Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:01 pm
by Rigel
CovenantJr wrote:I actually find that review the most useful so far, because it gives reasons as to why the various aspects of the film are good or bad, rather than just drooling fanboyishly and exclaiming that it's the best film ever made because it's more Marvel-like than the other one.
Agreed.
I'm worried about the script, as that last review made it seem quite weak overall (not surprising, considering it was penned by the same man who wrote X3: The Weakest Link).
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:04 pm
by aTOMiC
With 9 reviews in at Rotten Tomatoes all but 2 are positive however most are filled with buts. The bulk of the "real" reviews will trickle in over the next few days. We'll see.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:26 pm
by wayfriend
( If your a comic geek, you should go by the comic geek reviews and ignore the "real" ones. No? )
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:52 am
by aTOMiC
10 of 15 reviews are positive so far. Most of the more renowned reviewers have yet to weigh in.
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:47 pm
by dANdeLION
Wow, it's slipping. I wonder what the tomatometer gave the 2003 movie....
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:12 am
by aTOMiC
Right now it's at 66% 98 of 149 are positive.
Ang Lee's HULK got a 61% positive rating.
Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:47 pm
by Cail
It's pretty good, but......
I guess I'm a closet fan of the TV series and didn't realize it.
The opening credits are pretty much shot-for-shot identical to the TV show. There's a great Bill Bixby cameo, and a great Lou Ferrigno cameo as well. The closing credit music from the show is used, as is Banner's blue shirt, his bag slung across his body, and The Hulk's purple pants.
And it's good, as far as summer blockbusters are concerned.
But the TV show wasn't blockbuster material. It was an incredibly sad story about a man trying to tame his inner demons so he could go home. There's a little of that in the film, but it falls back on action set pieces too often for my taste.
If you've never seen the show, you'll probably love the movie. Me....I'm contemplating getting the series on DVD.
Edit-The more I think about it, the more impressed I am with Bixby's portrayal of Banner. I've never picked up the comic, so I can't comment on how accurate either Bixby's or Norton's performances are, but his work with the material on TV was (to me) far superior than Norton's in this noisy summer movie.
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:32 pm
by Lord Mhoram
I thought the movie was excellent; lightyears beyond the 2003 film (not saying much, but still), and a pretty faithful adaptation, I think, to the comics. The fight scenes were incredible (Abomination >>> Iron Monger); I thought Banner's story was presented as suitably tragic and Edward Norton's performance made him very human; and I loved William Hurt as Gen. "Thunderbolt" Ross.
I cannot wait for the Avengers movie.
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:11 pm
by Menolly
Cail wrote:Edit-The more I think about it, the more impressed I am with Bixby's portrayal of Banner. I've never picked up the comic, so I can't comment on how accurate either Bixby's or Norton's performances are, but his work with the material on TV was (to me) far superior than Norton's in this noisy summer movie.
Loved Bill Bixby as Banner. But I have never read the comic, and have seen neither movie. We'll probably go after I return from Denver. This week will be Indy4, after Beorn is at FIL's.
Is the Bixby cameo obvious? I am assuming it is from a previous role, since he died so long ago...
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:28 pm
by Cail
You're around my age IIRC. Yeah, you'll get it instantly.
Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:37 pm
by dANdeLION
Cail wrote: The more I think about it, the more impressed I am with Bixby's portrayal of Banner. I've never picked up the comic, so I can't comment on how accurate either Bixby's or Norton's performances are, but his work with the material on TV was (to me) far superior than Norton's in this noisy summer movie.
Bixby captured the essential '70's comic Bannor, sans the drama; he actually did a better job in many ways tham the comic writers.
If you really want to read some wierd bannor shit, get a copy of Marvel Masterworks Vol. 8, which reprints the original 6 issue Hulk run. Bannor's character is way different; way more cocky and self-assured. He's like a cross between Nick Fury and Reed Richards. He's not really trying to cure himself; he frequently bombards himself with gamma radiation in order to turn into the Hulk. He knows the Hulk is an uncontrollable monster, but he thinks he's totally in control.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:55 am
by dlbpharmd
Saw this today. My early opinion that Norton is wrong for this role is IMO justified. He's no more Bannor than I am Ferrigno. There was no chemistry between Norton and Liv Tyler, but who the hell cares anyway? Why does every frickin' movie have to be a more about the love story than the main story?
The fight scene was just OK. I thought he defeated Abomination too easily.
This is definitely better than the first Hulk movie, but only slightly so.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:09 am
by Sunbaneglasses
Everything felt rushed towards the end.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:16 am
by Cail
dlbpharmd wrote:Saw this today. My early opinion that Norton is wrong for this role is IMO justified. He's no more Bannor than I am Ferrigno. There was no chemistry between Norton and Liv Tyler, but who the hell cares anyway? Why does every frickin' movie have to be a more about the love story than the main story?
Good point. And even more to the point, how the Hell does Liv Tyler keep working? She's hideously unattractive, and she's a horrible actress.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:20 pm
by dlbpharmd
Cail wrote:dlbpharmd wrote:Saw this today. My early opinion that Norton is wrong for this role is IMO justified. He's no more Bannor than I am Ferrigno. There was no chemistry between Norton and Liv Tyler, but who the hell cares anyway? Why does every frickin' movie have to be a more about the love story than the main story?
Good point. And even more to the point, how the Hell does Liv Tyler keep working? She's hideously unattractive, and she's a horrible actress.
Hell if I know. I certainly agree that she's not pretty at all.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:44 pm
by aTOMiC
dlbpharmd wrote:
The fight scene was just OK. I thought he defeated Abomination too easily.
Since I haven't seen the film I did not want to know this. The "easy" part I mean since the defeated is rather obvious.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:03 pm
by dlbpharmd
aTOMiC wrote:dlbpharmd wrote:
The fight scene was just OK. I thought he defeated Abomination too easily.
Since I haven't seen the film I did not want to know this. The "easy" part I mean since the defeated is rather obvious.
Damn.
Sorry Tom.
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:50 pm
by Rigel
Cail wrote:dlbpharmd wrote:And even more to the point, how the Hell does Liv Tyler keep working? She's hideously unattractive, and she's a horrible actress.
Momentum, more than anything. 10 years ago, she was hot as he**. Now, she's average.
But then, I also find Julia Roberts unattractive.
Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:24 pm
by Cail
10 years ago she was still ugly. Fercryinoutloud, she looks exactly like her father!
Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:59 am
by DukkhaWaynhim
No, no she doesn't look exactly like her father.
I think Liv is pretty, but not especially sexy. I like the ethereal quality her voice has. She was very well cast as an elven princess. And she did a pretty good job as comic-book-hero's-love-interest.
Jennifer Connolly is of course gorgeous, in that "damn sexy" way, even though she never really got the chance to flaunt it in the Ang Lee movie.
dw