Film

User reviews of this film

• borrisbatanov said...

  Posted on Jun 20 2008 03:30 Edward Norton's Hulk is surprisingly lackluster, much too muted and tepid. He's supposed to be a tormented Jeckel & Hyde, but instead shows entirely too little internal conflict and angst; he's wooden and inert. The role demands someone with lots more juice, more edgy energy and complexity.
  His scenes with Liv Tylor are similarly anemic, drained of chemistry. Their beauty-and-the-beast shtick is old. Her lips seem to have swelled even further since I last saw her in "Lord of the Rings," no doubt plumped up with silicon.
  William Hurt brings insufficient hardness, menace and cruelty to his role as the ruthless military man who helped create the green monster as a battlefield weapon. A military uniform doesn't even seem to suit him. He's much better as a boardroom villain.
  Perhaps most miscast is Tim Roth as The Hulk's arch nemesis. He looks positively scrawny, middle-aged, seedy, and worn, as if he's been up drinking all night for the last 12 years, anything but a crack soldier. His transformation into a killing machine is unconvincing.
  Action sequences may be expensive and lavish, but are gimmicky and mechanical, lacking the twisty agility and ballet of violence that make you sit up and take notice. Only the Hulk himself looks great, in fact better than anyone.
  The film ends with a broad hint that a sequel with Iron Man is to follow -- sadly, even an association with Robert Downey's much wittier and spunkier Iron Man probably won't energize the mopey Norton.
  This may be a major improvement over the 2003 "Hulk," but it still has a long way to go. Hollywood needs to be more creative and daring. These superhero franchises are cynical profiteering, sadly missing the rebellious adolescent imagination and fun of the original comic books.

  Report as inappropriate

• Al Ewing said...

  Posted on Jun 18 2008 20:57 Ang Lee's film wasn't so much 'daringly Freudian' as 'daringly difficult to watch'. That aside, I saw this film in my local arthouse cinema, proving that there is room for it to be under the same roof as cinema that engages the human heart as opposed to the human 'aw yeah boyeee he just punched that guy through eight walls' organ. I'd like to believe that I can enjoy a film about two giant monsters hitting each other and then, on a different day, enjoy something a little more cerebral and emotionally deep. But hey, what's life without a herd of vulgar masses to rail patronisingly against?

  Report as inappropriate

• opinionator said...

  Posted on Jun 15 2008 17:53 Relax, WhatAFanboy. Your cruelty is alarming. Are you in a lot of pain, or are you habitually offensive? It's impossible to take your comments seriously, difficult to even hear them at all, over the blaring wickedness you likely mistake for strength. Your review is about you, not the Hulk. Talk about anger issues.
  About the Hulk, I like both versions. Why either/or this? It's a testament to the concept that it works in different ways. Oh, and WhatAfanboy, stop trying to convince everyone else you're smarter than they are, no one is buying it but you.

  Report as inappropriate

• WhatAFanboy said...

  Posted on Jun 14 2008 17:48 No, actually, fanboys don't deserve good art, since they insist on flocking to garbage. Your sarcasm doesn't hide your fear of your own inadequacy and your limited capacity for emotional and aesthetic engagement. The most you can do is deploy cliches -- does the phrase "ivory tower" really mean anything anymore? -- and attack the reviewer's tone, since you know full well that you don't have anything substantive to say in your defence. This movie is crap. You like crap. You ought to accept that by now.

  Report as inappropriate

• Brendan said...

  Posted on Jun 13 2008 22:24 I partially agree. I was a fan of the comic book and I liked the Ang Lee film. From a pure fanboy point of view, I thought the Hulk in the ANg Lee film looked and acted more like the Hulk from the comic than this new one. Fans of the TV show, however, were dissapointed in the Ang Lee version because it rightly ignored the TV show.
  I enjoyed the new film as disposable fun and got a kick out of all the references to other Marvel characters, not just Tony Stark. But Ang Lee's Hulk was superior.

  Report as inappropriate

• propster said...

  Posted on Jun 13 2008 18:36 This film is a definite turn in the right direction for the franchise.Ed Norton and co elevate this to another level. No doubt would have been even better if marvel allowed Norton and the director's cut to be released.
  Don't listen to Mr. Rothkop,he is clearly not a fan of the genre andis predisposed to criticism.Go see it, it's a blast!!

  Report as inappropriate

• WhatASnob said...

  Posted on Jun 13 2008 17:53 "Don't *deserve* directors like Ang Lee?" Feeling mighty preachy up there on your ivory tower, ain't cha? Oh Golly, we don't deserve the beauty of Ang Lee, and we don't appreciate his misunderstood genius. Oh, how tragic!!!
  Sheesh.

  Report as inappropriate