The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I know it's been about for a while. I wasn't keen on the whole idea really, but having watched it tonight I think I can safely say it was a stonking film. Really impressed with the CGI, the action scenes, and the whole 'dark' storyline (I was expecting a cheesy kids affair like spiderman).
Surprise hit of the year for me. What did you think?
Surprise hit of the year for me. What did you think?
Page:
Anonymous wrote:
> I aren't sure bu Cubist, when you came back from the cinema before,
> didn't you say you had a crap taste in films?
Nope. My taste, I think, is relatively good however there are a lot of hypocrites out there who call me pretentious for saying something like that and then when I voice my opinion they voice theirs in a tone that's at least or even more pretentious. A tone like as if to say "Oh my god! You're so stupid for not noticing that! I mean ohhh god can't you see?!" You know? Ok I am willing to admit that their are different techniques that are often used to achieve certain effects and so on but if they give me a headache and I personally find it to be annoying then it doesn't really matter I still don't like it and it doesn't change my opinion.
> I aren't sure bu Cubist, when you came back from the cinema before,
> didn't you say you had a crap taste in films?
Nope. My taste, I think, is relatively good however there are a lot of hypocrites out there who call me pretentious for saying something like that and then when I voice my opinion they voice theirs in a tone that's at least or even more pretentious. A tone like as if to say "Oh my god! You're so stupid for not noticing that! I mean ohhh god can't you see?!" You know? Ok I am willing to admit that their are different techniques that are often used to achieve certain effects and so on but if they give me a headache and I personally find it to be annoying then it doesn't really matter I still don't like it and it doesn't change my opinion.
I stand by my statement. There was seriously no real plot to it that I could recognise. I can understand that the hulk is just supposed to be a muscley, green, indestructable idiot that never says a word and just goes around smashing things but did they have to do it for so long? I mean I would have much preferred the time he was Bruce Banner and the time he was the Hulk reversed so that they could do more with the character than have him running through the desert, dodging misilles, fighting dogs, running through the streets smashing cars, having a huge fight with his dad in what looked like a giant water vortex.
I just got so bored with it and frankly hated it. As for whoever it was who defended the split screen thing when people were in the same room saying it was so it looked more like comic book framing. Well I really didn't see the bloody need in that! All those stupid split screens just gave me a headache. It was a film, NOT a comic book strip. Come on make the transition. It only makes sense if you're trying to appeal to the comic book geek market and even then I'd guess it gave most of them headaches too.
I mean seriously NONE of you can possibly say that making the main character a speechless piece of PC for about 80% of the film was the smartest thing to do as obviously you can't really do much with the plot if all the protagonist does is run around smashign things up and not saying a word.
I just got so bored with it and frankly hated it. As for whoever it was who defended the split screen thing when people were in the same room saying it was so it looked more like comic book framing. Well I really didn't see the bloody need in that! All those stupid split screens just gave me a headache. It was a film, NOT a comic book strip. Come on make the transition. It only makes sense if you're trying to appeal to the comic book geek market and even then I'd guess it gave most of them headaches too.
I mean seriously NONE of you can possibly say that making the main character a speechless piece of PC for about 80% of the film was the smartest thing to do as obviously you can't really do much with the plot if all the protagonist does is run around smashign things up and not saying a word.
Gotcha
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> as far as I remember the actual bits you are describing probably only
> took up a total of about a 3rd of the film. the first 'hulk ripping
> his shirt off' scene was 42 mins into the film. (Off the IMDB, I
> wasn't sad enough to time it).
Exaclty, but Cubist is saying the movie had no plot, and consisted of been "hours of a green CG running from missiles and fighting"
> as far as I remember the actual bits you are describing probably only
> took up a total of about a 3rd of the film. the first 'hulk ripping
> his shirt off' scene was 42 mins into the film. (Off the IMDB, I
> wasn't sad enough to time it).
Exaclty, but Cubist is saying the movie had no plot, and consisted of been "hours of a green CG running from missiles and fighting"
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Perhaps if the movie had have
> been "hours of a green CG running from missiles and
> fighting" then it would have been more successful at the box
> office,
as far as I remember the actual bits you are describing probably only took up a total of about a 3rd of the film. the first 'hulk ripping his shirt off' scene was 42 mins into the film. (Off the IMDB, I wasn't sad enough to time it).
> Perhaps if the movie had have
> been "hours of a green CG running from missiles and
> fighting" then it would have been more successful at the box
> office,
as far as I remember the actual bits you are describing probably only took up a total of about a 3rd of the film. the first 'hulk ripping his shirt off' scene was 42 mins into the film. (Off the IMDB, I wasn't sad enough to time it).
Cub!st wrote:
> It told NO story what so ever. Dad experimented on his son as a child,
> his son grows up to become the hulk, whenever he gets angry he turns
> into the hulk and fights and for at least 80% of the film David
> Banner was the Hulk I'd say. Nothing but hours of a green CG running
> from missiles and fighting. It was just tedious and not classy in any
> way shape or form.
you *really* don't have a clue do you. Perhaps if the movie had have been "hours of a green CG running from missiles and fighting" then it would have been more successful at the box office, as the audience would have been given what most of them were expecting. I went expecting a muted Ang Lee movie, and exploration of human emotions and feelings in a SF / superhero context (much the same "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was, only in a Hong Kong style) and got exactly what I was expecting.
Top marks for his comic strip styl direction / editing too. Its quite unlike anything I've ever seen before.
> It told NO story what so ever. Dad experimented on his son as a child,
> his son grows up to become the hulk, whenever he gets angry he turns
> into the hulk and fights and for at least 80% of the film David
> Banner was the Hulk I'd say. Nothing but hours of a green CG running
> from missiles and fighting. It was just tedious and not classy in any
> way shape or form.
you *really* don't have a clue do you. Perhaps if the movie had have been "hours of a green CG running from missiles and fighting" then it would have been more successful at the box office, as the audience would have been given what most of them were expecting. I went expecting a muted Ang Lee movie, and exploration of human emotions and feelings in a SF / superhero context (much the same "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" was, only in a Hong Kong style) and got exactly what I was expecting.
Top marks for his comic strip styl direction / editing too. Its quite unlike anything I've ever seen before.
Cub!st wrote:
> What really got to me though was all the different unecessary camera
> shots! Like when two people are talking directly to each other they
> do a split screen. WHY?!? That's rarely used when people are on the
> phone anymore let alone when they are in the same room. All those
> random shots gave me a headache.
-----------
Why?
Because Ang Lee edited it similar to the comic-book style of framing. The telling of a story using as few panes as possible, and also to show the emotional reactions without having to cut back and forth between.
As for the love story being non-existent...you don't watch much Ang Lee do you?
Go check out The Ice Storm, Eat Drink Man Woman, Crouching Tiger etc.
Then go and read all about something called "repressed emotions".
You'll begin to notice a pattern in the material that Lee chooses, thematic principles that are deliberate choices in his films.
The Hulk was the most logical choice for Lee to explore comic-books.
You have the father & son relationship, Bana & Connelly, Connelly & her dad...all exercises in emotional suffocation and isolation.
Honestly mate, does your media/film studies lecturer teach you anything?
> What really got to me though was all the different unecessary camera
> shots! Like when two people are talking directly to each other they
> do a split screen. WHY?!? That's rarely used when people are on the
> phone anymore let alone when they are in the same room. All those
> random shots gave me a headache.
-----------
Why?
Because Ang Lee edited it similar to the comic-book style of framing. The telling of a story using as few panes as possible, and also to show the emotional reactions without having to cut back and forth between.
As for the love story being non-existent...you don't watch much Ang Lee do you?
Go check out The Ice Storm, Eat Drink Man Woman, Crouching Tiger etc.
Then go and read all about something called "repressed emotions".
You'll begin to notice a pattern in the material that Lee chooses, thematic principles that are deliberate choices in his films.
The Hulk was the most logical choice for Lee to explore comic-books.
You have the father & son relationship, Bana & Connelly, Connelly & her dad...all exercises in emotional suffocation and isolation.
Honestly mate, does your media/film studies lecturer teach you anything?
I aren't sure bu Cubist, when you came back from the cinema before, didn't you say you had a crap taste in films?
Cough Hugh Jackman Cough Come on he'd be good wouldn't he? I mean he has the dark hair, the right build, has already played a superhero role before so he has the whole dark brooding and mysteriosu thing down to an art. His is going to be in Van Helsing as Van Helsing so he has to play a dark and mysterious Vampire/Werewolf/Monster hunter in that. Come on he'd be perfect.
George Clooney may have been a good choice in theory, but in the actual film he was diabolical.
I reckon Guy Pearce is the best choice.
I reckon Guy Pearce is the best choice.
Page: