Guest Mnytime Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 The Hulk is coming out tomorrow. From what I understand people are not happy with the look of The Hulk himself. Though those involved with the production claim it was an early version of The Hulk they are talking about. The Hulk is 2hrs 18mins and of that time The Hulk will be in the film a total of 20-30 minutes at most from what I understand. With most of this coming at the end of the film. Not sure how this film ended up costing $150+ million if The Hulk is only in the film for 20+ minutes? There was a lot more CGI in Star Wars I & II and both Matrix’s, they cost around the same, and Matrix Reloaded includes Reeves $20+ million Salary. No one in The Hulk is getting that. It is also my understanding that they are playing around with a lot of The Hulk mythology starting from how he was created. Another thing how big is The Hulk supposed to be. From the trailers he looks to be about 15-20 feet tall. One scene I saw in a trailer has him towering over an M1-Abrahms Tank. He would have to be around 25-30 feet to look as big in comparison to the Tank. I thought he was around 7-10 feet. The reviews have been pretty bad from what I have read so far. It appears the best thing about this film will be the new song from Velvet Revolver. I always thought Ang Lee as the director for this film was a strange choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 The LA TIMES Review Anyone else get the feeling this reviewer is/was a diehard comic book fan? Taming a demon 'Hulk' puts a Freudian spin on the dualities of human nature, but this monster is a little too mild. By Manohla Dargis, Times Staff Writer A story about a nice guy who turns as big, bad and green as King Kong on a bender, "Hulk" is based on the character created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, who launched their monster around the time that Kennedy and Khrushchev were set to launch their missiles. Directed by Ang Lee, the film stars Eric Bana as the Hulk's human alter ego and Nick Nolte as an Oedipal figure by way of Hubert Selby Jr., which helps explain its ambitions as well as the eccentric fact that the scariest thing in this likable if tame monster movie is Nolte's hair. Like all Jekyll-Hyde stories, "Hulk" is essentially about the defining dualities that make us human — nature versus nurture, freewill versus repression, child versus parent, paper versus plastic — and that sometimes bring out the monster in us. But unlike in the original comic book, the defining battle here isn't waged between a pencil-neck scientist and his rampaging twin (or Soviet spies and good guys in lab coats), but between Stan Lee and Sigmund Freud. In one corner there's Lee, the Marvel Comics genius and World War II veteran who translated postwar existentialism into multiple-panel vernacular. In the other corner: Herr Doktor, paterfamilias of the ego, id and superego, and now often dismissed as hopelessly old-world hypothetical in our new DNA-driven world. As conceived by Ang Lee's longtime producer, James Schamus (with co-writers John Turman and Michael France), Stan Lee and Kirby's 1962 creation has been brought up to modern speed, notably with a personal history that would make Oprah and Sophocles weep. Adopted as a young child, scientist Bruce Banner (Bana) has no memory of his earliest years. Now hard at work in a genetic engineering lab in Berkeley, Bruce comes across as a good guy partial to dressing in earth tones, and, like so many men, he has a hard time expressing emotion. Being bottled up has cost Bruce an intimate relationship with his lab partner, research babe Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly), and while he doesn't seem broken up about the affair, in a strange twist, she's racked by nightmares. The story opens with an extended prologue involving reams of scientific mumbo jumbo and radiant images of swarming cell life. In the mid-1960s, Bruce's father, David (Paul Kersey in the flashback, Nolte the rest of the time), worked for the military doing exceedingly vile things to rhesus monkeys and various coldblooded critters. Obsessed with manipulating the human immune system, David begins a round of self-experimentation that brings about alarming physiological changes ("hints of genetic mutation") which he subsequently passes onto his son. The evil seeds of David's recklessness lie dormant in the younger Banner until a lab accident doses Bruce with gamma rays. Even then, it isn't until Bruce loses his temper — triggering a change in body chemistry — that the combination of genetic engineering and scientific hubris liberates his demon. Monstrously large, the comic-book Hulk was a descendant of the creature played by Boris Karloff in James Whale's "Frankenstein," newly pumped up for the atomic age. The Jekyll-Hyde dualism of Dr. Robert Bruce Banner — originally a nuclear scientist — and his monster within was a brilliant distillation of the split between the rational and irrational, protector and destroyer. Mostly, though, the Hulk was essential Marvel Comics — cool incarnate and, like Spider-Man, proof that when push came to schoolyard shove, the nerds would have their sweet revenge. For if nothing else, even with that acid Kool-Aid green skin color and angry thatch of hair, alternately smooth as a schoolboy's fringe and wild as an electric-shock halo, the Hulk was never less than recognizably human — one of us. In the film, the Hulk's emerald flesh remains much as it was, but now the musculature beneath the skin curves more gently, more softly, with little of the original's chiseled hard angles and chiaroscuro. Online movie sites have been aflame for months with nasty scuttlebutt about the film's computer-generated imagery, caused in part by Hulk's chintzy appearance in preview trailers. As a humanoid aberration, he is not unpersuasive, but the finished Hulk does look pretty rubbery around the gills, as well as his shoulders, monumental six-pack and thunder thighs. Still, for all the fetishism of the computer-graphic detail, when compared with his flesh-and-blood co-actors, this Hulk is no more believable than the animated Br'er Rabbit walking alongside Uncle Remus in Disney's 1946 "Song of the South." The monster's monstrosity is even less persuasive. Petulant rather than angry, the movie Hulk manages all the fury of a brooding high school wrestler. Inexplicably, he also looks younger the bigger he grows, which undermines the idea that it's an adult who's shedding his skin and social prohibitions to embrace (willingly or not) his worst self. Nearly devoid of complex physical expression, the digital face can twist into a plastic snarl but has none of the pure animal rage — that shrieking baboon intensity, those spittle-flecked gnashing teeth — that makes the pen-and-ink portrayal so fearsome. Ang Lee pays direct homage to the sentimentalism of monsters like King Kong and Frankenstein, but doesn't tap into the irrational molten core of the best monsters — his Hulk gets unwound, never unbound. Part of the appeal of the Hulk as a character is the return of the repressed, the concept that we're all either cursed or blessed with an asocial demon that lurks dangerously under the surface. That theme holds terrific appeal for kids who read comic books (and watch movies), but it doesn't quite seize the imagination without a context like the Cold War to give it heft and meaning. The screenwriters attempt to raise the contemporary stakes with a father-son conflict, and although Ang Lee has shown a talent for wringing fine drama from the father-son dynamic, here the Oedipal machinations are a drag. However clever, the film's "Freud for Dummies" subtext seems calculated to tickle the fancies of middle-age movie critics whose closest encounter with comics arrives with the latest issue of the New Yorker. Bana and Nolte play their parts with the touching sincerity of actors performing great tragedy, while the equally sympathetic Connelly spends a surprising amount of time weeping. But what's missing from their performances and almost every frame is the overblown pleasures of mass art, that quality of fun, fizz and freakiness that makes pop not just an adjective but a verb. Maybe Lee is too nice for the hard sell. There are beautiful set pieces in "Hulk" — the image of a human eye morphing into a detonated bomb is breathtaking — and Lee even dices his mise-en-scène into pieces to replicate the paneled look of comic books. However nifty, his Cubist gambit fails to capture the graphic tension that makes great comic-book art jump off the page and great pop movies jump off the screen with pow, zap and wow! It isn't until late in the film, in a long sequence in the desert, that the movie finally pops. Here, as the Hulk ricochets from dune to butte like a super-ball, you get a sense of his pleasure in being bigger than life. There's an infectious sense of play in the sequence, as if, finally freed from the strained sobriety of the script, Lee had shaken off the film's lachrymose vibe to indulge in some fun. Still, as the Hulk bounced about in the bright desert light, there was something undeniably, even touchingly, puny about him too. However enormous, there is something diminished about this Hulk. I kept expecting a dog to come along and scoop him up in his mouth — a runaway squeaky toy back where he belonged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 I saw this a few days ago. While far from being perfect, the movie is actually much better than i expected based on the trailers, TV spots, and the earlier screenplay drafts that I had read. It's a somewhat strange combination of psychological drama and balls-out comic book actioner. The movie is alternately slow and talky and surprisingly intense. The Hulk himself looks much better than he did in the (unfinished) videos that were leaked onto the net. That said, as a decades-long comic book fan, I was mostly pleased. Not everyone will agree with Ang's creative choices, but he does direct with surprising flair and the overall film demonstrates a unique cinematic vision. I think many of you will be pleased with it. Ray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 Ang Lee is a very talented director. Although I'm not expecting it to be the film of the year, nearly everything Ang Lee does is decent at least. "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "The Ice Storm" are both brilliant films. I'll most likely see it in a few weeks. Thank you for your perspective on the fim, RDK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 From Dargis' review: "However enormous, there is something diminished about this Hulk. I kept expecting a dog to come along and scoop him up in his mouth — a runaway squeaky toy back where he belonged." She has got to be kidding! Perhaps she's thinking of the Bixby-Ferrigno TV version or maybe the Saturday morning cartoon. This Hulk is goddam scary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 My kids want to see this, so we may be going. It's got Jennifer Connolly doesn't it? Can't be all bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 Bruce, how old are the kids? I have to warn you, some of the action is pretty intense and scary - much more so than, say, Spider-Man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slsmcgrew Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 Nope, don't plan to see it. I prefer the comic books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 I've had my fill of comic book inspired summer "blockbusters." I won't be seeing this. Can someone tell Hollywood it's time to think of something else to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 (edited) I've had my fill of comic book inspired summer "blockbusters." I won't be seeing this. Can someone tell Hollywood it's time to think of something else to do. Might be a while before they hear you. All these are in the works, which is only the tip of the Iceberg. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen The Green Lantern The Green Hornet Green Arrow Iron Man Punisher Elektra Hellboy Hellblazer: Constantine The Flash Plastic Man The Fantastic Four Dr. Strange Ghost Rider The Phantom The Wonder Twins Wondar Woman Watchmen Man-Thing Supergirl The Sequels X3 Blade 3 Daredevil 2 Son of the Mask Spider Man 2 Than there are all these Batman related films Batman 5 Batman Beyond Batman: Year One Batman vs. Superman Catwoman Edited June 21, 2003 by Mnytime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 To be fair, some of the things you mention above (like "Watchmen") have been in the works for over a decade, and will probably never come to light. That "Batman vs Superman" movie has been in the script stages forever, and will probably never happen. Some (like "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen") are already in the can, and will be finding their way to a multiplex near you in a matter of weeks. Being a life-long comics fan, I just can't resist these comic-based movies. I've seen all of them so far, and will probably continue to do so (although I will draw the line at "Punisher." Never got into the comics). I've been hearing positive things about "Hulk," so I will undoubtedly see it. I'll have to see the movie to make a judgement, but I can't say I'm terribly excited about the actor playing Banner (except that his last name is Bana, which is kind of funny). I think that unlike Toby Maguire, who was an inspired choice to play Peter Parker, or most of the X-Men cast, Bana is just...wrong. Banner shouldn't be beefy and studly. He's supposed to be a puny scientist. Steve Buscemi would have been a better casting choice for Banner, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 I can resist them just fine, but I must admit, a Hellblazer movie would get me out of the house... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 I must say that other than rereading reprints of The Spirit, I haven't read comics in YEARS nor am I going to start to! But I have enjoyed the Marvel Comics movies and will be seeing the Hulk eventually (not this weekend; this weekend is a celebratory one for my parents' fiftieth wedding anniversary) and really hope the FF and especially the Dr. Strange movies become made and distributed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jad Posted June 21, 2003 Report Share Posted June 21, 2003 I decided early on that this movie was one to skip. Changed my mind when I saw who the director was. Now I'm interested (although I still have to convince the wife. Surprisingly, though, it was she who dragged me to X2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 22, 2003 Report Share Posted June 22, 2003 Doesn't it seem that a Sandman movie would be feasible and, if done properly, fairly succesful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted June 22, 2003 Report Share Posted June 22, 2003 Bruce, how old are the kids? I have to warn you, some of the action is pretty intense and scary - much more so than, say, Spider-Man. 10 and 8. Too late, we already saw it. They didn't seem scared by it so much as bored. It was too long and talky for them. It was kind of art-film-meets-comic-book-actioner so it was too adult for kids but still sort of stupid. And why did they have to make the Hulk ten feet tall? As I recall, in the comics he was barely seven feet tall. In some scenes he looks 12 feet tall. That's just silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jad Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE DON'T LET ANY OF THOSE HACKS TOUCH SANDMAN!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE DON'T LET ANY OF THOSE HACKS TOUCH SANDMAN!!! Here's a link (of HIGHLY questionable authenticity) to a Sandman movie script supposedly commissioned by Warner Brothers: http://www.wordplayer.com/archives/SANDMAN.cover.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 I take back the "highly questionable authenticity" bit. I was skeptical at first, as a Google link took me directly to the script and it looked like something anyone could have posted to the web. Now that I've looked around on their homepage, it looks legit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 Sandman is in Development Hell if you believe this site. http://www.comics2film.com A good site to keep track of all upcoming films http://movies.yahoo.com/upcoming// Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 The screenplay I linked above must have been one WB decided to pass on - why else would it be on the net? Let's hope my theory is correct. I highly doubt that the duo that brought us "The Mask of Zorro" could do justice to Sandman. Just one thing confuses me: I would assume that WB owns the copyright on any script that it commissions. Does it not seem strange that these guys would be able to post their script on their website? I'm convinced that the script is legit. The website looks 100% legit and it too elaborate to be a hoax (not to mention that the real writers would have had it shut down by now if it were a hoax). Plus the existance of a Sandscript by these two guys is confirmed by the site to which Mny posted a link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 (edited) The screenplay I linked above must have been one WB decided to pass on - why else would it be on the net? Let's hope my theory is correct. I highly doubt that the duo that brought us "The Mask of Zorro" could do justice to Sandman. Just one thing confuses me: I would assume that WB owns the copyright on any script that it commissions. Does it not seem strange that these guys would be able to post their script on their website? I'm convinced that the script is legit. The website looks 100% legit and it too elaborate to be a hoax (not to mention that the real writers would have had it shut down by now if it were a hoax). Plus the existance of a Sandscript by these two guys is confirmed by the site to which Mny posted a link. Actually you can find a lot of scripts on the net of films in some stage of production. Hollywood doesn't protect documents like in the CIA. You can find the script for Superman and Superman vs Batman I believe from the Yahoo site and several more through that site. By the way, I sent you a PM did you get it? Edited June 23, 2003 by Mnytime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 The Hulk character looks silly on the t.v. commercials. like frankenstein, the jolly green giant and daffy duck all rolled into one. where's beavis and butthead when you need their opinion. i think it would go something like this.... butthead: this move...uuugh...like...sucks. beavis: yeah...it's like...the jolly green turd or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 To continue: Butthead: Huhhuhhh... he's a wuss. Beavis: Yeah! I could like, kick his ASS! Butthead: Huh huh uhhuhuhh... no way, dillweed. He'd stomp you! Beavis: Shutup, asswipe!!! (the two start fighting on the couch) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.