criterionforum.org

Joe Buck wrote:As for Ed Norton, I like him, but this doesn't feel right to me. Banner was a scientist. He should look more bookish. I'd rather see Norton as Daredevil, personally. Daredevil was always my favorite superhero, and needless to say I was not thrilled when I saw Ben Affleck suit up. They could make a really great film if they did it right. Hell's Kitchen. Gritty. Violent. And please, no Elektra this time.

I really wish they re-did The Punisher to be more reflective of the original story. Set in the 70's, no bland Alt-Metal soundtrack (though I do have a soft spot for "Broken"), and bringing back the back-story of his Vietnam experience. That said, I thought Thomas Jane did as good as he could do with the material given him.

Maybe it's not bad: Armond hates it.

Armond White wrote:(who did the terrific Transporter II)

mind=blown

domino harvey wrote:

Armond White wrote:(who did the terrific Transporter II)

mind=blown

I read that, too--WTF?!?!??!

jbeall wrote:

domino harvey wrote:

Armond White wrote:(who did the terrific Transporter II)

mind=blown

I read that, too--WTF?!?!??!

Here's his initial review, which you guys will probably enjoy very much as he also includes relevant comments on the contemporaneous screening of Rossellini's Flowers of St. Francis.

Harry thinks it's as good as Iron Man or whatevs.

ivuernis wrote:Peter Bradshaw not like Hulk so much. Hulk bad.

Review funny, but:

Peter Bradshaw wrote:Hulk in boring film. Film co-written by star. Edward Norton. Norton in it. Norton write it. Norton not need gamma-radiation poisoning to get big head.

Thing is: most Norton dialogue on cutting room floor. Producers cut character development. Make Norton angry. You not like Norton when he angry. He not do publicity for expensive movie.

Promise we talk like Hulk for rest of thread.

Just saw it this morning with my brother. It's no way as good or even equal to Iron Man, and not half the fun of that film. The film acts almost as a sequel to Lee's Hulk more than I thought it would be. I thought this was suppost to be an outright reboot but it really isn't. Edward Norton works as Banner, but I think that if Eric Bana would have been given the chance, he could have worked very well here. Same goes for Sam Elliott. He was one of the good things about the Lee film. Elliott was Gen. Ross from the comics. Tyler is ok as Betty. She works but I think that Jennifer Connelly worked ten times better in the part. Tim Roth and Tim Blake Nelson do what they do best with the roles that they have. Pretty much this is what people wanted all along from a Hulk film, just an all out smash and destroy film. I can't really remember the TV show, but my brother said that the film is loaded with nods to the show and he felt was more based on the way the show worked than the comic. For what it is, it works a little better than the way the Lee did film, but not by far. It's still a mindless action film with to much CGI overkill, and the end showdown I didn't think was half as cool or fun as the showdown at the end of Iron Man. I do now after seeing this version want to see the version with the 70 minutes that were cut out to see if it adds anything back into the film that I think were lacking in places.

Norton is good, and the movie works however long he is on the screen. Having grown up on the Bill Bixby show, it was nice to see the numerous nods, but the film feels almost indebted to it. Funny thing is, that's the biggest problem: it has nothing new to say which wasn't already said (and better) in the show. Even though the CGI used on the big green dude was much improved -- cornball CGI battle royale ending nonwithstanding -- from Lee's version, this Leterrier/Norton 'reboot' isn't even half that film. Frankly, I was bored by the predictability and simplistic narrative, capped off by a showdown between two monsters, as the entire city watched, mouths gaping open! But the kids in the theater were cheering. So, I guess, mission accomplished, Marvel. Sad.

domino harvey wrote:

Armond White wrote:(who did the terrific Transporter II)

mind=blown

c'mon guys, who doesn't like seeing an anorexic english woman holding 2 guns in lingerie?



side note: armond, what the fuck were you thinking?

Deficient the curiosity and creativity that set Ang Lee's underrated 2003 take apart, "The Incredible Hulk" is an uninspired and largely forgettable exercise in special effects. Talented actors like Edward Norton and Tim Roth are wasted in underdeveloped roles, and the plot is kind of nonexistent. Tim Blake Nelson energizes proceedings in the final third, but by then it's too late to redeem what is a disappointing end to Marvel's recent hot streak.

Noir of the Night wrote:Deficient the curiosity and creativity that set Ang Lee's underrated 2003 take apart, "The Incredible Hulk" is an uninspired and largely forgettable exercise in special effects. Talented actors like Edward Norton and Tim Roth are wasted in underdeveloped roles, and the plot is kind of nonexistent. Tim Blake Nelson energizes proceedings in the final third, but by then it's too late to redeem what is a disappointing end to Marvel's recent hot streak.

i would tend to agree with all that.
i loved ang lee's hulk, and thought it was a brilliant and beautiful take on one of my favourite comic book characters.
but this just felt... empty.
not a terrible movie (like the last x-men movie) but an empty film that rather left me wanting to go back and revisit lee's film.

This one, I felt, had the inverse problems of the Ang Lee version. Ang Lee's take on it was interesting, intriguing and inspired for the first 2/3rds of the film then it fell apart in the third act. This one was mediocre and uninteresting for the most part in the first 2/3rds but by the third act, it really got interesting and yes, the fight between Hulk and the Abomination was pretty kickass.

Posters no more talk like Hulk. Hulk not serious film need Right Speech, yet posters talk right use "inverse problems" and "Deficient the curiosity and creativity". Make schreck cry agony.

"BWAAAAH!"

(to appease the schreck)
hulk not good movie.
hulk not awful movie.
hulk just movie.
hulk forgettable movie that not get remembered later.
ang lee better than leterrier but no one want remember ang lee movie.
today sunday.
sunday smash.

Schreck smile bright now. Make gleam. Wipe tears. Schreck go lay on female now. Make motion.

Hulk still not get good movie. Hulk sad. Hulk cry like puny Banner.

Well after Iron Man I think the bar may have been set too high for any comic film to achieve (or maybe I'm overly fond of Iron Man whose my favorite comic character ever). This film was fine and entertaining, but there was almost no character development whatsoever and I could absolutely care less about anyone in the film. The best parts about the film was how self referential it was with various cameos and nods to other aspects of the marvel universe. Granted I watched this right after The Happening and ANY film would seem entertaining after that lackluster monument to mediocrity.

I liked the Hulk version 2.0. Norton was right about the bad editing and lack of dialogue, but it was a fun, mindless, popcorn comic book film, which has become another genre in movie cinema. It sticks very close to the original source (comics), gives a nod to the good things about the TV series, ties the film to the continuity that is being established with the other Marvel characters and packs the action that the Lee film lacked. By the way, I also liked the Lee film, specially Sam Elliot as Ross.

Besides the bad editing, the only other bad thing (actually really bad thing) is the CGI in the movie. Marvel and the producers of these films should really consult Peter Jackson on how to do credible CGI on a movie, because Hulk looks really bad. The Ang Lee version was bad, but this one took the cake in CGI roughness and lack of detail and realism.

s.j. bagley wrote:(to appease the schreck)
hulk not good movie.
hulk not awful movie.
hulk just movie.
hulk forgettable movie that not get remembered later.
ang lee better than leterrier but no one want remember ang lee movie.
today sunday.
sunday smash.

hahaha +1

dx23 wrote:I liked the Hulk version 2.0. Norton was right about the bad editing and lack of dialogue, but it was a fun, mindless, popcorn comic book film, which has become another genre in movie cinema. It sticks very close to the original source (comics), gives a nod to the good things about the TV series, ties the film to the continuity that is being established with the other Marvel characters and packs the action that the Lee film lacked. By the way, I also liked the Lee film, specially Sam Elliot as Ross.

Besides the bad editing, the only other bad thing (actually really bad thing) is the CGI in the movie. Marvel and the producers of these films should really consult Peter Jackson on how to do credible CGI on a movie, because Hulk looks really bad. The Ang Lee version was bad, but this one took the cake in CGI roughness and lack of detail and realism.

I don't get what was wrong with the editing. Anyone care to explain?

As to the CGI, this was one of the very few times I have walked away feeling like they DID get it right (other than Lord of the Rings, and you are so right that Jackson should always be brought on as a consultant on any CGI intensive film). The detail was spectacular on hulk, even if the character appeared mildly (but only mildly) cartoony. I don't know what could make it appear better. I certainly like that look better than an actual hulking human painted green and it certainly looks better than the best comic book artwork.

HerrSchreck wrote:Schreck smile bright now. Make gleam. Wipe tears. Schreck go lay on female now. Make motion.

"Make motion" double meaning.
Reader might get wrong idea.
Or right idea.
Or right idea that's very wrong.