Rating: 
Summary: i don't think it even desverses a title!
Review: "If i die before i'll wake!, at least in heaven this film won't be there!, i can, moan at the derictor, and shout at the cast!. This film is really rubbish, and i can't wait till they ban it!, Oh no i can't wait!" don't watch it!
Rating:
Summary: Worst Film of 2003
Review: Safe to say this film was very poor. Considering recent comic book adaptations have for the most part been excellent of late this was a major disapointment, I would consider Batman and Robin more entertaining. Acting wise the movie is poor, Eric Bana's accent is bad considering how poor his fellow Aussies do with accents thats saying alot. The emotions run from depressed to really depressed, to super depressed, their was no range of emotions, no smiles, just constant monotone sadness. Nolte seems drunk or on drugs in the film which probably isn't short of the truth. The bad guy actors seem to have little to no motivation in the film and have absolutely no reason to act in the manner which they do. Whats worse is you have no reason to care for the good guys, their is no sympathy engendered towards them. Length, its about an hour too long, this film would be fine in the span of 80 to 90 minutes, short and sweet but its just way too long. Special effects are poor considering what is currently out there, they seem fake. The split screen effects are just arty and makes the film seem even longer. All in all my friend recomended this film, I will reconsider any recomendation he gives in the future. View with Caution
Rating: 
Summary: comic psuedo
Review: WIERDO movie, even wierder MOVIE making , maybe theres just to many stories,trying to BREAK OUT,kinda like the HULK,MUCH to ADOs, do this introduce this, THE MOVIE IS like an epic series of scenes,forget the good ones, THE ACTION, pure mayhem THRILLS, its gives the viewer,plenty but they lack A context PLUS this movie is like watching television with the remote stuck on SWITCH,ITS ENDLESS CHANNEL SURFING , hodgepodge scenes thrown at us,a little bit of this and a lot more of that, BOOM bang, smart bomb,KILL THE STORY,BUT LEAVE INTACT the GEE whizzes,excess,often it speeds up just right, its like a dog chasing its OWN tail, you can be left feelin spinNINg, but never giddy, CAUSE THIS MOVIE , lacks the simple,WHAT? STORY.. WHILE IT FLAUNTS, ITS trainwreck,DIRECTION headed DOWN too many blind avenues, IT just tumbles into trouble,TRIPS UP, first its not near HUMAN CHARACTERS,puppets, to ADVANCE,strangely never interact,THERES NO HEARTFELT INTERACTION, theres much ado,ABOUT this or that but it becomes numb and unglued almost from the moment these hazy conflicts are introduced USUALLY RAZZLE DAZZLE, style in cinematics cut and paste, COLLAGE LIKE cubist filmaking from all angles, too quick, they never stick,ITS maybe MEANT to be BEWILDERIN AND PERPLEXING, like GOOD pulp comic FICTION,but given the MEDIUM,movie as mascurade,CHARADE AS empty spectacle, with no HUMAN emotions,, its a parade for sure, ITS alot like JFK by MR bad guy BEAT the viewer into submission, oliver delerious, STONE, and in the seventies the MOVIE omega man kinda HINTED at this,BUTTON pushing doctor jeckhl HYDE FILM making,CONSPIRACY of sorts conspiring against its OWN good intentions,
Rating: 
Summary: Expected More
Review: This was horrible. I was very disappointed and so was my son. I would say that I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: breathtaking
Review: After having just seen this amazing film I simply cannot understand all the negative reviews this much maligned comic-book adaption has received.
This is a great film with a wonderfully paced and extremely well told story with fully developed, interesting characters.
I'm convinced this will be regarded as a classic in the years to come. Ang Lee has done a superb job here.
Rating:
Summary: Love this kind of movie, hated this one
Review: Be SURE to rent this movie before spending any money on it. It's been a long time since I've really hated a comic-book type of movie, but this one was just awful. I hope, in a BIG way, that the split screen effects don't catch on in Hollywood. I found them distracting and annoying, and they didn't even make much sense. The sound on the DVD was strange, too. I turned my volume way up, but still could barely hear a lot of the dialog. The Hulk animation was so embarrassing. I wished for Lou Ferrigno many times. I did finish the movie, but just barely. Couldn't really care less how it ended.
Rating:
Summary: Brooding and Cold.
Review: The overall feel to this disappointing addition to director Ang Lee's movie canon is sullen and just plain "no fun." Ang Lee has directed films like "Sense and Sensibility," "Eat Drink Man Woman," and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." He has been nominated for the Oscar for Best Director twice, so it was a personal letdown to see this cold and spiritless film added to his otherwise impressive catalog. The special effects were laughable and poorly done computer graphics. I remember shaking my head in the theater when The Hulk is leaping from mountain top to mountain top like some monstrous bull frog. However, this film is not totally unworthy. There are a few CGI moments that are well done, but overall this movie is moody and too long. This movie isn't any fun. It's really too bad. Later.
Rating:
Summary: Marvel takes a beating.
Review: Spiderman was great. Daredevil was passable. But the Hulk is something else entirely. I'm sure Ang Lee was trying to make this film seem thoughtful and deep, but he came a lot closer to mere incoherence. We start out with lots of images of fancy lab equipment and mysterious experiments, then add in a bunch of mysterious, incomplete character images. If it weren't so damn boring, it might have pigued my interest. We all know that the Hulk's coming, but how do the pieces fit together? At least thayt's what I might have thought if there had been anything to make me care. Instead, I just wished they'd get on with it. And when they finally do get the big green guy on the screen, there was nothing good enough to redeem the lost time. In fact, even the Hulk sceens got pretty monotonous after a while. Oh yeah-- The split screen thing to give it a comic book look was a nice idea, but it didn't work at all. It's just gives me another reason to want to turn it off. There's a whole disc full of special features, but by the time I'd finished the movie, I really didn't care to watch them. Maybe hard core Hulk fans would like this movie, or maybe they'd be disgusted with the blown opportunities. I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that most everyone else would be much happier watching something else. Even something with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno.
Rating: 
Summary: As a long-time, old-school Hulk fan... I approve!
Review: I grew up reading all of the major (and most of the minor) Marvel comics titles of the 1960s and '70s... In the '80s, I drifted away, at first because the various titles had become so static and shoddy, and then later because the artwork had become so stylized and fetishistic. By the 1990s, Marvel began to radically overhaul all its main titles, and the Hulk was one of the characters that they messed with the most. Because I never liked the hyper-realistic, overly muscular, overly defined artwork that came into vogue around this time, I was driven away from many titles. "The Hulk" in particular, started to have about a zillion rippling muscles that just don't exist outside of a bodybuilder's wet dream. Still, every few months or so I would pick one up and see what was happening, and for a while I was able to keep up... I gather that around this time was when they introduced the goofy psychoanalitic aspects that define the screenplay of this film: all Hulk's problems stem from a bad relationship to his Daddy. (In the comic, the theme of domestic violence was much stronger and heavy-handed than in this film...) Anyway, as a Marvel loyalist, I've always checked out the various film adaptations, and while Hollywood invariably fouls things up somehow, I have to say, I was more impressed by this film than I thought I would be. The special effects are fabulous -- I actually watched several of the action scenes over before returning the rental, and if I were still nine years old, I probably would have gone to see this movie in the theatres at least a dozen times. Why they have to muck with the original premises of these stories, I really dunno (the Hulk is no longer the product of an atomic bomb, but rather some sort of genetic testing...) but in general, as these things go, this flick was pretty good. Mostly I am cheered by seeing such good, exciting special effects, onscreen action that finally matches the sense of wonder that the old Stan Lee-Jack Kirby comics could instill. My hope is that Hollywood will one day start cranking these things out with almost as much regularity as the comicbook industry itself, and as the making of these fantasy films becomes more commonplace, producers will eventually stop feeling the need to "legitimize" then by making the plots so overly complex and drearily serious. Once they find the easygoing rhythm of the original 'Sixties issues, THEN the fun will really start!!
Rating:
Summary: In the Opinion of the Humble...
Review: The "Hulk" is a good movie, often times great. The first half of the movie is a long, methodical character study of people under immense emotional torture, especially Bruce Banner (a pitch-perfect Eric Bana) and Betty Ross (Jennifer Connely). It is hinted that they share a dark past filled with absentee fathers and a secret military project that they might now be working on again, 30 years later. This first half or so is the reason why the "Hulk" was not well recieved among viewers and critics. People were expecting either another "Spiderman" or another "X-Men" or its sequel, filled with those films' brimming everyman qualities and light-pacing throughout, or the Hulk of the 70s t.v. show, who aided people when he had and anger spell. But director Ang Lee opted for a more tragic approach, with plenty of Freudinized angst, along the lines of repressed memories manifesting themselves in dreams. And while Lee sometimes overdoes it, his decision ultimately makes "Hulk" far more interesting than the t.v. show whose premise wore thin after a few episodes and a little more intriguing than Marvels past comic-book adaptations . However, action junkies need not fear. Things kick into high gear in the film's fast-paced and action-packed final act as Banner escapes from a military compound where they were hoping to harvest him for their own purposes. He then proceeds to tear up the california desert in a wondrously shot sequence that shows off the ILM's incredibly life-like and belivable Hulk creation and the films' unique style of editing that makes the film feel like a comic-book with skillfully juxtaposed images from various camera shots that describe various scenes that occur simaltaneously in the film. It should be said, though, that "Hulk" is not as artistically accomplished as Director Lee's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" or perhaps other acclaimed films in his catalog. "Hulk" at times suffers from uneven pacing, some mind-numbing psycological probing and timid acting. But overall, "Hulk" stands on its own as a dark, brooding and spectacular comic-book adaption that had the balls to take the "Hulk" to places no one ever expected something like the "Hulk" to go. And while having the guts to do something daring is instantly laudable, "Hulk," even with its flaws, still succeeds surprisingsly well.
|
