This is topic HULK in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000586

---

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 06-05-2003, 04:48 PM:
 
Saw it last night in the screening room. It definiely captured the art of the "Graphic Novel" and was edited and produced in such a way that each frame of the film looked as though you were looking at a separate page of a comic book.

Unfortunately they took the cheesy dialogue and dramatic effects of the comics and put them into a medium where they don't translate so well. I'd like to say the movie was fun to watch, but nah, for 2 1/2 hours I'd rather have done something else.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 06-20-2003, 04:36 AM:
 
6 reels could have done it.

Since all of my prints' DTS discs were either missing or damaged, I got to watch this in glorious DTS pretend SR. I wasn't impressed with the sound at all. I'm sure it would have been much better in DTS Digital or SRD... see it in digital sound.

I thought the movie was OK... I wasn't overly impressed with the animation. It just didn't look that good. A lot of it was out of focus around the edges, presumably to blend in with the live action footage. Whatever the reason, it didn't look good.

Did I mention that it could have been only two hours long?
 

---

Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 06-20-2003, 02:37 PM:
 
As Daryl said, it could have definitely been shorter. The beginning was pretty slow, but it picks up the pace once he transforms for the first time.

This was an OK popcorn flick meant for the summer. The only problems I had, other than length, were the fact that the Hulk looked like Shrek on steroids, especially in the face, and Ang Lee went way over the top with the comic book cinematography (split screens, multiple scenes on the screen using comic frames, fancy camerawork, etc.). It got kind of off the wall towards the end during the stuff with his father, but I guess that's what comic book movies do.

5.7/10
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 06-20-2003, 03:06 PM:
 
Anybody else have framing issues showing this film? The movie kept going out of frame vertically than there would be a horizonal frame line and a couple of times there were 4 or 5 different frame lines on the screen at the same time. I couldn't figure out if there was a problem with the projector or the print. I wonder if I move the print to a different projector, if I would have the same problems?
 

---

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 06-20-2003, 07:20 PM:
 
LOL I had the same problem too, this movie utilizes a TON of split screen (vertical and horizontally) camera views I guess to make it feel like a comic. First time I saw it I immediately moved the framing knob, then next scene it was out of frame . If you built it up correctly just let it run.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-21-2003, 08:07 PM:
 
Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, house #3. Subwoofers and surrounds working 100% again after being out of action for X-2 and Matrix Reloaded. Yay! Probably SDDS. Very good presentation.

It requires some patience from the viewer because there's a LOT of talk laying down the foundation of Hulk's origin. But I liked it. I especially liked the uniqueness of the split screen and other comic-book visual tricks. The special effects were better than I was expecting. In fact the movie as a whole was pretty good. Liked it.

This print looked GREAT on their massive 25' screen . I'm serious -- very sharp, plenty of detail, bright. Closeups of faces looked really really good.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-22-2003, 12:30 AM:
 
The CGI character turned out to be okay. Certainly, the least of my worries with this film.

Too long, The opening was far too slow. Didn't they know that young kids would want to see this movie? We had a number of sleeping kids and also some walk-outs. Tragic!

Overwrought melodrama. Poor boy has "repressed memories" and "something inside him." So what? We want to see the green guy!

You know what? There was a lot of exposition at the beginning of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE but there was actual poetry in some of that writing. And there was a real sense of majesty and legend in those scenes. This movie doesn't have that.

The green guy. What can I say? He shouldn't be able to move like that. Unbelievable. He's green and he's big -- he's HUGE -- I can buy that. But he can leap around the world? No way, man. Sorry.

Oh! And he can fall from outer space into the Pacific and just make a piddly little splash? Yeah. Right. Sure. Fine. Whatever.

And that dude in the tank...You know the tank...They showed that clip a zillion times on TV...So "angry man" picks a whole tank and flings it out into the desert like he was training for the super-freaking Olympics. And the soldier walks away fromt that wreck!?

Throw me a frickin' bone here!

Best story angle was the father-daughter subplot and THAT was hamfisted most of the time.

Split-screen effect did very little to cover up the fact that those scenes were boring and went on too long.

The villain. Wishy-washy and unfocused. Actually, there were a number of bad guys but I'm talking about Nick Nolte right now. I couldn't understand a word he was saying half the time. Mumbles in DICK TRACY had better diction than this guy.

Not that I'm complaining, mind you. Who knows? There may be method to Nolte's madness -- he may actually have improved his dialogue by making it unintelligible.

And let's not forget the real villain -- Ang Lee.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-28-2003, 06:20 PM:
 
I actually found myself enjoying THE HULK. The film had unexpected character depth for a movie of this kind. Although I was somewhat confused as to the actual powers the daddy hulk had. I did find it hard to buy into all the leaping around the Hulk did. The variety of wipes made the film visually interesting, though.
 

---

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 06-29-2003, 06:48 PM:
 
FYI the Hulk can leap 3 miles in a jump, his skin can take something like 15,000 degrees, and he has a bunch of other powers, thats how his char was originally made and it was protrayed very closely to the comics.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-29-2003, 08:03 PM:
 
Saw it again today, Cinemark 17 in Springfield, house #13, Dolby Digital, attendance about 100. Pretty darned good presentation. Picture & sound excellent. Print was outstanding in clarity, detail, and contrast. My only complaint is there were too many ads and trailers, like 50% too many.

Hulk was better for me the 2nd time. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The pacing doesn't feel rushed, time is allotted for ample character development (some will be bored by that, but I liked it). This one feels the most "comic bookish" of the recent Marvel superhero efforts for the big screen. Too bad it's dropped 70% in weekend #2.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-29-2003, 09:34 PM:
 

quote:

---

thats how his char was originally made and it was protrayed very closely to the comics.

---

OK, I claim ignorance then. I admit to never reading the comic book (I was a DC comic fan, not a Marvel). I did watch the original TV series with Bill Bixby/Lou Ferigno.
 

---

Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 06-30-2003, 12:04 AM:
 
http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/h/hulk.htm
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-30-2003, 12:26 AM:
 
Aldo

Well, he was a LOT taller than any seven feet in many of those scenes in the movie.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-30-2003, 07:33 PM:
 
Saw the film last night, and actually liked it quite a bit. I didn't see any cheezy and horrible CGI that so many have complained of. I think people just need to relax a bit and just take it in instead of spitting it all out so quick. Thats what I do with most new food I try, I spit it out, but thats because I am a picky eater. Most people claim to actually like this crap people keep trying to make me eat.

As for bieng taller than seven feet in most of the movie, yep. He actually GREW BIGGER the madder he got. In fact, Betty even told her father that the more mad they made him, the more it fueled his rage and the more powerful he got.

Dave
 

---

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 06-30-2003, 11:54 PM:
 
I found it enjoyable. (I read a review in the local paper that accused the film of thinking too much. If they had just made a big, wretched-cgi, effects-charged piece of popcorn flick, the same reviewer would have said it didn't think enough. There's no pleasing these people, but at least they seem to have hired at least 1 or 2 heterosexual critics now, as opposed to before when they were going with a Homo=good, happy, yum, fun/Hetero=bad, mad, stench, wrench(e-mail me for an explaination))

The story was well thought-out, the direction was good, the acting was on the line between very good and excellent, the cgi was... passable but it served the purpose well.

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Presentation:
Newark Cinema Center
Picture: ****
Sound: Stereo(SR w/Sub, w/o Surrounds) **
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 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!
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 03-16-2014, 11:12 PM:
 

It has been 3909 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 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

---