The Incredible Hulk

[Johann]

I was and still am a huge fan of Ang Lee's HULK, but I understand why Marvel would want to do a reboot. It is one of their flagship characters, and many people hated Ang Lee's movie.

The trailer is awesome.
Ed Norton is an awesome actor, a perfect choice to play the tormented Bruce Banner and I'm glad they used that theme from the old TV series. It's a perfect melancholic dirge that suits his "issues".
Tim Roth is a veteran, a first-rate thespian, and along with another veteran William Hurt + Liv Tyler we have a mighty cast for the green goliath.

(Personally I think they should've brought back Sam Elliot as General Ross but I won't complain)

On June 13th we HULK OUT!!!!

http://incrediblehulk.marvel.com

[oscar jubis]

Ed Norton has disowned the film based on the abbreviated cut of the film being released to theaters. He won't be doing any publicity. Bad omen. Hold out for the "original" cut bound for dvd release around Christmas.

[Johann]

HULK SMASH


The Incredible Hulk is exactly what fans wanna see in a Hulk movie. People complained about Ang Lee's artistry, and the studio has *listened* and finally given them what they want.

I haven't read any reviews yet on the new Hulk, but as far as I'm concerned if people didn't like it then they are either hoity-toity assclowns or have no grasp or respect for the comics medium.
And if you see yourself in either of those groups then I gotta ask what the fuck were you doing at a reboot of the Incredible Hulk?
Shouldn't you have your nose in a copy of war and peace?
Shouldn't you be re-arranging your collection of Faberge eggs?


The Incredible Hulk comes hard and fast out of the gate, with an urgency and dynamic that is much appreciated by me.
We see the Hulk in the first half hour, which sets up a pulse-pounding chase/Hulk-hunt that ends with two huge freaks of nature in an all-out street fight.

I swear when Banner (Ed Norton) first transforms into the Hulk that his eyes were the actual eyes of Bill Bixby. (From the old TV series) The shot was so quick and brief that I'm not 100% sure, but I swear it was a tribute to Bixby. And Lou Ferrigno appears again, as a security guard (again) and Ed tells hims he's "the Man".
And we can't forget the Legend Stan Lee, with yet another cameo in a film version of one of his creations.

The director of Transporter 2 has nailed the Incredible Hulk. The acting, characters and story is right. The design of the Hulk is better than Ang Lee's, and his strength is showcased ina way that is just kick-ass beautiful. I loved it when the Hulk is blasted with shock waves or sonar waves by the Army and then he just gets angrier and stronger and then just overpowers the waves to go on to smash the army vehicles into crumpled pieces of scrap metal.

The sound is awesome- the Hulk's roar should pin you to your seat. He's louder than 100 lions!
And don't get me going on him ripping the cars apart and then using them as boxing gloves. They went all-out with this one and it's made over $120 million so far. Good year for honoring comic books..

What else can I say, it's a textbook summer blockbuster, with A-list talent and awesome sfx.

Hollywood still has a few kinks to work out with comics-to-film adaptations, but you can clearly see the quality that is slowly coming to the fore.
Hellboy II looks genius.
Watchmen hits theatres in March. (You can see action figure designs from the film at DC Direct-really cool looking)
The Dark Knight- forget about it.
Rumours are swirling that Ledger might win a posthumous Oscar.

Movie fans and fans of comics rejoice- we got nuthin' to complain about at the moment.

[tabuno]

Johann has a delightful commentary on the new Hulk movie. It's definitely worth including on memorable movies for this year. I'm still keeping my mind open about The Dark Knight...it's dark...and it looks comically mean.

[Johann]

Thanks Tabuno


The Incredible Hulk is a great movie. I worship it.
Director Louis Leterrier says it's the best film he's made to date.
If there's a director's cut in the works for DVD I'm all for it.
I'm just glad we have a studio that is willing to make a film like this. Hulk Lives!

As for "The Dark Knight", believe the hype.

Kevin Smith (lucky bastard who's already seen it) said: Heath Ledger didn't so much give a performance as he disappeared completely into the role

It's gonna be a special film.
I'm seeing it in Imax twice on opening day.


WELCOME TO A WORLD WITHOUT RULES

[Chris Knipp]

I would not want to knock the new HULK, even though I am not much of an Edward Norton fan. It seems to be like Johann says, much more the HULK that fans wanted than Ang Lee's, though some have said it's more an acceptable HULK than an INCREDIBLE one. According to Metacritic, the reviews rate WANTED a little higher, HULK 61, WANTED 64. Make of that what you will. I think they went a little overboard on IRON MAN (79) and even more overboard on WALL-E (94), but maybe the relative positions are correct, in terms of overall accomplishment. What about KITT KITTREDGE: AN AMERICAN GIRL? (Metacritic 63). Will you boys be going to see that? Or would that be too low in testosterone for you?

[Johann]

Kit Kitteridge?

Ha ha- no I won't be seeing that one.
It's for the kiddies.
I noticed it was directed by Patricia Rozema, who did the agonizing film "Happy Days" from the Beckett on Film DVD set.

Those ratings on Metacritic are retarded.
Wanted is not better than The Incredible Hulk.

Wanted is just a slick shoot-em-up, designed for the Matrix masses. (even if it's got Morgan Freeman).
I'm really sick of seeing Jolie's face everywhere.
She's not really that great of an actress.
I've seen Alexander over 30 times and I always skip her scenes (except the one where Alexander finally walks away from her- Hell Yeah!)

[Chris Knipp]

I'd say to be accurate KIT KITTREDGE isn't exactly for kiddies Johannn. It's worse than that: it's for girls.

And now is Patricia Rozema's Beckett film "agonizing" or the Beckett play itself ? Didn't Beckett mean his stuff to be "agonizing"? I'd say doing Beckett (and being Canadian!) would make Patricia Rozema cool.

Likewise is it the Metacritic ratings you find "retarded" or the print reviews themselves, which Metacritic does a fair job of assigning a numerical value to? Are you blaming the messenger here?

Did you see WANTED? If you haven't , you can't say what it is or isn't. What's a "shoot m up"? Of course WANTED's an American blockbuster action film but at the same time Bekmambetov, who has just come from Russia, where he made some visually amazing and commercially extraordinarily successful films, is not just any action director. Let's be accurate about this too. Have you seen DAY WATCH and NIGHT WATCH? You would probably like them.

Morgan Freeman is actually way more tiresome in WANTED than Angelina.

How about WALL-E? For the Kiddies? Will you go see that?

[oscar jubis]

Kit Kitterridge? I tend to like period films and I respect director Rozema for her interesting I've Heard the Mermaids Singing and When Night is Falling. But it's a film geared for younger viewers, which gives me pause.
I truly enjoyed Wall-E, a film made for the whole family. I found Hancock a bit too vulgar for my taste. I just don't get entertained by watching a short guy having his head stuffed in a guy's ass (prison scene) or having the Theron character hit in the head over and over with various heavy objects to demonstrate she's a super-heroine (kitchen scene). I was also entertained by Roman de Gare, and I'm not at all a fan of director Lelouch. Didn't much care for OSS 117, which kinda surprised me. Mongol strikes me as one I should watch in a theater because of the vistas.

[Chris Knipp]

OSS 117 is perhaps more to be admired in theory than in practice; it might help to be familiar (but I'm not) with the French Sixties series and this new comic actor, who is a star. Nonetheless I could see that this was very well done. You could put comments on the Filmleaf thread (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2280) for it.

ROMAN DE GARE (which was in the Rendez-Vous with French Cinema at Lincoln Center in February so I reviewed (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=19387#post19387) it. For me too it was a time when I liked Lelouch, and I was impressed and interested to learn about Dominique Piinon.

WALL-E is what you say, and more.

Rozema sounds like an interesting person and director and I hope to see KIT KITTREDGE. Mongol personally I don't think you'd die if you don't see, but definitely is to be seen on a big screen to appreciate the landscapes.

As for WANTED, it may be bad in some terms, but it's good in others and puts its Walter Mitty message across with conviction, whereas IRON MAN leaves a bad taste with its bad politics, for me. I don't know if I can stomach INCREDIBLE HULK. I don't see the appeal of testosterone-overload attacks or of Edward Norton. So it all evens out. But being away from NYC where I can see all the interesting small films that come out, I am trying to see some of the bigger ones. I have doubts about HANCOCK but plan to see it just for its offbeat take on the superhero genre. I'm not sure if it makes sense to be offended by vulgarity or violence in any of this stuff, in which both abound--but many not always the vulgarity.

[Johann]

Kitteridge is getting great reviews, especially about it's star and the topics it deals with.
But I'm not running to a theatre for it.

Beckett's play "Happy Days" is grim and agonizing, and Rozema's film of the play is well-made but agonizing for me to watch.
It's just this oblivious woman proclaiming everything's rosy while she's slowly being buried in a mountain of sand. It takes 80 minutes to get to her being totally buried and it was ponderous to me, Beckett at his most pessimistic.

I think it drove home his quote When you find yourself up to your neck in shit, SMILE.

The Metacritic ratings serve what purpose?
What is the point?
A rating based on all of the reviews?
Why do we need that? Especially when the rating can mean absolutely nothing. It's not an accurate rating system, so we should get rid of it. (You can never be 100% accurate with film reviewing anyway, but you can come close- closer than Metacritic)

I haven't seen Wanted and I don't want to even though it looks dynamic. I can say what it is just from the trailer.
They're marketing it as some slick shoot-em-up, Matrix-style.
Is that not what it is?
Are you saying that Wanted is deep and meaningful cinema?

I'm off Angelina Jolie films.
She's saturated the whole business with her face and lips.
I don't care if she's having twins. I don't care if she's adopting another 38 refugees. I don't care if she's arguing with Pop.
I don't care what movie she's in.
It's a case of being completely and utterly turned off by her and Brad's mugs being in the news every 5 seconds.
I see right through them, no matter how much of Hollywood royalty they are. And the roles they play don't convince me.
Pitt was great in 12 Monkeys. That's his only acting job that's really impressed me.

Because I get the vibe that he doesn't take it too seriously (only in the context of his career and ego and vanity) I don't like his movies very much. It's all par for the course for Brad.
Those two just irritate me. There's an air of phoniness to them.

Everybody's raving about Wall-E and I might see it.
It's geared for kids, but I can see how adults would like it.
Aren't they ripping off E.T. and Short Circuit though?

[Chris Knipp]

Beckett said that? What a card. You're joking?

You need to see these movies to comment on them. I do not insist you see WANTED. I just happened to feel like seeing it. As I mentioned Bekmambetov, the director, is fresh from Russia and made DAY WATCH and NIGHT WATCH, which are wild overproduced fantasies that you probably would like. They're very inventive and original. That same craft and imagination can still be seen in WANTED I also wanted to see the excellent young Scottish actor James McAvoy in an American action blockbuster. He is talented. He does a spot-on American accent and voice that is a hoot. As for Angelina and Brad, I don't let the celebrity thing get to me.

Brad has been good in other stuff too. His tiny role in TRUE ROMANCE as a stoner dude in a motel is hilarious, brilliant.

Of course Angelina's only serious role since GIRL, INTERRUPTED (for which I thought she was overrated) was A MIGHTY HEART, which was a good job. She is find in WANTED though. She does the job just fine.

Maybe you have no interest in reviews. I do have. I want to know what they say and I want to know their ratings. Metaqcritic is quite reliable for that. It is not an exact science, for sure. But iwe can't throw out stuff simply because it is inexact. Don't you ever consult the weather report?

Yes, see WALL-E. It plays with/alludes to many sources, STAR WARS, E.T., 2001, etc., but it is original and it has its own things to say and the Pixar animation is quite wonderful, particularly the earth part and Wallly himself.

You should also go see THE LAST MISTRESS if you can, a French film directed by Catherine Breillat--and starring Asia Argento. Or do you hate her too? She also is a hoot in this, and Breillat surprised me with a costume movie that is lush and also sexy and fun. If this is showing in your part of Canada. I don't know. It is showing in big cities here now. I originally saw it in the NYFF last October.

[Johann]

Yes, Beckett said that. He actually said it in french.

[Chris Knipp]

that shows it's been a while since I saw that play. But it fits.