The negative reviews at rottentomatoes.com all seem to say one thing: it takes itself too seriously. My reaction to that is they must have never picked up or read a Hulk comic in their lives. Anyone who has ever read Hulk, especially the more recent run, knows that it is possibly the darkest mainstream comic out there right now.
Hulk is not like Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, or Daredevil. His alter ego at times loathes the existence of the super being. While the other heroes save the day and get praised and loved by the public, Hulk is always perceived as a monster regardless of his good deeds. Also, Banner cannot really hide behind his secret identity and live a normal life and get the girl in the end. Because he is a potential danger to those he loves, he must forever live in exile.
In short, Hulk is not about wisecracks or getting women, he is about loss and tragedy. It seems that Ang Lee nailed this aspect of the character quite well, but that is not the kind of story people want to see.

Just to give you and example of how dark the Hulk stories can be...
COMIC BOOK SPOILER BELOW



Apparently Bruce Banner's wife died (not sure if it was Betty) in the storyline, and Bruce was so overcome with grief that he decided to end it all. He jumps from a window, but before he hits the ground Hulk takes over and "saves" him. Basically, thanks to his alter ego, Banner must live with the torment of his own existence.

Megan Denny's review is out:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=6679

Sounds pretty much like what I expected. I doubt that this movie is going to be a success. I'm looking for a strong opening weekend and then a huge drop off as bad word of mouth hits.

Just to add something to think about, here is a sample of what the EW critic thought of another film I like:

"If, as Fincher has said, this movie is supposed to be funny, then the joke's on us."
-- Lisa Schwarzbaum, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY

That was for Fight Club, here's her take on Hulk:

"A big-budget comic-book adaptation has rarely felt so humorless and intellectually defensive about its own pulpy roots."
-- Lisa Schwarzbaum, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY


EW needs to quit giving so many movies to this woman. If ever there were two movies that need guys as their reviewers, it's these.

That's one disjointed review that waffles back and forth on so many points. It's either: "It's -insert positive point-, but -insert negative point-" or vice versa.

I also have to wonder if the reviewer is reaching when she has to say that Jennifer Connelly looks "skeletal" just to have something negative to say about the actress, or that "Nick Nolte, looking exactly as he did in his drunk driving photo, gives the best performance as Banner's estranged father." In both cases, the reviewer had positive things to say about the acting, but decides to throw in non-movie related issues as a negative counterpoint?

Also, she (the reviewer) got the plotpoint about Betty Ross' father incorrect as well (not from the comic I mean, just from what's shown in the movie).

In addition, she compares the CGI to Gollum, which is arguably the best CGI character created to date. "Inexcusable" is an over-reaction. Why not just start comparing the movie to Citizen Kane while she's at it?

...and by god, I WISH video games had the same level of CGI since she says that the Hulk looks like a videogame.

...and here's the final "positive" overview:
"If you love The Hulk series, the film is worth checking out. The lengthy exposition will likely be much more enjoyable for fans as the filmmakers clearly put a lot of love and detail into realizing Hulk for the big screen."

and finally,
"For everyone else, including Ang Lee fans, it's best to let this one lumber off into the night. "

...although I have to wonder, how in the heck is "everyone else" lumped in with "including Ang Lee fans", a mainly "art house" director? I never knew the connection between the mainstream and art house movie patrons were so close.

Overall, I sense "pre-conceived notions" wafting from this review.
2 out of 5 stars

Her review is another reason female critics shouldn't be allowed to critique movies aimed at a predominantly male demographic.

Listen Spiderman's success had nothing to do with the CGI or the actual movie. A lot of people love Spiderman for a variety of reasons, and there had been no contact with Spiderman in a long time for a lot of folks. People were excited to see their friendly neighborhood Spiderman on the big screen.

Hulk is a whole different character. He doesn't have as much interest built in, and the entire idea of a superhero based on rage has never been that appealing to a lot of folks - I think Hulk will do OK, but it won't be a blockbuster.

Berardinelli liked it alot, and that's a good sign.

My favorite part of his review:

I'm seeing it tonight!

Yeah, and black people shouldn't be allowed to critique movies with mostly white folks in them. Et cetera and et cetera....

The first official (or at least, first offical that I ran across) Shrek comparison comes from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movi...ulk/index.html



""The Hulk" is sure to be a big hit -- at least until "Terminator 3" debuts. And the movie has a lot going for it. But the Hulk himself just seemed to be a very ticked-off Shrek to me, which makes this comic-book movie a little more two-dimensional than it had to be."

This thing is really jumping around on Rottentomatoes.com... seems pretty mixed thus far.

And the number 1 complaint is - "It takes itself far too seriously."

Good to see that only one reviewer has made that ridiculous observation.

It's also stupid for those saying that women shouldn't be reviewing movies aimed towards a certain demographic. Just because their not the target audience doesnt mean women won't see the film. Hell if that were the case, you wouldn't see a whole lot of chick flicks being reviewed, eh?

Anyway, the mixed reviews are about what i expected. I think its obvious that some people have a preconcieved notion of what a comic book movie should be, and felt that trying to turn one into a serious dramatic piece is absurd.

You're too hard on her. I think her review is reasoned and enlightening. Also, how someone looks is very relevant to the movie experience.

I am just saying that women reviewing movies that are aimed at guys are less likely to receive a good review than if a guy reviews it.

I remember when Gladiator came out the only negative review I read was from a woman, so I blatantly ignored it and enjoyed the movie.

Just visited rottentomatoes and it is amazing how much this movie jumps around in terms of percentages of people liking it.
A shame that it is only missing fresh by 1% on the mainstream critics list. Hopefully someone else prestigous will like it and bump it back up to the fresh rating.

Was that woman Roger Ebert?

NYT Times just bashed the heck out of the movie. A.O. Scott (a man by the way) end his first paragraph this way:

Wow. Thats harsh

OK I just saw the movie, but a downloaded seemingly unfinished version so I figure I'll give my review on it since I won't be seeing the movie in theaters until the weekend. I don't download movies, but did for this one because I just wanted to see what kind of copy is up before release.

I like Bana and Connelly as characters, and feel they pull off their characters well, but they seem to be the only characters with actual depth to them. Bruce's father and Betty's father almost seem like caricatures to me. Bruce's father especially is so over the top bad that I really couldn't stand his performance. He actually irritated me at certain points. It seems like the bad guys in the flick are just BAD GUYS, and really don't have any other motive other than to be pricks. Now that I think about it Connelly's character was pretty straightforward as well with no real shadings to her. I just felt she fit in with the movie better, and I like Connelly so I still enjoyed the performance. Also she didn't look skeletal to me, but she was clothed so I guess I wasn't really paying attention to her body.

I didn't mind the slow buildup during the beginning, and in fact enjoyed it. I thought it had some pretty good pacing, and the comic book style shooting was unique and interesting. When Bruce finally becomes the Hulk I thought it worked very well, and I can't fairly gauge the special effects because I'm not sure of the completeness of the version I saw, but I am certain some effects were not finished, and the sound was definitely not. However what I saw I liked, and can confirm for Groucho that Hulk does indeed smash.

The ending is kind of a letdown for me. The final showdown seemed a little cheesy, and frankly I got a little bored with it, but it seemed to be lacking polish so perhaps it will be different when I check it out in the theaters. Overall I thought it was a decent movie which I felt it started off strong, but sort of fizzled out at the end so I am going to give it a 2.5 out of 4.

Oh, I'm aware of the disjointedness of my review, but at 4 in the morning this is the best it's going to get.

Saw it. Thought it was a very good movie. I would give it three out of four stars. However, despite all of its strengths, I do not see it being much of a success with mainstream audiences.
While this might sound like a strange way to describe a comic book movie, it had a very Moulin Rouge feel to it. Basically, a lot of the enjoyment of the movie depends greatly on the audience "getting it." The negative reviews stating that it takes itself too seriously obviously didn't get it at all. Ang Lee takes an interesting approach similar to Baz Lurhman's Red Curtain cinema in a style that could be dubbed Pulp Paper Cinema. The many transitional panels/split screen that some may find annoying are there for a reason, and that is to remind the audience they are watching a moving comic book. In essence, it is there to say "'while we might have some hidden messages and all, we're still just a comic book! Take some of this with a grain of salt." The delivery of many lines was very much in the vein of early pulp comics in both style and content. While I found it innovative, others will most likely find it annoying, which I can understand.
That said, onto the plot. In terms of mood and thematical elements, Hulk was very reflective of the current incarnation in comic books. That is, a dark tone with some good action thrown in to boot. Hulk is a Sins of the Father movie at heart, and Lee executes it very well IMO. In fact, I would almost say the Sins theme is the main story of the movie with the Hulk story as the backdrop; an approach similar to the one used in Signs with aliens. The story is basically all character development for the first half, and pure popcorn for much of the second. My only beef with the story
The FX? Well, most of them are great and others are shoddy. I would say that whenever we get a close-up of Hulk's face and emotions, we are seeing the most realistic effects next to Gollum in terms of good CGI. I honestly could believe the big green guy's torment at times. Hulk only looks shoddy when he is moving really fast, and then he does seem a bit too cartoony.
Overall, I liked Hulk, and am sure many others will as well. I just don't see it being the major hit many here predict it will be. IMO, I think it will be darn lucky to reach $200 million. Not because it's bad, but because it asks more out of the audience than should be expected for a modern summer movie.

Bad review in the LA Tmes, as well. Here's a quote:

As a humanoid aberration, he is not unpersuasive, but the finished Hulk does look pretty rubbery around the gills, as well as his shoulders, monumental six-pack and thunder thighs. Still, for all the fetishism of the computer-graphic detail, when compared with his flesh-and-blood co-actors, this Hulk is no more believable than the animated Br'er Rabbit walking alongside Uncle Remus in Disney's 1946 "Song of the South."

The monster's monstrosity is even less persuasive. Petulant rather than angry, the movie Hulk manages all the fury of a brooding high school wrestler.

Ouch!

Maybe the expectations were a little too high on this one...

Or maybe the movie actually sucks?

saw it last night and thought it's the best movie of the summer so far hands down. the cgi is probably the best i've seen. don't even try to compare to gollum because he wasn't an action oriented character. ang lee is a genious. elliot and nolte's performance's were great. it's getting great reviews from critics that actually know something like ebert, travers, LA times, ect. the retard in the minneapolis star tribune gave it one star because the hulk looked bigger than anything else on screen. well da! he's the hulk.

FUNNIEST QUOTE EVER

From the Orange County Register

Everyone is praising Nolte's acting. I may have to rewatch it because I didn't like it at all.

I saw it last night and I really enjoyed it. It's not a great movie, but it was certainly fun to watch. The action/fight scenes were awesome. The CGI was obvious, but for the most part unnoticeable. What I mean is, it obviously looked like CGI, but it wasn't distracting. It felt believeable.

The beginning was really slow. They could have edited it down a bit. The story was pretty good, but for the most part I was waiting for the Hulk to start smashing things again.

Overall, I would give it 3 out of 4 star.