one of the major themes of the film was about confronting & dealing with genetic heredity- the physical/emotional aspects of yourself that you don't like, that you think may be degrading the quality of your life and that were probably passed on to you by your parents.

the film (not the comic) was not about the Hulk going around smashing stuff, although i realize thats what mensa-tardy popcorn munchers were expecting.

so in this instance, some kind of resolution between the father and son was very much needed.
the fact that they could tie this resolution into a fight between Hulk and another super-powered comic book adversary was, imo, a sign that the filmmakers were not condescending to the source material, but were mining it to make a good film that would stand on its own without the benefit of years of backstory to reference.

I agree with this some what...one of the things that made the TV show so good was that we all felt sorry for Bill Bixby's character and wanted him to find a cure for the disease "that dwelled within him" (couldn't pass up on that quote) hehehe...

The Hulk movie Banner was so bland and unsympathetic, he was almost scary (serial killer scary), the dream sequence with him choking the Betty Ross character didn't help...

My main gripe (besides the pacing) w/ Hulk was the OVERUSE of the comic book panel transitions. It was bearable for the first couple of minutes, but after that i was like, "Okay, i get it! It's a comic book movie! Enough already!" :mad:
DD was/is one of my favorite Marvel characters so i liked it more than other people did. Of course, i did have a problem with Michael Clarke Duncan as "The Kingpin," but that faded as the movie went on. The movie could've done without Colin Farrel's over-the-top performance, though. It seemed like he watched the `60's Batman series to prep for the role.
Thanks, Rypro. :o

Michael Clarke Duncan, not Ving Rhames

also, whats with all of the compliants with Duncan as kingpin? the only other one who could have done the role imo would be James Gandolfini, but the sopranos would tie him up.

The problem with Duncan wasn't really his looks or skin color. The problem was that his performance was stupid and one note, and his character did NOTHING. He spends the whole movie in one room, and then Daredevil comes there and beats him up.

God this was an awful movie. Hulk didn't live up to its potential by being a bit too melodramatic and forgetting to create characters anyone truly cared for. It dragged a little and the ending was confusing. But, it was still (imo) a very interesting ovie with the Hulk sequences being quite frankly awesome (I liked the special effects...were they perfect? no...but they looked like the Hulk to me!).

Daredevil on the other hand...was a horrid piece of junk. Bad dialogue, bad acting (Affleck, Garner, Duncan specifically) and really no coherent filmmaking to be seen. Bad transitions, no character development, silly looking action (I'm sorry, but out of the costume Affleck looks ridiculous striking a karate pose). I mean...were we supposed to care when Elektra died? And what is with all of the awful pop rock music?

Rypro, thanks for bringing the thread back :)

Finally got to see Daredevil and I have to say it was much better than I expected. (I guess I've read too many posts like the above). The action was much better than any of the other comic book movies, incuding Spiderman. The acting was not that bad, on par with the genre at the very least. Problems are fleshed out in earlier posts, mainly trying to squish about 5 hrs of material into less than 2 hrs. Compared to the rest of the genre, Daredevil is one of the best.

finally, someone else agree's with me. unfortunatly, we will have to wait till next year, to get the R rated directors cut of daredevil on dvd.

I actually enjoyed Daredevil.
Found it to be well paced and with enough action to keep interest throughout.
The Hulk, I really need to see again. I caught it on the plane but really need to view it in a surround sound environment. I applaud Ang Lee for trying to make a "thinking man's" comic movie (that's MHO) but it seems there was a failure with the delivery. And there were problems with the ending.

I think the Hulk was a pretty soild movie marred by a Incomprehensible ending. Aside from the last reel or so, I really enjoyed the movie.

Daredevil, on the other hand was a complete piece of shit. I hated the techno music, the fight choreography, the acting - and the ending. Ok, I dont read DD, so I'm not up on everything about Kingpin, but my god he's a wussie in the film. Total letdown.

But either way, Superman owns both films without breaking a sweat.

I hope I'm not upsetting fans of the movies of these titles which I almost fell asleep through...
Zoolander (I got very antsy sitting through this for some reason in the theatres. Maybe it was the way I was hoping to see both Stiller and Wilson in this together that got me to thinking it was gonna be something else?)
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (BORING! At least to me it was.)
I have still yet to see both Daredevil and HULK. Although I really enjoyed Ang's The Ice Storm. So who knows until I've actually rented it and watched it!

:whofart:

never the fu(k you mind... 'cause it's going outta time.

Yeah, but did you think the father son angle, the drama, was done well? I mean, having a good dramatic story is good and all, and I thought it was a decent idea. But quite frankly, the characters were just stiff and boring, and the resolution of the father son angle was an incomprehensible fight in a lake that ended with...something happening with a nuke.

I mean, I think the movie worked quite well in many ways. In no way would I call it a "bad" film. But it is deeply flawed, not by the editing (I loved that, extremely well done) but by the somewhat piddling dramatic story line. I mean, being dramatic doesn't mean it's GOOD drama. If this movie had worked as it should have, then when we got to Banner Hulking out it would've been after this interesting build up. Instead, I kinda was just going get on with it.

Again, I like the film. But it's a flawed film. It coulda been SOOO good, so I do hope a Hulk 2 comes out. I mean, when Hulk is on screen, I thought the film was dynamic. I lvoed the style, I liked the pacing, I liked the structure. It just dragged at points with an uninteresting plot and a stupid ending.

I have no idea whatsover why I said what I did. Maybe I was trying to make a quip? I have no clue!

Daredevil was the better of the 2,you cared about Matt Murdock,while the Hulk movie was just plain boring,maybe one of the ten most boring movies I have ever watched,in fact I can`t name another movie as boring.I watched both movies with comic book fans and non-comicbook fans alike,even the non-comicbook fans liked daredevil a little,while the consensus with hulk was "is it over yet"? if you want a good Hulk story go get The Incredible Hulk - The Television Series Ultimate Collection on dvd or The Incredible Hulk - Original Television Premiere dvd.Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno did it right,at least director Kenneth Johnson made you care about the characters.Kenneth Johnson should direct HULK 2.just my 2 cents.

i loved both movies. At the cinema and on dvd :) :banana:

I thought Hulk was true to the modern comic in its style and form, and aside from the last 15 minutes, I never had any real problem with it.


Daredevil on the other hand, well, just cut and past what all of the other detractors said and you have my opinion of it. ;)