Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Incredible Hulk (2008)

This is topic The Incredible Hulk (2008) 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=001429

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-12-2008, 07:26 AM:

I guess I can finally tell the Film-tech world, The Cine-Capri at Harkins Tempe Marketplace 16 is now the All DIGITAL Cine-Capri. Starting tomorrow night at midnight the Cine-Capri will be all digital. I got the chance tonight to screen our print and I must say it looked GREAT. Crystal clear image, rock steady like it should be. We were already the #1 theatre in the valley, now there really is no doubt.

Now on to the film, I really really liked it. Marvel really has there head on straight right now and we are definitely in a golden age for comic book inspired movies. Iron Man and now Incredible Hulk, two movies that are going to make the shareholders happy. The Hulk has seen an Upgrade and looks great. Yes he looks CGI, but he looks damn good. The casting was great all around in this one. William Hurt was great as Gen. Ross, Norton was spot on as Banner. He just has the acting chops to play the conflicted man. Tim Roth plays a great villian, he just has the creepy factor going.

A lot of people will complain about Liv Tyler but what more do you want from her. She plays the love interest who is caught in the middle between her father and her true love. She did a great job connecting with Banner in his Hulk form. I really liked her in this and think she did a better job then Jennifer Connelly in the 2003 incarnation.

There was a lot of stuff that was shown in the trailer that didn't make the final cut, so I can't wait for the Blu-Ray of this. I really only have one complaint about this and that was sometimes Hulk and Abomination's size changed. One minute they would be like 8-9' tall and then another they would be 15 feet tall. That was my only complaint, but its not so bad that it takes you out of the movie. This is a must see for action movie fans and summer movie addicts.

4.5/5 [thumbsup]

p.s. I also love the fact that Marvel can have characters from other movies cross over. What a world the comic fan lives in now with Marvel Productions.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-12-2008, 10:12 AM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
Marvel really has there head on straight right now and we are definitely in a golden age for comic book inspired movies.

That's great to hear. I know when I first heard about Iron Man I was skeptical and it turned out to be great. Now, if we can just get the audience excited about this one! The buzz here is definitely a tepid "eh." Hopefully good word of mouth and reviews will help.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-12-2008, 10:44 AM:

Marvel's glory may be short-lived. Word on the internet is that they don't want to pay John Favreau to make IRON MAN 2, and are opting for someone cheaper. Not a good sign.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-12-2008, 05:29 PM:

I am not sure why they even made this movie. Didn't they just have a Hulk movie a few years back? And this isn't even a sequel... it's yet another reboot! Did the world really demand another one, especially so soon? The Hulk himself looks pretty much the same as the Hulk in the last movie... CGI lifelessness and jumping all over the place like a baboon.

The reason people complain about Liv Tyler is that she is fugly. Also, her dad creates crappy music.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-12-2008, 05:44 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Marvel's glory may be short-lived. Word on the internet is that they don't want to pay John Favreau to make IRON MAN 2, and are opting for someone cheaper. Not a good sign.

First of all, although he did a good job on Iron Man, let's not make Jon Favreau out to be Francis Ford Coppola. Second, I'm sure it's all just a negotiating tactic.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-12-2008, 06:35 PM:

Joe, yes there was one in 2003. This isn't a reboot or a sequel, its a continuation. It doesn't try and explain the origins it just picks up and goes. I would have to argue that in this one he doesn't look lifeless and he doesn't jump around like a baboon. You don't see him jumping 2 miles at a time, he shows emotion. When he has to get to the top of a building, he doesn't just leap to the top. He scales the building to get to the top.

[ 06-12-2008, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Kurt Zupin ]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-12-2008, 07:30 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
First of all, although he did a good job on Iron Man, let's not make Jon Favreau out to be Francis Ford Coppola.

His talent is irrelevant. The point is that Marvel is treating the creator of a very successful movie as if he were disposable. That's disrespectful, and suggests a certain way of thinking which can easily lead to bad movies.

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 06-12-2008, 10:33 PM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
This isn't a reboot or a sequel, its a continuation. It doesn't try and explain the origins it just picks up and goes.

If this movie began with [in the context of being chronologically after the 2003 hulk].... anyway, on to something better!....[Hulk 2008] it would explain itself better.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-13-2008, 12:55 AM:

That's exactly what I was going to say. [Razz]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-13-2008, 03:01 AM:

So will the next Hulk movie just be called "The Incredible Hulk" as well (with a whole new cast, of course)?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-13-2008, 03:45 AM:

I walked into this movie and watched about 3 minutes of the Hulk popping a vein and getting all pissy at people. Three words...bad cgi hell. It also felt like a product of someone trying to impersonate Ed Wood.

1 out of 5 stars only because what I heard of the soundtrack was pretty damn impressive.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-13-2008, 02:36 PM:

There was some quote from Louis Letterier where he said that the big climactic battle in this movie was 20 minutes long. I remember thinking that that sounded tremendously boring, and I was right. This is probably when Brad walked into the theater.

However, the rest of the movie is great. The story on its own works relatively well, but where this thing really excels is in the category of universe-expansion. The idea of layering in elements from other franchises in order to create a richer mythology is one of the things that comics do best, and it's exciting to see the movies adopting this approach.

That being said, I've read that some of those elements, like the last scene, were done at the filmmaker's suggestion, and against the better judgment of the studio. Which is one more reason why I think that Marvel movies are doomed. But I sure hope I'm wrong.

[ 06-13-2008, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Mike Schindler ]

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 06-13-2008, 10:16 PM:

Jon Favreau directing Ironman, is his first film that wasn't total crap.
Remember Zathura. [puke]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-14-2008, 12:04 AM:

I hear the Blu-ray version will be about 3 hours or something. At least that's what the director says.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 06-14-2008, 12:15 AM:

I interpreted that as meaning that there will be 70 minutes of deleted scenes, not a longer cut of the movie.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-14-2008, 01:21 AM:

Blu-ray can do seamless branching. Although with 70 minutes of cut footage and the performance of previous extended cuts considered there's probably a good 20-30 minutes of material that doesn't need to be grafted back into the film.

Maybe they could have a couple different seamless branching scripts. One gives you the good stuff left out of the theatrical cut. And then another provides "the shit we left on the cutting room floor cut."

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 06-17-2008, 10:06 AM:

I notice the South American camera crew had at least two dirty camera gates. There's pieces of dirt that show up at the bottom of the screen in different locations during several scenes in the 1st reel.

In some theaters it may be hidden by the masking, but our masking/aperature combination is pretty tight and the dirt is kinda obvious in the auditorium I have it playing in now.

Fortunately, in many some of the scenes the aperture dirt is masked by lots of camera and on-screen movement. But in the static shots it stands out like a sore thumb.
(well, to ME it does....)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-17-2008, 06:34 PM:

Doesn't Edwin Norton have a goatee in the movie? Why doesn't the Hulk have a goatee?

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-17-2008, 07:17 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Doesn't Edwin Norton have a goatee in the movie? Why doesn't the Hulk have a goatee?

It's more of a stubble sometimes and sometimes he is clean shaven. Maybe the whiskers just get spread out so far and are so small in comparison to the face that you don't notice them when he is the Hulk.

Anyway, onto the review. It was a good, entertaining, "popcorn" movie. It isn't going to be winning any academy awards but it was worth my time to watch. If you like movies about comic book characters that transform in physically impossible ways then you'll enjoy it. The CGI wasn't too bad. It was obvious that Hulk and Abomination were CGI and they by no means look real but it wasn't cheesy and distracting.

The sountrack was very well mixed. They really took advantage of the dynamic range of the digital track.

Stan Lee has his longest cameo yet.

3 out of 5 stars

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-19-2008, 08:07 PM:

CINEMA: Cinemarkury 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 11
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Will somebody PLEASE teach these stupid fuckers how to provide a steady presentation? The panning scene over Rio actually STUTTERED!
RATING: Two stars (out of four)

WARNING: "As far as I'm concerned, this man's whole body is property of the U. S. Spoilers."

THE PLOT: It aint easy being green. Wackiness ensues.

So basically we've gone from a Hulk movie with intelligent dialogue and bad action sequences to a Hulk movie with improved action sequences and really BAD dialogue. Liv Tyler has a hard enough time with a GOOD script. This is easily her worst role ever...and she was in ARMAGEDDON! Does ANYBODY believe her character could be a scientist? And Bill Hurt...Has he EVER had less to do?

They do a couple of tributes to Bill Bixby's Hulk with a scene of Banner hitchhiking (do kids today even know what hitchhiking is?) and they show a clip of Bixby...not from the Hulk series, but from "The Courtship of Eddie's Father". THAT makes sense.

In any case, CGI Hulk was MUCH better this time around, and the action sequences kicked ass, largely thanks to the awesome soundtrack, which punched as hard as the Hulk did.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-22-2008, 07:36 PM:

Today are Regal 15 in Eugene, #14 in 35mm. Some kind of weird print damage or flaw, see post in Film Handler's Forum along with a sample image showing what it looked like. Sounded awesome, borderline too loud, just the way I like an action movie. [thumbsup]

I liked it. Maybe not quite as much as Iron Man, but still, it's pretty good. I thought Liv Tyler was one of the best things in the movie. Plenty of action, some cheezy CGI which I will forgive in a comic book flic like this, and an awesome soundtrack.

I give it 3.75 out of 5 stars.

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 07-10-2008, 07:52 PM:

I saw this movie today and I thought it was good. I liked the action sequences. Plus, I liked it loud, which I like all movies to be. The acting was great to watch as well.

I would rate this movie at 4 out of 5 Stars.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-14-2008, 12:36 PM:

quote:
I saw this movie today and I thought it was good. I liked the action sequences. Plus, I liked it loud, which I like all movies to be. The acting was great to watch as well.

I agree I thought the soundmix was an assaultive bombastic experience - all the channels were used, it was a rare action film where all the sound elements and mixing never sounded like a mush of sound, but distinct and exciting.