
-
So I went and saw the Hulk. It was a lot more cerebral than I was expecting, so I enjoyed it. They also seemed to have cleaned up a lot of the FXs.
The mutant poodle was just a little too banail for me.
The pacing is a little slow, but the dramatic music helps the audience et through some of them.
The over-all acting was good, though I found the rival scientist guy to be sort of annoying.
And finally, comic-book style Russian Montage sequences. Funky.
-
(incidentally, I'm turning a lot of this into the review, so if you read my review, it might be redundant)
Ok, I saw it yesterday. And it was pretty darn good.
Though I agree. The directing is phenomenal. Ang Lee uses shots to communicate so much more than is being shown, and using multiple shots or multiple angles really help. Plus, he used trasitions in very unusual ways, often ways that communicate as much as the content of the shots do.
One of the shots that stands out best to me is when Bruce and Betty are in Bruce's childhood home, and he looks at the door where "it happened." The shot disolves to the door in a way that suggests a flashback. But instead of the flashback, he just shows the door as Bruce is seeing it right there. Which did two things at least for me. One, it forces you to remember that there is a violent flashback to recall so you anticipate the revelation. Two, it shows that there ISN'T anything being recalled (or is there?) as Bruce claims not to remember the details of his mother's death at that time (though you may suspect he's lying about it). If I remember right, we don't find out that her murder was accidental until a few scenes later, but we certainly know that David killed her, and we know that the Hulk form, at least, remembers this.
The acting I felt was only fairly interesting, with Eric Bana beign the only one that really stood out. Everyone else was just passable: good enough not to hate, but nto good enough to remark on. I do wish that I'd gotten to hear "HULK SMASH!" a couple times, or "Puny Human" more than once.
However, as impressed as I was with the directing, I felt that the story was week. Ang Lee sets up three or four conflicts, resolves them sequentially, and then tacks on one more so we can have the Hulk "disappear" at the end. I didn't really think about how linear and predictable it was (after all, I pretty much knew the elements of what would happen for everything except Bruce's mother's death -- being a reader of Marvel comics-- so I didn't worry about predictability.) until the end, where we get a final Supervillain, it seems mostly thrown in for good measure. It was far from developed enough,and didn't even make a lot of sense to people who are into comics.
But once I saw the end, I started thinking about everything else. And yeah, it seems to me that you'd be able to predict everything even if you didn't know much about the Hulk. And yeah, the rival scientist is pretty much one-dimensional. And ALL the characters besides Bruce and Betty seem like such morons. "He can take continuous high-caliber machine gun fire from multiple sources, so... let's keep doing that. That's a good idea." Ironically, the evil scientist's approach to non-lethal containment would have been best if he hadn't tried to shove a drill into Hulk's eye.
However, yeah, I really enjoyed it. I think the best reasons to watch it are because you're a) a fan of Ang Lee, or b) a fan of the Hulk character. Because despite predictability and occassional flatness, the film does an amazing job of capturing the Hulk's character and the themes. In fact, I was impressed by the themes -- the freedom and power that anger brings us, how we ENJOY that destructive and uncontrollable power -- in a way that I never did with the comic book, and especially not with the Lou Feregno series. Those themes are brought in powerfully. And that alone balances out poor plotting. The excellent directing and cinematography only enhances the film. So yeah, I liked this movie a lot, much more than I can complain about it.
I just have one question. WTF was with that frog on Bruce's hat at the end?
-
Ya, the story is kinda weak. The super-villian thing doesn't really fit in, though I like Banners dad, just not the super-villian version. The greatest strength is the character exploration of the hulk concept.
-
Saw it tonight and I really liked it. I thought the characters showed surprising depth and overall thought it was well acted. The super villain bit did seem tacked on...especially the Absorbing Man schtick, but it was okay.
This is definitely something I'll buy when it come out.
-
I saw it as well, and I enjoyed it too. I do have one prediction, however. I think this movie is going to be less successful than many hope. While I enjoyed it, and thought the filming techniques were quite brilliant, it doesn't have the mass-appeal of other recent comic book movies.
People aren't going to get what they expect from this movie. It's slow-moving, dramatic, filmed oddly, and really doesn't have that much action. The ending is a bit inexplicable (most of the reviews I've read are really bothered by this fact.)
I went to a large theater, and while the 3 and 5 showings were sold out, my 7 showing and the later ones were not. My theater was about 20% empty, and as I left, a large number of people were talking about how stupid they thought the movie was. Several groups burst out into sarcastic laughter during the movie, especially the Hulk 'jump' scenes.
The critics seem moderately warm to the movie, but I think its too artsy (especially for the expectations) to be considered a big success, especially considering its 150 mil price tag. It will make its money back--hopefully--and will have a big, but not huge, weekend. It won't be the Spiderman, or even X-2, that the company is hoping for.
-
Wow! We're all in agreement.
I (basically) followed the ending. Though it's not like Ang Lee took great pains to ensure his audience understood. And it doesn't necessarily make sense, as I said before.
And no, it certainly won't be the hit Spidey or X-Men was. But I think it'll be a sleeper hit for comic fans for a long time. It should make a profit. What's disappointing about why the film won't smash the box office is that it's unusual. The things I liked about it are what will make it not do so well. *sigh*
And yeah, we had some laughers. But most of them were 10. Like Bruce's butt. These were the people expecting an action flick, not to see the darker side of the ultimate male power fantasy. My theater was about 2/3 full (not a good sign for opening weekend) at 4 on Sat afternoon. But I didn't hear sarcastic comments or derisive ones. In fact, I hear kids discussing it in the bathroom who were excited about it. Then, to be honest, the region is a bit more urbane than your typical Utah valley crowd...
-
EUOL saw it in Atlanta, Georga
-
yeah, well, Atlanta, while bigger than most towns, still isn't the cultural center it bills itself as. Not in competition with cities like DC, NY, or Boston
-
The group I saw it with, and those who mocked it, didn't exactly appear to be the cream of the intellectual crop.
You're right. The film won't do as well because it's different. Actually, as good as the other comic book films were, I was refreshed by this one because it did such a good job of not following steriotypes. As good as Spidy was, there wasn't a moment in that film where I didn't feel I was just being pulled through a formula. The Hulk was different enough that I often had no idea where it was going, and when thought I did have an inkling--like the father's transformation--I turned out being mostly wrong.
-
Well, Hulk did very well in the box office for its opening weekend. Any bets on how much it will drop this next week. The average for a movie is 50%.
-
"Well" is a relative term. USA Today noted that the intake was a good twenty million below expectations. That's not a good sign.
And, I would point out that 50% isn't eactly an average. As I understand it, half is something of a litmus test. If a movie drops by more than half, it's a very bad sign. If it drops by less than half, it's doing well. I think an average is closer to forty or thirty percent, since a lot of the sources I've read give a movie a death-bell if it drops over fifty.
As for the Hulk, I'm guessing right around fifty. Like the take from the first weekend, that won't be a terrible sign, but not a good one either.
-
The only thought I have to add is that I think the movie was pretty good.
-
Hulk took a 70% drop at the box office. That's a big drop. It made 100,000,000 already, which means that it is technically a blockbuster and it will probably make all its money back. The studio just won't see a lot of profits.
So I'm saying that this film is probably headed into the cult classic genre.
-
I am going to go against the grain of everybody else on this post and say that I thought that Hulk was terrible. I was a huge Hulk fan from way back and this film jut made a mockery of the whole series. The story is weak and you have to sit through an hour of "blah-blah-blah" before anything cool happens. The CGI Hulk looked like something that would have been done perhaps five years ago. After Gollum, I really expect CGI characters to look really smooth. Hulk, however, never looked like much more than a giant chunk of play-doh.
I do have to admit that the actors were all top-notch. Having seen the cult hit Chopper years ago, I was thoroughly unconvinced that Eric Bana could make a convincing Bruce Banner, but I was wrong. Jennifer Connelly was, as always, very easy on the eyes. The only character I had a major complaint about was Glen Talbot. He went from being the stoic-but-misguided soldier that he'd been in the comic to a wackily evil, greedy corporate executive. What was THAT all about??
The movie just failed to capture the tone of the comic that I loved as a child. For me, Hulk was about the angry loner battling gigantic radiation-spawned monstrosities (and I DON'T mean poodles on steroids) while keeping one step ahead of the military. The movie was far too talky when it should have focused on over-the-top action.
Other things I disliked about Hulk:
Helicoptors crashing into the desert, but not exploding, with all crew members making it out okay.
Soldiers firing their weapons at Hulk, seeing that it doesn't work, then doing it some more.
Bruce's dad becoming the Absorbing Man for no real reason.
David Banner, a criminal in chains, being taken to see his son who is in Top Secret military custody, again for absolutely no real reason other than to set the stage for the Hulk/Absorbing Man brawl.
Two things I DID like:
"Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
"Puny human!"
Well, I am still keeping my hopes up for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
-
I have to defend the helicopters not exploding when crashing. I have two brothers who use to design helicopter in both the military and private sectors. So I've heard a lot of talk about helicopter design. Modern helicopters are design to not exploded short of being hit by missile. Exploding on a crash landing is nearly impossible, particularly since it is a primary concern of aircraft designers that it not do so.
In fact it bothers me to no end that in many action flick, the vehicles explode if they hit a stop sign at 4 miles per hour. Fortunate for the movie industry most people are dumb enough to by into it.
-
70% is a big hit for the movie. But, like I said, word of mouth is going to destroy this one. It was marketed terribly. Or, perhaps, it was marketed very cleverly. It fooled people into thinking it was something it was not, which may be the only reason it managed to get a hundred million. It should recoup its money, and with licensing and foreign sales make money, but it's probably not going to be considered a success.
Ang Lee was just wrong for this movie. People wanted "hulk smash!" not "Hulk uncertain of his feelings for his father." They wanted a walking tank, but not a psycho creature that could (for inexplicable reasons) leap huge distances. They wanted a good, old-fashioned, understandable plot, not a strange "What the freak just happened with his father turning into a...whatever he turned into?"
And, to an extent, I kind of admit I agree with them. While I liked the movie, a part of me is sad because I didn't get to see the Incredible Hulk, I got to see Ang Lee does superhero.
-
I think I'm confused about Slant's rant. You did, or did not read the Hulk comics? From what I can tell, you wanted a smash 'em up, not anything that thinks. THat's not the Hulk I know. stan Lee may not be the smartest writer alive, but he makes good characters. CHARACTERS. Not WMDs. EUOL, what you saw on the screen WAS the Hulk. He jumps like that in the comic. His muscle to power ratio apparently aslo increases when he hulks out, which is the only way to rationally explain MOST of what he does.
I think Ang Lee did an INCREDIBLE job bringing the actual Hulk to the screen. The problem is, most people think that Lou Feregno did that. They want to see a cooler version of senseless violence, not a tormented creature with feelings that send him out of control as well as the abilities to give those feelings any avenue of expression they want.
Frankly, it's just another case of people thinking that comics are essentially wimpy "kid stuff" with no thoughtful content. Sorry, but the Hulk (and most superheroes) are much deeper than that. If that's not what you want, go watch another tarentino flick.
-
I have to agree with SE, what I've read of the Hulk (which is not a lot), he's always been a introspective, brooding character who abhores violence but feels trapped by it. The comics seem to be entirely about the inner character conflict of the Hulk, not smashing things. Course, every cartoon or TV show episode I've seen seems to be more about Hulk smashing stuff.
-
This just goes to prove my theory that Germans love David Hasselhoff.
wait, wrong theory.
My theory that set expectations largely determine how entertaining a movie is. If you go into the Hulk with no expectations whatsoever but like good cinema, you'll probably like it. If, however, you have a preconceived notion of what the Hulk (or the film) is supposed to be like, and it doesnt' conform to Ang Lee's, well then, you're probably going to be disappointed.
I'm glad it wasn't just "Hulk smash puny humans!" (though I wanted to hear him say that). Because I don't particularly enjoy those movies in the long run. the way it is, I can enjoy the movie and look forward to enjoying it again in the future. Yes, this is definitely on my DVDs to buy list.
But my theory above is why I don't read reviews or allow myself to believe I know exactly what a movie will be like once I've made a decision to see it beyond the basics. Usually the basics are enough. Like, the essentially idea behind Dumb and Dumberer is slapstick and gross jokes. While that will make me laugh while I'm seeing it, I won't feel it was worth my $7 and I will have rather seen something else. So I won't go see it, I don't need to know how well the pratfalls are executed. The only things that would entice me to see it now is if a) i was sitting around bored and someone had a copy of it with them and popped it in my player, or b) I find out that they did actually have a meaningful story attached to it (and not one that contains a message that could be contained in 1 line at the end of a saturday morning cartoon.
Naturally, there are contradictions and some hypocrisy attached to this attitude. In some ways, I'm taking "first impression" of the advertising and letting that determine if I go or not. But mostly I'm just trying to keep my mind open that there are different ways to like a movie, the visual effects, the action, the comedy, the directing, the acting, the plot, et al. Liking a movie for one reason isn't inherantly superior to liking another, except for your personal tastes for how important those elements are to you.
I guess my problem with Slant's "nothing cool happens for the first hour" is that what are you saying is cool? Hulk beating up on a monster? No that doesn't happen. But the characters and themes that the movie explores before that were pretty cool to me, so I liked it.
-
Okay, let me respond to a few things.
First, I think you underestimate people when you say that people only wanted to see' a smash'em up.' I also think that you are arrogant for assuming that your version of the hulk is the only one that deserves to be portrayed, while most of us grew to love what is apparently a different hulk, but still a good character.
On the first point. This was billed as an action movie. You cannot deny that. It was sold by the advertisements to be fast-paced, and the clips showed the Hulk destroying lots of things. People went expecting that. It wasn't that people who went to see it were 'opposed to anything that thinks;' they simply were told to expect something they did not receive. They wanted movie about a hero who overcomes great odds and does heroic things. This movie was not an action movie, but a drama. It's as if you went to T3, and it turned out to be the Hours. That is not necessarily a personal complaint against the film, but rather the advertising. As soon as I realized it wasn't what it had been billed to be, I still enjoyed it. That is, however, why it is doing relatively poorly at the theaters.
As for the Hulk TV character, I was always fascinated by the Bruce character. He went berserk, and afterward had to deal with the ramifications of his actions. This may not be the Hulk you know, but it is the one many of us know. In this way, we kind of did want to see something that 'doesn't think.' The interesting character that I knew was one that lost control of himself--as a metaphor for our own tendencies toward anger--then had to learn to control and overcome this problem. This is not a flat character--in fact, it makes for a much better Banner character, I think, than the one presented in the movie. Again, this may not be what the comics portrayed, but it is what most of us expected to get. You can say you're glad they chose the comic Hulk instead, because you prefer that character, but don't belittle the character many of us were hoping to see.
-
wait wait wait.
Weren't YOU the one who said people wanted to see a walking tank?
I guess I'm not sure who or what you're arguing against. Yes, I agree there were marketing problems (including what ads they ran with the flick), but what other character is there besides the flat one from the TV show? And even that shows that he hates and fears his anger. the comic/movie hulk is more complex because it also shows his family relationships, allowing the film to explore both territories.
Is what you're saying it that you *want* just a straightforward action flick with nothing else added? Sure, maybe that's what people expected (though the more I learn about public opinion the less I'm inclined to respect it) but I think it's a better film for not pursuing that route. Maybe the money will hurt it, but it's still a better film.
-
You can have a good, old fashioned action flick and still have a good plot and good characterization. The Matrix, at its core, is just a very well-done action flick. T2 would be another example.
Yes, people wanted to see a walking tank that smashed things--on the Hulk side. Then they wanted to see Bruce Banner have to deal with this monsterous side of his personality. The father interaction took up so much of the movie that it didn't leave much time for Bruce to deal with what was happening to him. While I agree that it was still a good movie, I think it would have actually been a better movie if it would have been more sure of what it wanted to be.
I said I was a little sad that I didn't get to see 'Hulk smash.' This is partially because the movie was mis-represented to me. However, I don't think saying this implies that I only wanted to see 'hulk smash.' That is just a part of the greater whole I was hoping to see.
-
I actually hadn't read any Hulk comics, but I expected him to be at the very least fighing 'evil'. We didn't really get to see that here. He fought off some Hulk Dogs and ran from the Army. Hardly superhero fare.
I wasn't as impressed with the adaptation as I think I could have been.
-
*sigh*
You say you haven't read the material and then say you're upset with the adaptation. You're not making sense.
The Hulk in the comics usually says "Hulk Smash" as the consequence of the army not listening when he says "Leave Hulk alone."
Running from the army was his primary gig for 20+ years. Hulk does fight evil, but it's eternal. He's not rational, so he usually doesn't think "I must use my powers for good." That doesn't come until he manages to fuse the banner consciousness with the Hulk form. Which changes the character ENTIRELY.
Note, this doesn't mean you have to like it, but let's please stop complaining that it "wasnt' like the comic" or "isn't superhero." This is EXACTLY what was in mind when the character was created.
No, it didn't meet many expectations. But I thought it was pretty darn good as a movie. Though the plot, I'll repeat, was a bit icky.