Show Entries

Hulk Smash
Entered on: July 17, 2003 3:28 PM by Swerb
Once again, I'm opening the hot-movie discussion, this time for The Hulk. I'll be seeing a sneak preview Tuesday night. A non-spoiler-filled report forthcoming...

NEWS 56 - 36 Comments
From: John Entered on: June 16, 2003 5:44 PM
Your powers of the press are strong indeed. I look forward to your review. Roper and Ebert seemed to have liked it quite well. It will be interesting to see what a younger more lucid mind will think of it.  
Zilla, we are going when it comes out for the general public, dude. We all can't be as sweet as Swerb.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 16, 2003 11:58 PM
The New York Post has an interesting article regarding Ang Lee Breaking the Rules of Hollywood with Hulk. Note Rule No. 3 in regards to fighting and not wanting to be "monotonous" (thank you) like Matrix Reloaded.  
I'm excited for THE HULK again!  

From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 17, 2003 12:12 AM
Here's a positive review from The Hollywood Reporter. I can't wait to see this thing! It actually has some substance! Are you ready, Johnny!?

From: The Bone Entered on: June 17, 2003 1:51 AM
As much as I'm disinterested by the Hulk, the reviews are compelling. I liked Crouching Tiger a whole lot so I supposed I'll drag my ass to this one. Plus I'm all about some savage fight scenes. I just want to know how he keeps his pants on though.
From: Ross Entered on: June 17, 2003 11:58 AM
I am actually coming to town Friday night in all likelihood. Although the purpose is to visit my brother, I may be able to slip in a viewing, depending on when you guys go.
From: John Entered on: June 17, 2003 1:42 PM
I am more than ready Zilla! Bert, if your in town I hope we can slip in a viewing as you suggested. The reviews are good and i'm excited. You never know Bone, you may wind up liking it.
From: The Bone Entered on: June 17, 2003 2:04 PM
I hope I like it more than Spider-man, since the reviewers liked that one too and I thought it was merely ok. One thing, I do like Ang Lee and it seems from the reviews that he has done something pretty good with the handicapped subject matter he chose to take on. Come on - a big green pissed off guy? Ho Ho Ho green giant. Aside from that, Roche, you are easily swayed by movie critics. Even the venerable Eggbert and Roper aren't the end all be all for movies. I'm just playing Devil's advocate here though. I think Hulk will be good - not Matrix good but good nonetheless.
From: Ross Entered on: June 17, 2003 2:12 PM
I agree with you, Bone. The Hulk was never very interesting to me. However, playing the video game made me realize that it is sweet to behold wanton destruction in the civilized era. Also, as you said, Ang Lee doesn't suck at all. Coupling that with good reviews (aside from even Ebert and Roper) I am reasonably certain that the movie will be entertaining.
From: John Entered on: June 17, 2003 2:17 PM
Actually Bone, I'm NOT easily swayed by critics. I merely use it as a barometer to get an idea of how well the movie is being viewed. It by no means effects my opinion after I've seen it for myself. Many movies have been well recieved by critics that I myself have given a thumbs down upon viewing. The same can be said for some movies that have been poorly reviewed that I've wound up enjoying.In fact, I think Ebert in particular is an idiot! I've strongly disagreed with many of his reviews. Perhaps you did not notice when I said I was looking forward to Swerb's review since it will probably be coming from a more lucid mind than either Ebert or Roper. At any rate I too think the Hulk will be good.
From: John Entered on: June 17, 2003 2:23 PM
Oh, and one more thing, call me crazy but I did not find the fighting in the Matrix Reloaded to be monotonous. I actually thought it was pretty sweet and nothing like the slap fighting that Zilla keeps comparing it to.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 17, 2003 3:05 PM
In fact, during MTV's Movie Awards they did a parody of Reloaded. I swear, fuckin' JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE was kicking ass better than Neo! GOOD LORD!  
HA HA HA ha ha ... *ACK!*  
I guess I just don't like graceful fight scenes. They should be brutal, unpredictable, bloody nasty affairs. This ain't ballroom dancing, bitch!  

From: John Entered on: June 17, 2003 3:16 PM
Brutal and unpredictable is how a real fight looks and feels like. I should know since I've been in a few bloody nasty affairs.  
I can still appreciate good fight choreography which is rarely like a real fight. I did not see Justin Timberlake kicking ass so I remain incredulous of it being sweeter than Neo. I would have to judge that for myself as I do with most things.
From: Ross Entered on: June 17, 2003 3:17 PM
I know where you're coming from Zilla, and I like both. I view the graceful fight scenes as the testeronized version of dance. However, I do like to see more realistic bar-room brawling as well. Actually my favorite is a melding of the two. Trying to think of an example... well, the Bourne Identity has a fight sort of like what I'm talking about. Although it is definitely cleaner than a regular fight, it looks a lot more like 2 well trained combatants fighting than the Matrix fights. There is a lot more oomph to the hits and people get hurt as a result of the blows.
From: Ross Entered on: June 17, 2003 3:23 PM
I saw the Timberlake thing. It was not even in the realm.
From: John Entered on: June 17, 2003 3:30 PM
Thanks Ross, I needed that. I know you have a good sense for these things.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 17, 2003 10:05 PM
Well, saw The Hulk tonight, and I was a bit disappointed. Yeah, it was pretty entertaining, and the story and acting were decent, but, you know, Hulk looked like Shrek after several years on the Zone diet. When he expressed any emotion besides GRARRRGGHH!, he looked totally like a cartoon. Gollum looked better, I think. And two major FX/fighting scenes conveniently took place in the dark, I assume to cover up any seams. There's some pretty cool Hulk-smash stuff in the movie, but Nick Nolte is a scenery-chewing ham (think Kris Kristofferson in the Blade movies -really) and the ending is a mess (of course, it leaves it wide open for a sequel). Ang Lee's direction is pretty cool, though - he cuts the screen up into panels like a comic book at times. Having said that, though, most of the movie is watchable and entertaining, and you won't be wasting your 9 bucks (those are Hawaii prices) to see it, but you probably won't care if you see it again. Overall, not as good as X2 or Reloaded or Spider-Man, but not as bad as Daredevil appears to be (didn't get to see that one; skipped it after getting Ross' comments on it, actually).  
By the way, Roche, don't necessarily trust The Hollywood Reporter's reviews. They tend to be positive more often than not. Ebert and Roeper can be sketchy at times, too (even if I find the show and Ebert's written reviews to be quite entertaining and informative. Bert and I constantly debate Ebert's credibility; I just like him because he's a hell of a writer, not necessarily because I always agree with him).
From: John Entered on: June 17, 2003 10:48 PM
Once again I never said I trust the Hollywood Reporter's reviews. I must admit I don't know what kind of writer Ebert is since I've only read a few articles he has written. Judging from the show though I find his opinions often suck.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 17, 2003 11:30 PM
I usually trusted Siskel's opinions over Eberts. Who would have thought the Fat One would out live the Skinny One?  
By the way, I actually enjoyed Daredevil!  

From: Ross Entered on: June 18, 2003 10:11 AM
I tell you, I adored the Daredevil comics of yore. Perhaps this is why I am unable to like the movie very much. Although much of the source material was taken from some of my favorite comics, the movie simply did not do comics justice. Plus, Shitfleck, as much as I appreciate his love of Daredevil, is not a good choice. Nor was Jennifer Garner (hot as she is) a good choice for Elektra. All wrong. Bullseye was the best fit, followed by the Kingpin (although this was a too-happy version of him).  
I also think Daredevil suffered from what I am now calling "Charlie's Angels Syndrome": by seeing the popularity of the Matrix and its characters' superhuman feats, they think they can easily get away with having characters defy gravity, even though they're not superhuman or in a virtual reality. They could have had plenty of shots of DD doing death-defying stunts using his grappling hook like he does in the comics without having him leap 50 feet from building to building, or drop 100 feet onto fire escapes and not feel a thing.  
I have only seen the movie once and I will probably only watch it one more time, when I buy the DVD. I actually want the DVD more for the interviews and so forth than anything else. Overall, thumbs down.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 18, 2003 11:06 AM
Here's a something that intrigues me: What's with so many people's obsession with OWNING DVDs? I can understand owning a couple of your favorite movies -- ones that you want to watch over and over -- but I know people that own hundreds and yes, even thousands of DVDs. I just don't get it. Not when you can go rent anything you want for a buck or two at the rental store.  
So Ross, why buy the Daredevil DVD -- a movie you give a thumbs down to -- when you can just rent it for the interviews?  
- Jack (who claims to like Daredevil even though he has no plans to watch it again)  

From: Ross Entered on: June 18, 2003 11:10 AM
I knew that one was coming, and I admit that it's not entirely logical. In this case, it has more to do with the fact that I"m a big Daredevil fan. Even if I didn't fully approve of the movie, I can't stand the fact that there would be a major Hollywood adaptation of one of my favorite characters out there and I would not have instant access to the movie.  
At the same time, I could just as easily download a high-quality version off the internet for free and call it good. But as I stated earlier, I want to see the interviews about the comics. There is some footage with Frank Miller and that's what I want the most. I worship him.
From: John Entered on: June 18, 2003 11:19 AM
As a collecter I would think Zilla would have a better understanding for why it is we collect things like DVDs. Had you in the past reread all the comics in your collection Zilla?Yet you felt compelled to own them. I in fact like having movies to rewatch at my disposal and often do rewatch them. In fact I'm a huge fan of movies and enjoy rewatching movies without having to go to the rental place to rerent them. Different strokes for different folks Zilla.
From: Ross Entered on: June 18, 2003 11:27 AM
Nicely put, Roche. It is a bit silly for a comic-store owner to question people's collecting habits, methinks.  
Plus it is entirely possible that Roche and I (and countless others you are referring to) might actually enjoy watching movies enough to warrant buying them.
From: Ross Entered on: June 18, 2003 12:11 PM
Check out this site:
The Hulk in the comics is said to be 10ft tall, 1000lbs. Now, isn't that a bit bigger than the Marvel Universe that I used to know?
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 18, 2003 6:02 PM
Just a note: The difference between music CDs and comics (two things I collect) and DVDs is the fact that you generally aren't able to listen to CDs or read comics without buying them. Movies you can both see in the theater (in fact I prefer the whole "going to the movies" experience over watching at home) and rent. Owning is not required to consume movies.  
Again, I don't question buying a favorite movie you watch frequently. It's the people that own hundreds I don't understand. I had a customer recently in who was proud of the fact that he owned some 1,300 DVDs. He's not rich, and DVDs haven't even been out that long. Perhaps he should invest in a Blockbuster franchise.  
Oh well... different strokes for different folks! I guess I'm just jealous because we don't sell and profit from DVDs at Rookies.  
Ross -- Just a question: How come you don't currently buy comics? You seem to have the funds. You used to enjoy them. Frank Miller and (I assume) most of the other creators you enjoyed are still creating books. You like Daredevil enough to buy a DVD of a movie you don't like... yet you don't buy the monthly $2.99 Daredevil title? And don't tell me you outgrew comics -- I know better than that! I just wondered -- No big deal!  

From: Ross Entered on: June 19, 2003 12:22 AM
As Roche stated, we actually watch the movies we buy frequently enough (probably more frequently than you listen to a random CD you own) to warrant buying it. Movies I don't find this to be true of I either rent or download (the latter more often as time goes on). Check my movie list for a tally of downloads vs. DVDs:  
As for your question, what has Frank Miller done lately? I have been unable to find any data on any recent projects since DK2. I do buy everything he puts out. That's as far as it goes. However, I will say that since there's a movie coming out, I've been getting Hellboy comics and getting up to speed. I bought the original mini series and liked it but didn't keep up, so now I'm going back and reading some of them. They're pretty good, actually. The movie should be fun (directed by Guillermo del Toro, director of Blade II). And hey, didn't I buy that Ultimate Spider-Man TPB from you? I get comics once in a while.  
As for DD comics, I did buy/read the series that Kevin Smith wrote a while back, and I was unimpressed. He pulled the oldest trick in the book out - kill off a major character and call it drama. Basically, Frank spoiled me and I find almost everything else painfully inferior. I love the concept that many of these titles put forth, but when you come right down to it, most of the writing is not good enough to be worth reading.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 19, 2003 9:28 AM
I forgot about the Ultimate Spidey TPB you bought. Okay, so you haven't completely fallen out of comics... good to hear! :)  
Hellboy is hella cool. If nothing else, he just LOOKS cool! I'll have to get up to speed regarding the movie. I knew they were making one, but that's about it.  

From: Ross Entered on: June 19, 2003 9:44 AM
Go to - they've had tons of coverage lately with pics and interviews!
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 19, 2003 3:42 PM
Yeah! I discovered that site a couple months ago and have been checking in regularly! I keep hoping to see something about a new BATMAN movie. I'd love to see the Memento-director/Guy Pierce Batman version go... that sounds sweet!  

From: Ross Entered on: June 21, 2003 11:35 PM
Well, Roche and I pretty much agree with you Swerb, there is a bit too much excessive talk. It didn't need to be over 2 hours, that's for sure. And the ending was a mess. However, I don't have any gripes about the Hulk himself - I thought he looked about as good as a 15' tall green monster ought to look. Granted, he didn't always move perfectly, but the low-motion shots were pretty sweet. Though you are probably right, he's not quite at Gollum level. Still, when the Hulk was onscreen and fighting dogs or planes or tanks, I was loving life. I give it a mild thumbs up overall.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 23, 2003 9:52 AM
I agree with those remarks, Rosster. It was a bit overly talky, wasn't it? I did like some of the transitional scenes and the "framing." I could have done without Papa Banner (Nick Nolte) completely. The Hulk scenes were mostly a blast to watch though. It brought me back to the monster movies of my youth (my mom took me to the Eastbrook Twin to see all the Godzilla movies)... but better done. The destruction the Hulk brought were impressive and a riot to watch.  
I think Roche and I share a favorite scene: When The Hulk took out a tank and held the gun turret, pounding his other hand with it (like a gang member holding a pipe or something). Fun stuff.  

From: John Entered on: June 23, 2003 10:07 AM
Last night I was watching Ebert and Roper and they did a recap of the Hulk. They both loved papa Banner. In fact Ebert said he was the best thing about the movie. I'm with Zilla on this one, papa Banner was unnecessary. In the end I found myself annoyed by Nick Nolte's overacting. Ebert loved it. Perhaps he is a good writer but a good critic he is not.  
I did love that scene Zilla mentioned and agree with the previous overall reviews of the movie.
From: Ross Entered on: June 23, 2003 10:11 AM
Yeah I loved that scene too. That whole scene with the tanks and choppers was awesome, I thought.  
But yeah, Nick Nolte is a big, slightly modly ham salad sandwich. I liked the setup - how he created Bruce and all that shit - but after that one of his dogs should have gobbled him up. Swerb was right - he was Nick Noltstofferson with a side order of ham.
From: John Entered on: June 23, 2003 10:30 AM
hahahah, I love it. Nick Nolte does suck, I have no idea what the hell Ebert is talking about.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 23, 2003 11:29 PM
Yeah, whoever thought Nolte was good in that movie has his head up his ass. I liked the father-experimentation twist was kind of cool, but as soon as Nolte mutated himself, the film went right to shit. I find it funny that neither Ebert nor Roeper mentioned what a disaster the ending was. The last 15 minutes look like someone mangled the script, which had been pretty intelligent until that point. What a shitty, awful fight between the Hulk and whatever the fuck Nolte turned into - a stupid special effect, and the open-for-a-sequel denouement was lame. People in the theater cheered when Ferrigno had his cameo, though.
From: Ross Entered on: June 24, 2003 8:51 AM
Normally I frown upon people saying "and they left it wide open for a sequel!" because it's almost impossible to NOT leave a superhero movie open for a sequel. However, in this case, they could have left the mystery as to whether the Hulk was gone or not, and they didn't really need to have that last little bit of the movie in there, I agree.

[Log In to Add Comment]

a division of

© 2003 Ross Johnson
RSS Feed