my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » HULK (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: HULK Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 07-03-2003 05:48 PM                     Well, I had expected a much inferior film. THINGS I LIKED - The scientific images are fine, production design was good too. - The desert sequence was a lot of fun, the audience laughed and even applauded when the Hulk battled the tanks. - Although I never liked multi-image sequences starting with GRAND PRIX or THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR (never saw THE BOSTON STRANGLER), I did not find them really disturbing. Those rapid dissolve effects gave a kind of comic book reading effect. - The Hulk himself is okay, and his movements (when motion captured from an actor) are convincing. Not so in the "big wide action" parts, but this comes from the comic - the Hulk is a bizarre character who defies the laws of physics to a certain degree. THINGS I DID NOT LIKE - I felt cheated by the dogfight scene and the final fight with Hulk`s transformed dad because everything took place in a muddy semi-darkness. IMHO, the CGI looked better in broad daylight! - TALK, TALK, TALK. Okay, some of it defines characters and is needed to tell the story, but who needs all this "General Dad" business? In the second half of the movie, I feared Connelly`s appearances because it always meant MORE TALK. Nick Nolte has too much dialogue, and his character is a rip-off from THE ROCK. - The visuals of that final fight between Hulk and Hulk-Daddy are ... well, "inspired", to say it nice, by the japanese animated film PRINCESS MONONOKE (if that was the US title). - Image quality changes all the time. Close ups and medium shots are fine and sharp, EVERY SINGLE LONG SHOT was fuzzy and lacked detail. The CGI stuff looked soft but still acceptable most of the time. Why is it impossible to get a real sharp long shot? I don`t think our foreign dupe negs are to blame because then all shots would have looked slightly fuzzy, but that wasn`t the case. BTW, here in Germany, a large number of theatres will not play THE HULK because United International Picture (UIP) wants a higher percentage (52.5%, I read today). So the movie plays only about half the theatres it was supposed to. I think that`s a good thing. The greed of studios and distributors must be stopped, otherwise theatre owners will have to donate blood the next time to get a blockbuster!  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 03-16-2014 11:12 PM                 It has been 3909 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 03-16-2014 11:12 PM                     Why is this movie so hated? I thought this movie was underrated and was a lot better than what people say. I watched it for just the second time today and I thought it was a shame that they did not set up a second part for this film. The reboot with Edward Norton was not all that much more successful at the box office than Hulk which leads me to believe that the character is not popular enough for a solo film. Both movies made about the same amount of money at the domestic box office and both had about the same rating at Rotten Tomatoes 62% vs 67% for the reboot. I like Jennifer Connelly a lot and this role was a year or so after her Oscar win for A Beautiful Mind. she was not bad. Not sure what to think of Eric Bana, I could never understand why he was cast in the lead role, Edward Norton was not much better in the reboot. Probably the best casting for Bruce Banner was the more recent casting of Mark Ruffalo. The CGI wss ok, nothing great. I have never liked the CGI imagery of the character in any of the movies. The movie excelled when Hulk was not on the screen. quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea I wasn't impressed with the sound at all The sound for Hulk sucked. This is perhaps one of the worst 5.1 big budget soundtracks I have ever heard. It was so dull and it felt like it was a mix from the early 80s. It felt so muted. Overall, I think it was a terrible mistake not to use the material from the Ang Lee version for a sequel, I really liked the ending with Bruce Banner living in the jungle and the characters were developed enough for a second part.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.