Kevin's Watch

www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_incredible_hulk/



After reading these I'm beginning to become cautiously optimistic.
Could the remake actually be the HULK film we wanted in the first place?

Gosh I hope so!

They better give good reviews, if they know what's good for them. But seriously, I really felt this movie relied far less on me. Let's face it, I carried the first one, and while that's good enough for my parts of the film, they didn't even bother to have me in the first hour. So that meant an hour of sucky movie for my fans. I'm surprised they didn't smash the theatre!

Mr fixit makes good points, despite his Hulk rage. Perhaps Hulk just isn't CGI-ready, yet. I wasn't convinced by the previews, BUT--if they make him interact with the environment in a visceral way that makes me believe he's really bashing and smashing, I could suspend disbelief. For example: when Gollum first wrestled Sam in Two Towers, I noticed that they slyly edited a real hand around Sam's neck, then cutting back to a full shot of CGI Gollum's body.

www.aintitcool.com/node/36985

And another...

As good as Iron Man? Wow. If they can keep this up, I might actually start looking forward to Thor, instead of dreading it.

"No dull existential angst"...

I happen to like existential angst, thank you very much. He**, I read Donaldson's works, don't I?

Anyway, the parts I enjoyed most about the first film (the emotional angst, guilt over power, helplessness against your inner demons, and Jennifer Connolly) all sound like they're gone, while the things I didn't like about it (the mindless violence with horrid effects) are bank in force. It's enough to make me angry, and you won't like me angry

I can see your point of view, Rigel. I didn't hate Ang Lee's Hulk but, being a fan of the comic, I didn't get what I was hoping for. The new film is geared more for the likes of people like me that have the Hulk character pre loaded into their minds in a certain way thanks to reading the book since we were kids.
Thankfully making a new Hulk movie doesn't suddenly erase the old one.

Rigel wrote:"No dull existential angst"...

I happen to like existential angst, thank you very much. He**, I read Donaldson's works, don't I?

Anyway, the parts I enjoyed most about the first film (the emotional angst, guilt over power, helplessness against your inner demons, and Jennifer Connolly) all sound like they're gone, while the things I didn't like about it (the mindless violence with horrid effects) are bank in force. It's enough to make me angry, and you won't like me angry

Agreed. And, though I've heard much criticism of him, I liked Eric Bana's performance.

I liked the whole movie. Heck, I liked Nick Nolte's performance.

But my interpretation of the reviews on AintItCool is that the new Hulk movie's greatness comes not from the awesomeness of the CGI Hulk's performance (which is still, frankly, not as good as, say, Dobbie) but the coolness of the Marvel Universe unfolding in front of your eyes.

Nick Nolte's performance didn't bother me; it was the character assassination Ang and the writers did to his character, who in the comic died before Banner became the Hilk, never met Betty, never had super powers, and never was a scientist. And, what bad guy was he supposed to be? Absorbing Man? ZZZaxx? They did the same thing with Glen Talbot's character; he had nothing in common with the comic character. As a guy who actually has read Hulk comics for years now, the 2003 movie was an insult. I don't know why Ang and the writers of that trash couldn't have read a few issues of Incredible Hulk before making that film....That first review accused Ang Lee's movie of being too smart for ten year olds; they completely miss the point. It wasn't smart at all; it was stupid. Stupid to give people something other than the character/story they've grown to love from the comics and television series.

wayfriend wrote:the CGI Hulk's performance (which is still, frankly, not as good as, say, Dobbie)

It's a sad, sad day when Dobbie is considered "good" CGI

He also said he liked the 2003 Hulk movie, so don't take it to heart.

Ang Lee can be hit and miss for me, though I have never seen a terrible film from him. Haven't seen his Hulk. Not going to, or the new one, either - but I'm not into superheroes anyway.

Eric Bana, on the other hand, is solid. See his performance in Chopper, and you'll know what a 1st rate actor he is.

I did like some of the pre-production stuff I heard about the Hulk - like Lee taking Bana to watch underground fighting matches in Thailand, where the opponents literally aim to break each other's limbs, just to get him 'in character' - but, I dunno, something about the film just looked silly to me.

Funnily enough, the TV series was one of my favourites, as a kid. But, then again, so was so Chips, and the A-Team . . .

Montresor wrote:Eric Bana, on the other hand, is solid. See his performance in Chopper, and you'll know what a 1st rate actor he is.

Yes, he's brilliant in Chopper. Among other things, when I watched the DVD extras I was struck by how precisely and accurately Bana mimicks Chopper's mannerisms.

Montresor wrote:I dunno, something about the film just looked silly to me.

Hulk it/himself certainly looked silly to me, as does the new one. Both these incarnations have maintained quite a cartoony appearance, which makes sense but does little for me.

dANdeLION wrote:He also said he liked the 2003 Hulk movie, so don't take it to heart.

You know, there are other qualities a movie can be judged on other than faithfulness to source material. I understand your complaints, and I agree they're legitimate, and you will probably love the new Hulk for the same reasons you hated the 2003 one. But I really don't care when Bruce Bannor's dad was supposed to die - hate me, but it's true. I was entertained.

Rigel wrote:"No null existential angst"...

i have yet to see the ang Hulk or either of the FF movies. I want bad guys! the source material is rather rich for both franchises. none of the three i mentioned seemed all that good in preview. how can you muck this stuff up?

www.popsyndicate.com/site/story/the_incredible_hulk

...and another.

I also really liked the Ang Lee version. It did come across as very stylized, and it was kind of slow moving, but overall I felt that gave it emotional depth.

I totally get the complaints about liberties taken with the source material though. I don't read Hulk books, and have only been peripherally aware, so I wouldn't have noticed any major changes anyway. When you're a big fan, it's tough to get past changes and try to look at the new work independantly. I had the same problem with the Ghost Rider movie that was out a few years back. There were some major changes taken in that one too, but once I got past it, I did end up enjoying the film.

This new Hulk has me very interested - if only for Ed Norton's sake. I have never failed to be impressed by him in any role I've seen him in.

emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=10096


...and another (though this is the first one that seems to find fault instead of gush in spite of a B- grade).

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.