Anakin Flair 0 Report post Posted November 2, 2003 anybody else find it odd that the DVD didn't come with an insert? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Notorious CRD Report post Posted November 2, 2003 Despite the fact that I am a die-hard Batman fan, Hulk is my favorite comic book movie by far. There was just something about it that made me say, "Why can't all comic book movies be this good?" Granted, the ending was out of nowhere, but that's just an unfortunate aspect of the genre. For my money, Hulk is the paragon to which all other comic books movies should aspire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ArkhamGlobe 0 Report post Posted November 2, 2003 I personally loved the Hulk, as I liked how Lee focused on the psychological aspects of the character. The ending was a bit over the top, but overall I was very happy with the film. As for the editing question, it can be a bit complicated to answer, as editing can be used in many different ways (cross-cutting, Eisensteinian montage and so forth) and for different reasons, and it basically goes hand in hand with direction (to me, atleast). Editing is both about pacing and rhythm, but can also be used to create meaning in the Eisensteinian sense. I don't know if that helped explain anything, but atleast I tried. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted November 3, 2003 I had a problem with the actors...all...moving...and...speaking...very...slowly. I mean it seemed like every performance (with the exception of Sam Elliot) was just on cruise control. The editing and cinematography was Oscar-worthy. This is something I don't get. How can you tell whether or not a movie had good editing? Doesn't that have to do with what didn't show up, or what? What am I missing here? Cinematography I'm hazy on too, but at least I have the general grasp on it. Editing as an artform I don't get at all though. Do the cuts made and shots used tell the story quickly (sometimes not quickly i.e. Kubrick, but you know what I mean) and effectively, are shots and scenes paced correctly? You can also notice trends in editing like Peter Hunt's groundbreaking work on the early Bond films (lots of cuts on motion, exageratted sound effects in fight scenes, quick cuts to and speeding up film to improve the look of fight scenes.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted November 3, 2003 I think the film suffered in the theaters a little bit since the dog fight and the ending happened at night and were virtually impossible to see very well. Coupled with an ending that was difficult to follow regardless, this took a lot of steam out of my enjoyment of the show. The sequences where Hulk was fighting the military was genius though. What the movie really needed though was some shots of Bruce freaking out and then turning into Hulk. Having those things happen at the same time seemed to lead right to Bruce still seeming repressed all the time. Having the anger boil up and veins popping would have been a better choice in my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve J. Rogers 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2003 I think it also has to do with how the Hulk is treated in the mainstream popculture. When you think about it, even a casual or non-fan will know other characters and arch rivals of many of the other comic book character icons that the Hulk is among. Wheither its Doctor Doom, Doc Oc, Lois Lane, Magneto (hell Wings had Mags in a song in the 1970's, not the real Mags, but part of the live set decoration featured the character) The Joker, The Penquin, ect or even certain facts and trivia about the comic books. However, Hulk has none of that, its just Bruce Banner/The Hulk. Maybe Betty Ross but not much beyond that. Absorbing Man? Abomination? The Leader? Ask any Hulk fan who is not a hardcore comic fan who those three are and they'll give you a blank stare Look at the TV show for an example, the only Marvel created characters (other than "David" Bruce Banner and Hulk) that ever showed up were Thor, Kingpin and Daredevil/Matt Murdock (DD was to set up a spinoff that never got past the proposed stage) and those were only in TV movies made after the show ended its run (I think Tony "Iron Man" Stark may have been referred to at some point as well) Basically the point is, people expect the Hulk to be just the Hulk smashing things and running rampant, they'll watch/ Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men, ect for storylines. The Hulk is considered by the mainstream population to just be a "junk food" form of entertainment. Repressed ID running rampant, Hulk Smash and all. Basically people expect it to be more "King Kong" and "Godzillia" than the Frankenstein or Jeckyl and Hyde that Hulk was based from Steve Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notJames 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2003 I agree with Capt. America... I mean, Steve Rogers. Hulk doesn't really have a mythos that John Q. Public can readily attach to. Between the comic book, the various cartoon incarnations, and the live TV show, there has never really been a consistent story to tie them all together. Hulk's origin, his supporting cast of characters... hell, even his name was changed among all three. So to expect the general public to buy wholly into the Hulk movie based solely on the "popularity" of the character, especially knowing how Ang Lee approached the story, may have been a bit lofty. I for one was thoroughly pleased with the film. But my film tastes have always been skewed more toward stories than spectacle. The DVD is also a keeper, with loads of extras, despite not having the requisite booklet. And at $14.00 (thank you BJ's Wholesale Club), what's not to love? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
