I've just finally got round to watching Hulk. I'd been told to expect the worst but I thoroughly enjoyed it. The effects were spot on, the story was great and I'd go as far as to say that it was much better than spider-man which was vastly overrated. So there.
__________________
Post in the Indiana Jones forum.
Yeah, I enjoyed it. In the last 2 days I've also got round to seeing X2 and Daredevil (I'm off work with a kidney infection so I at last have some time on my hands to watch movies I've been meaning to see) and Hulk is better than them all.
__________________
Post in the Indiana Jones forum.
Last edited by amity75 on Feb 23rd, 2004 at 01:27 AM
The Hulk is not better than Spider-Man or X-Men 2. I don't think it's better than Daredevil, but those were both pretty terrible, so I don't know how to compare them. I don't understand your reasoning for this kind of judgement. I don't know what you were expecting from any of those movies that made you decide the way you did, but you clearly aren't a fan of the genre.
__________________
I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice.
While by no means a bad film, I found X2 to be boring in places and by the end I couldn't have cared less about any of the characters. I think the inclusion of all the "pretty boys" ie Pyro and Iceman, put me off. I got the impression that the whole thing was hurriedly put together and had quite an absurd plot. It didn't have any substance or long lasting appeal. Hulk, on the other hand is a movie that makes you think, it is a well structured film that explains all questions that "non fans" might ask, "Why does Hulk exist?", "Why is he having nightmares?". Ang Lee has carefully crafted this film to be reflective of the comic book style, yes, it may be a little too slow for some but it more than makes up for it in its sophistication and style.
__________________
Post in the Indiana Jones forum.
Absurd plot? Mutants band together, fight for mutant liberation, and equality. If you look deeper than that, the entire backstory of the X-Men could be applied to real life and everyday situations. I'd say that that has a lasting impression, as well as he power to make you re-evaluate alot of peoples worldly views.
As for substance and appeal. Sequels such as this are only going to appeal to fans of the 1st installment, and more so comic book fans. In X2, we saw the beginning of the Jean Grey "Phoenix Saga", as well as the origins of Wolverine and Weapon X. Two VITALLY important pieces of X Men lore.
By the end of the movie, while you may not have cared about the characters, I felt as if I knew them all personally, because their issues were played out and ultimately played an intrigal part in the end.
Professor X's issues w/ William Stryker, Logan's dealing with his Weapon X discovery, Cyclop's shared love for Jean Grey, Nightcrawler's quest to understand human nature, Mystique's appeal to Wolverine, and of course Magneto's struggle to decide weither to trust his own kind, or give into his selfish urges to rule all mutants.
Also, the addition of new characters is inevitable. The X Men universe is too vast to focus on the "original" crew. Bobby Drake was already hinted at in the 1st one.
The only thing that "The Hulk" made me think was "Why did I use my free rental coupon on this crap". Almsot anyone that would show even the slightest interest in a "Hulk" movie knows how he became the Hulk.
The thoughtprovoking storyline to this movie? Scientist is exposed to radiation, is hunted down, ends up saving he day, and the girl.
It's a tired, basic plot, that requires absolutely no brain power. Just a high tolerance for mediocre filmmaking.
I liked Hulk too. People like cinemaddiction need to chill out. Movies like Hulk are no brainers made for people who fancy some pure entertainment for a change as opposed to watching something like Kafka!
I'm thoroughly chilled, and you just summed up what I said, that "Hulk" doesn't make you think after all. It's a shallow plotted comic book movie made to appeal to the eyes and not the brain.
But thats how you feel, some people might agree with you. But i don't agree with you. I feel ang lee really captured the hulk, and portrayed it realistically. I knew some things about the hulk before the movie, but the movie gave me the hole story of bruce banner and his struggles about the hulk. It really wasn't boring it was slow for a while but i enjoyed it, but when he turned into the hulk i was like Holy S**t this movie is so freakin bad ass, he got pissed and it was deffenitly eye candy, i loved it. Alot of people might actually agree with me at the end of the movie was cool.
I do agree, the film HULK was really rubbush. I was waiting for the scene when Bruce Banner gets exposed to Gamma Radiation and in the end all he did was put him self in the way of a small gammar ball reacter. I was expecting something much much more than that. It was over in like 2 seconds.
Likewise for the scene when he first turns into the HULK, no suspence or anything. Its like you dont even give a dam about the scene. And whats the deal with the ending with the guy made of eletricity / water and Stone. It made no sense what so ever.
X-Men 2 is the best Marvel film so far, Spiderman is the second.
Daredevil wasn't that good as well but it was much better than HULK.
I agree with what amity says about the pretty-boys in X2. They shouldn't be having all those stupid kids running around, they should have real actors playing the real characters. However, I disagree completely that "Hulk" was even the slightest bit more thoughtful than X2.
The Hulk movie's load of "thought-provoking" drama was the most cliched, watered-down crap I could have expected from a Marvel movie. I don't know what these other people are yammering on about Banner only getting irradiated for two seconds--it was supposed to have happened quickly with the gamma bomb, geniuses-- but if they had used the original origin, there would have been much more of an opportunity to explore Banner's character. I was hoping that the Hulk movie would be an action movie and also a psychological drama. It was barely the first, and certainly not the second. "When people repress, things go boom." That's a real friggin' deep concept. Thank you very much, Dr. Banner, for showing me what happens when a repressed, traumatized geek gets zapped by radiation. Oh, wait, it wasn't just the radiation, he was genetically engineered. That's a pathetic, cliched, unnecessary change in the character. Brian Banner (or David, as he's called in the movie) did not need to be a mad scientist. He was an abusive, psychotic, evil man who beat his wife and son and tried to kill his son for being a mutant on account of the kid's massive intelligence. The mother interceded, she got killed, the killer is put away. That's all they needed to show. They shouldn't have brought the father back at all. The should have had Banner testing a gamma bomb. Even though this isn't the Cold War, the gamma bomb is still the best way to go. This way, he can save that dumb kid Rick Jones, make a friend and ally, and his human contact wouldn't just be limited to the over-emotional, selfish piece of eye candy Betty Ross.
They should have made the Hulk talk. For those that have read the comics and aren't just remembering the live-action TV show, the Hulk talks plenty, and he could even speak intelligently in the beginning. This movie wasn't just "slow", it was just plain crappy. They didn't portray the characters right at all. They couldn't even write decent lines for General Ross, and they got a great actor to play him. It was idiotic to have Banner's father become the Absorbing Man in the end. They should have just gone and used Steve Austin, like the were considering, if they were going to use the Absorbing Man. Hulk should either be a superhero movie, or a sci-fi psycho-drama, and this was neither. Ang Lee failed, and so did the writers.
__________________
I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice.
people rely to much on the writers to make the movie like the comic it's never going to happen that way for any superhero movie, because of money. and people compare the comic book to the movie way to much. i understand why but it's just stupid. its a movie not a comic book it's not going to be told the same way. and if anybody never really read comic books before like the hulk and saw the movie they would totally be in to it. no wonder why people don't like the movie they compare way to much just enjoy the movie for what it is.
I watched Hulk and X2 immediately after one another (kidney infection, on couch off work) and I thought Hulk was a much better film for me because it was the kind of entertainment I needed at the time. Good guy gets treated like crap, good guy overcomes in the end and I thought the effects were really good. X2 was a bit like an MTV video in places and I'm sure that even the most hard ass X-Men fans must agree that the whole cerebro thing gets a bit tedious and I kept getting the feeling that when it was being filmed it was a case of "Oh, we'd better give Halle Berry a bit more screen time in case she complains" The Jet chase scene being a prime example of this. And minor gripes as well, how come Cyclops, as the leader, doesn't actually lead? He was reduced to a bit part (because the actors not as big a name as our Halle?) It's basically an entertainment issue, Hulk entertained me and my kidney infection and X2 did not. I viewed Hulk as a fresh story (albeit formulaic) while I could have guessed averything that was gonna get thrown at me in X2 - Fisticuffs between Wolverine and Nightshade and dramatic "Get everyone out on time before the dam bursts" ending.
__________________
Post in the Indiana Jones forum.
People rely too much on trite, meaningless cliches like "it's never going to happen that way for any superhero movie, because of money" to excuse bad writing. The money idea is nonsense. Pay attention and actually put some thought into what you say. Good God, you sound like a damn child. Remember that huge display of nonsense at the end with Hulk smacking his daddy/Absorbing Man around and there was a nuclear explosion? Transplant that explosion to the beginning, where it would be a gamma bomb, and transplant those effects and put them into some decent fight scenes with worthy villains. It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of pandering to the wrong audience and indulging the director's artistic whims. Grow up and stop using meaningless language.
Amity75, I completely disagree with your assessment of the Hulk movie, but you have several good points about X2. The Cerebro business is actually based on a good story in the comics and pretty decently adapted, so I give it some credit. Cyclops should have had a large role, not two minutes of screen time. Trust me, I've got plenty of beefs with that franchise as well-- more actually. By the way, her comic book name isn't Nightshade, it's Yuriko Oyama, aka Lady Deathstrike. And don't none of you whipper-snappers give me any nonsense about how it's a movie, not the comics-- she was not called Nightshade anywhere in the movie, just Yuriko Oyama.
__________________
I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice.
Sorry, I don't know where I was getting "Nightshade" from. On the plus side, I noticed that Wolverine wore the same watch as me and that made me feel really cool.
__________________
Post in the Indiana Jones forum.
KMC Community Forums
Feb 22nd, 2004 11:36 PM
