PopcornTreeCt

I don't know, you seem to be the one that thinks it's black and white. That box office is the indicator of a great movie and if somehow a crappy movie makes money then it's the great marketing behind it. You seem like you really can't wrap your head around the fact that audiences enjoy movies that are critically panned.

Ash Ketchum

And that audiences sometimes ignore movies that are critically acclaimed.

ibobi

Oh, that's not it at ALL. One of my top all-timers is Kingpin, and well, it is not a critical darling

I think there are exceptions to rules. I think marketing money CREATES those exceptions more often than not (the awful Green Lantern notwithstanding) -- you can make people go to a crappy movie on opening weeknd, but if it's really bad that's the end.

I guess I like to give audiences more credit than they deserve though, you're right. The Transformers & Pirates movies are just godawful, every one of them. Yet they are a mountain of money. It's a shame the directors assigned to XMen have been so uneven, because its audience deserves better.

PopcornTreeCt

Gotcha, I get what you're saying.

Daytripper

Agree that style was the only thing good about "Hulk" and that "The Incredible Hulk" is better. A million times better IMO. But I'm actually surprised you don't like Lee's other films. He's one of my favorite directors. "The Ice Storm" was brilliant. "Brokeback" was also outstanding. And I loved or nearly loved everything else he has done. At this point, I'll see whatever he does.

gmanca

Just curious, what is it that makes The Incredible Hulk that much better as a Hulk film?

Daytripper

Well, let me ask. Did you see them both? The first was just so boring. And the special effects were not that great. I just felt the Edward Norton film got it right.

gmanca

Yeah, but I didn't think the first was boring and I didn't think the constant army fights in the second were all that great. Different strokes.

Supermallet

Ed Norton > Eric Bana

Actual stuff happening > Not much happening

Abomination > Mr. Absorbent

Draven

Truth. The reboot is a far better Hulk movie.

B.A.

I took my dad to see this on Sunday morning, and we both enjoyed it.

I think it is on par w/ the first film, but not as good as the second. ***1/2 out of five.

Fassbender was fantastic.

McAvoy was decent, although my father still doesn't care for him.

Bacon was very good.

January Jones is nice to look at.

Beast looked like shit.

slop101

Interesting how you leave out the only equation that really matters:

Ang Lee > who fucking cares because Incredible Hulk sucked!

PopcornTreeCt

Eh, no.

slop101

Not saying Lee's Hulk was all that great, but it was at least interesting, in parts. Incredible was just dumb upon dumb; it may have had more "action", but it was interminably more boring and stupid, and did I mention dumb?
Also:
Jennifer Connelly > Steven Tyler's daughter

PopcornTreeCt

It's not that the Incredible Hulk was a great film it's more that Ang Lee was the worst comic book movie ever made. Not worst as in bad acting or poor CGI, but bad in an infuriating kind of way like The Killing finale.

Paul_SD

Ang Lee's Hulk is a flat out great movie to me. I concede it's not perfect (it has one huge lapse of character behavior/logic at the start of the climax that I find disappointing). Maybe not even the greatest 'Hulk' movie that could ever be made- but I think it's a iconoclastic, fully formed and emotionally satisfying film using a relatively shallow comic book characters action premise as the starting point to tell a substantive dramatic story.
I would argue that there is a lot of stuff happening- especially under the surface, internally in these characters, which is one reason I love it so much.


As smitten as I am with Ang's take though, I didn't need the sequel to be a rubber stamp of it. I thought it was obvious at the time, that the emotional material in that film was resolved and that any sequel going forward would logically concentrate far more on typical comic book style plotting. For everyone happy that the Norton film is a 'reboot', just how much of that film invalidates what was contained in Ang Lee's?

First viewing of the Norton film, I enjoyed it as much as I expected to. It was a non demanding popcorn adventure. Loving the Lee film didn't impact my ability to enjoy the sequel at all. However when I finally watched it for a second time not too long ago, I found it sadly boring and surprisingly tedious. There was nothing for me to chew on. It was all inconsequential sound and fury, and the impact of it evaporated as soon as the end credits roll.

I think the biggest difference between the two takes on the character could be summed up with the scene in the Lee film where Betty comforts Banner on the S.F. street, surrounded by military ready to blow his ass to kingdom come.
In the Leterrier film, the exchange would have been
"Thanks for finding me."
"You weren't that hard to find."
...stopping on Betty's reply as a comedic punchline.

Lee undercuts the potential of giving the audience a predictable, cathartic laugh at that point by having Banner further reply "yes I was". He slyly turns a simplistic, throwaway joke into an encapsulation of the film major theme - and it still makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
In contrast I can't think of one idea/dialogue exchange/scene in the Leterrier film that resonates at all after the fact.

Oh, and Sam Elliott >>>>>>> William Hurt

Solid Snake

While Lee might be a better director...he didn't make a better Hulk film. I like Lee and respect the visual look and feel for the film..but...I didn't really feel like much happened..that and Jay Mohr was pretty generic.

this

Paul_SD

If January Jones had been primarily known for staring in something lightweight like Dawson's Creek, or was married to some obnoxious over exposed star, I'm pretty sure we would be seeing a lot more vitriolic hate for her performance here. It's only in her affiliation with better material and creators elsewhere that she gets cut as much slack as she does- and conversely why other performers (not just Holmes) get dumped on as much as they do.

JJ is nice to look at. And she has a range all the way from A to A flat.

gmanca

I don't want to drag it on, so I'll make this my last post.

Statistically, there is more action in HULK than in The Incredible Hulk; that's something you can easily measure by of number of action sequences/running time.

I bet some haven't seen both films back to back recently and are going off of memory of when HULK was released. Like mentioning Jay Mohr, dude wasn't in the movie.

HULK is not without flaw, but it's easily the better Hulk movie and one of the better comic book movies made. There's no way I can understand it being compared to crap like Green Lantern and Jonah Hex.

ibobi

At this risk of this becoming a Hulk thread...

The major problems I have with both Hulks (though I like the second better because the villain was better -- ain't that so often the case?) are:

1. The CGI is STILL not there. As soon as Banner changes, I go from watching a live-action movie to watching a video game/cartoon. Just does not look right.

2. Hulk is a poor choice for a movie concept, because at the moment Banner changes, he ceases to be the central character until he changes back. The Hulk is not interesting because he's brainless. That's part of why the grey hulk (and presumably the next movie would get into this) has the brainpower of banner and is almost as strong as Hulk and is the same person. Losing the thread of the main character is not something you want in a movie -- especially when he is still "techincally" on screen. It's a flawed concept.

Solid Snake

Josh Lucas..I don't know why I keep thinking Jay Mohr. Either way...the character was stupid in what was a pretty serious movie (you know what I mean). The family stuff was interesting but also very boring at times. Nolte was a bit too crazy for my tastes and the dogs vs. Hulk wasn't that good.

I don't think it's as bad as JH, have yet to see GL, but it is kind of boring considering people want more Hulk like moments. I didn't feel that from Lee's film. Great visuals and style but...didn't feel like The Incredible Hulk. I did very much like the visual tone for fight at the end...it wasn't what I wanted but it was well done..just...not Hulk enough. I probably would have trimmed it a bit in terms of running time as well.

Paul_SD

I was very surprised that with the explosion of absentee fathers over the last generation or two, that the film didn't resonate more with young males.

I'm hoping that like Blade Runner- another film it's audience expected to be one thing but found another...and found it exceedingly boring- that in 10 or 20 years people will give it another chance.
For me it's one of the few, if not only, comic book related movies that honestly transcends the entire action-adventure (let alone the 'comic book movie') genre. Which is remarkable because, as gmanca already said, the action content in the film is more expansive than people seem to remember it being.

as far as First Class goes, I expect it to have a long and healthy life outside of it's first theatrical run. Fox doesn't have anything to be down about. It'll make bank when it hits Bd. The films strengths will only be magnified by viewing it at home in a more intimate setting.

Timber

Well not the same person, just a different aspect of Banner's personality just like "Savage Hulk" is.

musick

if watching it at home make sure and put up big letters in your house that say "home" so you know where you are like when the movie felt it necessary to include the subtitle "Moscow Russia" during the establishing shot with the Kremlin

Dragon Tattoo

What are you talking about? JJ gets ragged on for being a horrid actress all the time. Have you even even been in a Mad Men thread?