So, no one has mentioned this yet...did anyone else see the hulk this weekend? What'd ya think? Discuss....



hahaha...this is my first topic to start!

i havent seen it but judging from my friends & families reviews i am not going to.

I don't think i'll go until it's in the dollar theatre judging by the looks of the cgi... i don't like most cgi in general...

10 to 1 says digsy's seen it twice already.

great 1st topic 1derwoman! i was just thinking about this very thing earlier today. i think it looks like crap, but was gonna wait and see what others thought before i decided to waste 2 1/2 hours of my time. So far i don't even plan on renting it . . .

The reviews are good, except for this one, of course.

Am I the only one who saw this!? I took my younger brother on Friday afternoon. I wouldn't say it was a waste of money ....but I also wouldn't rush out to see it.
A few times I did catch myself saying, "whaaaat, you've got to be kidding!?"...but then I would remind myself that it was a movie about a comic book and that it wasn't supposed to be realistic.
The two and a half hour length was a bit much, they could have easily ended it under two. That's my opinion.
The thing that I did love was the cinematography. Ang Lee uses split-screens often and it sometimes creates a feeling of comic book frames, if that makes any sense. He also uses picture within a picture to show you the same character from a different view...it's hard to explain, but it was the best part of the movie to me.

The cinematography was good... but you are commenting on the editing... and that was good too.

I rather enjoyed The Hulk, but I would say 80% of the people in the theater didn't like it, but I also think they were looking for a brainless action film. You actually have to think in this one.

hulk shmulk.

i had a edream a few weeks ago that i had sex with the hulk. but he wasn't big nor was he green.

Wasn't big huh? Did he make up for it in technique?

i heard that the "hulk" doesnt emerge until the last 15 minutes of the movie. is this true?

I've only seen "The Hulk" once and, if I wasn't entitled to free movies, I probably wouldn't see it again. I do think that it was very very good though and I also have to say that the CGI looks fine and is as believable as the Hulk can be. I actually did gaze at the screen in wondrement at some points because it looked so cool. Really, the Hulk cannot be played by an actor anymore. Lou Ferrigno doesn't work for this movie and nothing but CGI could do. I also don't really like how everyone is bashing the CGI so much. I mean, it has to be tough to create a totally CGI character and they should be given praise for what they were able to do with technology. I thought it looked fine.

The acting was also fine. Actually, the acting gave depth to these characters who really are no more defined than those of "The Matrix." Jennifer Connelly did great (plus she's hott) and Eric Bana was completely believable as a repressed scientist. Nick Nolte was a great over-the-top "villain." The Hulk himself was also a nice actor. Far superior to Jar Jar Binks, but not as good as Gollum.

The most fascinating aspect of the film was the way it was shot. Ang Lee definitely reinvented the way a comic book movie can look by setting up the movie the way he did. I believe that this comic feel enhanced the movie by making what could have been duller scenes visually stimulating. The entire opening montage of Bruce's early life was edited magnificantly. I also have to add that the end credits, which were done 100% comic style, were also pleasing to me.

Overall I would have to say that this movie takes comic movies to a different level. It's not a typical Hero vs. Villain movie ("Spider-Man") or a social commentary with action that appeals to the masses ("X-Men" "X2"). Of course, I prefered both of those movies to "The Hulk" but I'm still glad that this type of comic movie, a serious one, was made. Really I can't see "The Hulk" being made in any other way. He's not a superhero or even a hero really. He doesn't have a great rogue's gallery. He doesn't fight to save the world usually. His entire deal is his psyche and emotions, and Ang Lee nailed that. I do think that he nailed it a little too much and the movie could have left a little more to the imagination in terms of the parental issues that Betty Ross and Bruce Banner have.

Basically, this isn't a summer blockbuster movie and I really couldn't imagine the average kid under the age of 14 being entertained by it. But I was. Better than "Daredevil."

(Edited by DigsySlattery at 10:12 pm on Jun. 23, 2003)

i like the old hulk/daredevil movie, though i've not seen it for years.

Whoa! Far out! You're so small, though.

this movie was a complete peice of shit!!!!!!!!! i dont know why i saw it but i did. last summer i was saying it was going to be horrible and it was!!!! personally i thouight the cgi was a cop out. if they had spent some time and put a little bit of effort they could have made a great film with an actor as hulk and not a fucking computer. this movie is not even worth waiting for the rental.

here's the hulk i'm talking about...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www...DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

creepy

This is why I don't like much CGI. They create whole characters with it. What they did with Yoda and other characters in various movies, using the doll and then "touching it up" with CGI, is great. I enjoy that; it remains realistic in my tastes. But when CGI is completely free-form, it looks to me like live action with a cartoon inserted... I just don't like it. It feels disjointed to me. If they'd used some sort of character model for it, it would have looked better, but really, they just implanted him. And I don't care for that all to much. Just a matter of tastes, here.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 7:21 am on Jun. 24, 2003)

I was just reading my latest issue of American Cinematographer and they were discussing how Ang Lee himself did the motion capture as the Hulk.

And for what its worth... Yoda was completely CGI this last movie. No puppets at all.

I'll get off my cinematic soapbox now...

(Edited by Peace Frog at 8:13 am on Jun. 24, 2003)

hmm.. i put about 5 minutes worth of research into it and found out you're right. Well, I just prefer certain CGI to others then.

I do hate the fact that Yoda became completely CGI because I read in an interview with George Lucas that he would never do that to Yoda since Fank Oz's performance is so amazing with the puppet. The puppet was still used in Episode 1 and looked great. Oh well...

And about the real person being enhanced by CGI, I believe that was attmpted in "The Matrix Reloaded" and, in my opinion, completely failed. CGI Neo looked 100% more cartoony since we had Real Neo to compare him to (although Keanu Reeves might not be real...).

I've started to wonder about what they will do to The Thing when the Fantastic Four movie is released. After watching 60 minutes of that horrible FF movie that was made in 1993, I kinda think they should make him CGI. If technology keeps on improving, CGI Thing will probably be really cool.

during what part of the matrix was neo cgi?

During that horrible horrible fight against all the Agent Smiths. Almost that whole fight scene was CGI and it looked, in my opinion, horrible compared to the Hulk.

ohh yes, i remember not being quite as impressed as others were w/that scene

I was bored during that scene.

Digsy, I agree 110% with your entire review.

Yes, it sounds lame that the Hulk is CGI, but that is the ONLY way it could have been done.

I thought this movie was unbelievably entertaining. I only say this because I'm capable of suspending disbelief.

I'll also point out that all the laboratory stuff was surprisingly accurate. Of course, it was a little upsetting considering I went to see the movie so I could escape my scientific conference for a couple of hours to let my brain rest.

I'd also like to point out that my favorite scene was when he punched the killer pitbull in the balls.

My suspicions are confirmed!! Carl is doing experiments to turn himself into the Hulk!!! We'd better not get him angry...or take him near any pitbulls.

CGI makes me sad in some areas like replacing yoda. but honestly, george lucas has gone down the tubes and we can't expect very much from him anymore.

but gollum, now THAT's some fucking good work.

Blasphemy in my opinion. I love puppets, and think that a puppet Yoda would have been a lot cooler than the cartoony cgi Yoda. I believe in you Yoda.

lol I think the hulk is just a character that's challenging to do. I mean If they found some feakishly tall and muscular body builder guy who looked like the actor who plays the guy who becomes the hulk then people would still complain about it. ( I can't remember that guys name even though he has been on the talk show circuit for weeks) An with the CGI character, people still don't like it. Personally I think remaking all of these comic book characters is just getting a little out of hand. People are just trying to make money.. they figure they already have built in audiences so let's just go with this script. Sure it's fun for fanatics of the comic book characters and others who are interested but meanwhile, alot of the other movies that are scheduled to come out are crap. I'm waiting for something absolutely different to come out.. a new story, just something that comes along and drops a bomb on all of this "make believe" cinema that's going on right now. Something that envolves thinking and is just different. A movie that u watch 3 or 4 times and u still find something new that u didn't notice. Too bad I can't make one... (I'm not that talented I just want someone who is to do it)

actually genius girl, i have to disagree with you on the comic book character movies. Film is finally to the point where something as fantastical as a comic book, with all the actual violence and spectacular effects that are in them, not just the superman-batman cookie cutter crap, can be acurately portrayed. Most of these comic book films in the past have been nothing but cheese. It's hard to write a script for comic book characters as well... it's easy to direct a character in the book, but on film it's a totally different thing. They are finally getting some decent script writers as well. If anything, the movies are a ploy to breathe life back into the comics. Remember that DC is suffering losses due to it's goody-two-shoes image and Marvel is the company that went bankrupt just a few years ago...

Once again, I couldn't agree more. I was blown away by the quality of both X-Men movies and spider-man. The Hulk did not dissappoint, either.

spiderman rocked my face right off.

I thought Hulk was ok, but certainly not as entertaining as X-Men or Spiderman.

Genious Girl-

If you're looking for different, I think Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson are getting ready to shoot another movie, this time about an oceanographer.


www.wesanderson.org

Thanks for the link I'm lookin' at it now:)

I'm just don't like being bombared with all of these comic book/action character movies.. It seems like hollywood tends to get on a certain genre kick and can't get off of it .. until like next year or so.. I guess they figure summertime = action movie

I think it is okay that there has been a 'flood' of comic movies since, for the most part, they have been great and diverse. Both "Spider-Man" and "X-Men" are two opposite sides of the same coin, and then on the other side of the coin is "The Hulk." I like that. There's variety. I mean, hey, instead of good comic movies we could be getting "Batman & Robin," "Spawn," and "Steel."

Just how many sides do coins have in the Marvel universe?

6.

Actually, when I played the Marvel Superheroes role playing game, we dealt with only 10-sided dice. Oh man, did I really just admit to that?

You may be ashamed, but my respect for you has just grown. I admit that I was addicted to the Overpower card game in 8th grade. Geeks rule.

Overpower was to gaming as Batman and RObin and Steel are to comic book movies...

Just a geek-laden analogy for you.

Will

Yeah I know, but at the time it was the only Marvel-related anything so that's what I played. I hate dragons and wizards (outside of the LOTR movies) as a rule, so Magic was a no-go. HeroClix seems sorta cool, but also expensive and I don't need to go down that road again.

i thought the hulk was o.k., but the first batman will not be touched and the first superman was absolutely kick ass for its time.

Did you just call Burton's Batman cookie-cutter?

If so, you're insane.

Will

(Edited by Wiyum at 2:20 pm on Jul. 13, 2003)

no, no, no. Burton's portrayal of Batman, I though, was great. What I was saying is that the vast majority of the population is familiar with a particular definition of a super hero.