Posted by AshFan at fwwwpx01.ex.cargill.com on July 03, 2003 at 08:26:21:
In Reply to: HULK MOVIE makes other comic book movies look good posted by thunderwoman on July 03, 2003 at 00:36:46:
: REVIEW OF HULK
: by Tina Thurber
: Ok...I went to see HULK that everyone is "talking about" and everyone is "debating about." I was so excited to see this movie a year ago when I first saw the teaser trailer and saw that one of my favorite directors, Ang Lee, was directing. Then, about two months ago, I saw it...the real trailer. HULK was a mass of Computer Generated crap. He looked like the playdoh characters I made when I was 5. He made Jar-Jar look like a creation of genious. I was highly disappointed, but since it was one of THE movies of the summer, I felt I had to view the travesty for myself.
: Here's the thing: I was disappointed with Daredevil, of which I had waited a year an a half for. The movie had the worst plot cycle: setup...setup...setup...setup...peak credits! But, the movie had saving graces like the quips of Colin Farrell and the kickass performance of Joe Pantliano. And hey, who can resist Ben Affleck in leather?
: HULK...no. Jennifer Connally...no. Go get your brows waxed. You got the money. Hell, flash your Oscar (TM) and they would probably do it in exchange for a headshot for the wall in the white trash dive you would be frequenting. Speaking of Brows, there should be a rule in movies: the leading woman cannot have thicker brows than the leading man (ok...ok....I know this limits my roles, but it's the truth!). The entire movie, I was looking at her brows and his lack of and thinking: Hulk is supposed to be the epitome of testosterone, and yet, his brows are thinner than Marlene Detrich's.
: Ok. I know it's superficial. I'll stop with the brows thing. But one more appearance related topic: Eric Bana has the worst ears in the world. They stick out like a monkey (yet the person they cast to play his teenage character, Colin from the WB's Everwood, has perfect ears). Perhaps I would not have been paying attention to his ears if he had something in the center of his face to focus on...say, eyebrows perhaps...
: On the technical side, it was one of the worst composed movies I have ever seen. I know what you are thinking: How can you say that about a millions of dollar budget film directed by such a highly esteemed director? First of all, the movie took on a look similar to tv's 24 and Shummacher's Phone Booth (of which I both like). The movie had multiple split screen and intreaguing transitions. Lee was trying to manipulate a comic book like look. If I wanted to see the comic book, I would have read the comic book (which I have..but that's beside the point!). There is a rule in good filmmaking: 90% cuts, 9% dissolves, and 1% flashy transitions as to not detract from the story. HULK...99% flashy transitions and 1% cuts. I was so focused on how they did a diecut transition of Jennifer Connally to an army base that I didn't pay attention to the plot line at points. Dialogue was lost. I think Lee has only worked with single layer video editors before, and now that he is in America in the 21st century, he saw multi-track video editors and got a little over excited. The movie read like a comic book that was turned into a messed up music video. There was only one good transition, and for those of you who want to still see it, I won't spoil it. But just so you do not miss it, one word: BLINDS.
: To continue on the composition of the work, in many of the split screen sequences, you would see Bruce (the lead) looking at someone with his back in the frame. Then, on the other side of the screen, you would see just him facing the audience. This is an interesting perspective rather than using cuts...but if you are going to do this, make sure the actor is doing the same actions take after take. It was blatenly obvious, not just with the Bruce ones, but in most of the split screen that they were pulling the video from different takes because the actors were doing different actions! Here's a thought Mr. Lee: spring for another camera for more consistancy. Got it? Geez! The movie's got a budget comparable to Dell's fiscal year earnings and what does he do with it? Make a claymation "hero." The hulk CGI did look better in the movie than I thought, but these artists need to consult Pixar, afterall, remember the hair on Sully in Monster's, Inc. It looked incredible. The detailing. Detailing? What is that you ask Mr. Artist who made Hulk? It's where you actually spend the time to add features that make the character look like he could be a living, breathing monster. Add some body hair. Perhaps some veins. Muscle definition? You get the idea.
: I know I am boring you with the composition factor, but one more basic thing. When you are in the middle of a monologue with the actor looking off screen left, do not switch mid sentence to a camera angle with the actor looking off screen right. It's a jump and causes the audience to jump and lose the flow. Maybe Lee was just trying to show that Connally's brows were even...
: Back to things you might care about more: the storyline. As I mentioned before, Daredevil's storyline was weak. HULK's was so weak a 5-year-old girl with scoliosis and coke bottle glasses in the playground of a deaf school is stronger than this plotline. I won't reveal too much, seeing as some of you might want to see it, but the plotline looked something like this: Setup...setup...setup....weak action sequence...credits. The movie seemed sooooooo long. I must have pushed my indiglo button atleast 5 times. I debated leaving the theater. I took a 5 minute nap instead. When I woke up, we were on the same scene...or atleast it seemed like it. The whole thing was so mediocre that it was difficult to discern. Also, if you are expecting to see a movie similar to Spiderman, Batman, Superman...the classics...you will be even more disappointed. This is not a hero's story where man gets "gift," man struggles with it, man saves the chick and half of the New York modeled town. There was one saving thing in the movie. That's it. He was the villain throughout the entire movie. Well, more like the beast that they were trying to hunt. Not very epic, huh? Sidenote: In the movie, they only said "Hulk" once and it was in a sentence ("...turn into a hulk of a man..." or something). They never actually called him HULK. So don't be waiting for it or anything.
: This movie did not have the saving points that Daredevil had. The best it had to offer was (*gulp* I hate to say this) the presence of Nick Nolte. I know...I know. However, Nolte was playing himself: a drunken, psychotic washed up man. Eh...it added flavor to the tofu of movie plots. This movie made Ben Stein look interesting. ("Bueller...Bueller...") Well, atleast this movie made me appreciate Daredevil.
: My recommendation: go rent the old HULK series with Bill Bixby. You will be much more satisfied with the quality of the Hulk story. If you MUST see the updated movie, perhaps because you love Ang Lee as I do, then prepare for disappointment. This is nowhere near the calibur of The Ice Storm. This movie is like Crouching No Name Pathetic Australian Actor, Hidden Talent for Making a Monster Look More Real Than Roger Rabbit. Wait for the DVD where you can pause for that cat nap...or skip through half of the chapters entirely.
:
: Perhaps a Black Cat movie would help the mix...