#1  
Old 11-09-2003, 07:41 PM
The Hulk



You are an idiot.

That's the first thing that comes to mind when the credits roll, and I'm officially blown away by this spectacular movie. Let me say it again: you're an idiot. I always stand up for the mainstream audience, I really do (being mainstream myself), but after hearing so much whining about this film, I finally got to check it out. And you know what? It's not bad. It's not good. It's great. Here we finally have a smart, serious super-hero movie (with no little wink-wink moments: " Hey, it isn't like we're in a comic book !" Hahahahaha . . . ugh) with a spectacular character that looks better than Gollum (gasp!) . . . and you people hate it.

You make me sick. I spit on you.

Now that I'm done insulting everyone and their mother's, let's get to the nitty-gritty. You all know the drill with Hulk, so say it with me: mild-mannered scientist gets angry, turns into unstoppable green guy. SMASH! But here's what you don't know: The scientist, Bruce Banner, has some repressed childhood memories. He's also got a thing for a teary-eyed co-worker. And when he gets an accidental burst of gamma rays, things start to get complicated. What we have here is a somber, dark, moody, phsycological, action-packed drama that perfectly mirrors it's key character. This movie is the Hulk. It explodes along with Bruce Banner, sucking us into some very well-shot, well-scripted acion. And when Banner chills out, the movie chills out, and you're offered enough meat to fill up all you four-hundred pound character-development aficionados. Hulk manages to combine everything into a neat little package with a bow to boot; it really couldn't have turned out any better.

As for acting, what do you expect from the likes of Nolte, Elliott, Connelly, and Bana? Bana himself is relatively unknown, but I really hope the 'flop' that was this movie doesn't limit him in the future. The guy can brood. Rock on. Those that really stand out in this piece are Connelly (Betty) and Nolte (Bruce's father). Connelly can cry on cue and she does it like a champ--way to sock home the emotion. I think I'm becoming a fan. Nolte's been consistently bashed at these boards for his 'over-the-top' performance, which was actually anything but. The guy had a mellow anger that worked quite well, especially at the end scene (with his son . . . you'll see). Yeah, it looked like a Shakespear play for a minute, but is that really a bad thing? Shakespear's wildly considered a genius. Good all around.

And I have to give props to Lee. The guy knows how to shoot a movie. Your eyes'll be bouncing around the screen like it's second nature. We got split-screens, triple-screens, comic-book panels, stenciled outlines at one character's demise . . . and it works. In lesser hands everything would have surely fallen apart. I'll be the first to admit it: Hulk could've been a disaster. This movie needed Lee, and he did his job.

I really can't begin to share my feelings on Hulk, because then I'll pull a Bruce Banner. Let's just say I'm 'dissapointed' that this movie wasn't the smash-hit it deserved to be. Maybe 'shocked' would be a better word. If anything, Hulk is proof that there is never a garauntee that a movie will be a hit, no matter how good it is.

Don't believe the word of mouth, or you'll miss out on the best super-hero movie EVER. That's right, I said it. So just what am I going to give this movie? Before you see, get the bloody hell out of the house and rent this movie. Then buy it. Then force everyone you know to watch it. And by then . . . you'll want to see it again.


10/10--a superhero movies like no other. I'm speechless.



REVIEW DATABASE

MOVIES:

28 Days Later : 7/10
8mm : 9/10
Alien : 6/10
Audition : 7/10
August Underground : 5/10
Battle Royale : 8/10
Cannibal Holocaust : 9/10
Dawn of the Dead : 5/10
Day of the Dead: 8/10
The Dead Zone : 7/10
Donnie Darko : 10/10
The Eye : 7/10
Elephant : 6/10
Freaky Friday : 8/10
Ginger Snaps : 7/10
Hardcore : 6/10
Hellboy : 6/10
House of 1000 Corpses : 4/10
House of Sand and Fog : 9/10
Hulk: 10/10
Irreversible : 8/10
Kill Bill Volume 1 : 8/10
Kung Pow! Enter the Fist : 7/10
Last House on the Left: 3/10
May : 10/10
Memento : 8/10
Mulholland Drive : 7/10
Near Dark : 6/10
One Hour Photo : 9/10
Perfect Blue: 9/10
Requiem For a Dream : 8/10
Se7en : 9/10
Terminator 2: Judgment Day : 10/10
Thesis : 6/10
Underworld : 7/10
Willard : 8/10


TELEVISION
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 5) : A
Neon Genesis Evangelion - Perfect Collection : B-
End of Evangelion : A-


BOOKS
Stephen King's IT : 5/5 stars

Last edited by C-Desecration-; 09-20-2004 at 04:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-09-2003, 08:40 PM
Wow. We've had our little quibbles in the past over insignifigant things, but this makes up for a lot of it. I can't agree with you more on how this movie is sooooooooo underrated. Seriously.

This film is completely absorbing to sit through as we learn about Bruce Banner, as well as his former girlfriend, played by the beautiful and great Jennifer Connelly, and his father, played by Nick Nolte. We learn a good deal from all these characters (is that character development I hear?). The plot takes its time for Mr. Banner to finally start freaking out, so we have the necessary time to learn about these characters (is that plot development??), so that when the "hulking" finally starts, there will be more of an impact. I admit, the pace is slow, but isn't slow as in boring. It takes its time for the better.

The action we finally get to see is a wonderful sight. The special effects are IMO good enough to portray the Hulk. We first see Mr. Banner transform into the Hulk three times in the movie. The first time within 45 minutes for minor carnage, the second time in the middle for some more-than-minor carnage, then a finaly time towards the end for really serious carnage. Don't be afraid of these numbers of instances. We get a lot action for lesser time.

One of the biggest "problems" the "mainstream audience" will have is the film's pace, as I've already explained. There are so many more fast-paced movies out there, that the mainstream audience dismisses slower pacing as "boring." Maybe it's because I have the patience of a snail (which would be a lot, since they'll take an entire day to slug from one end of a house to the other), but I was able to really get into the film. The movie took its time with the characters, so I cared for the characters a lot, and as a result, I found the action we finally is more rewarding. I pity the typical "mainstream" audience of today that don't have the patience for obsorbing films like "The Hulk," and many others (including 2002's "Solaris") that are unfairly overlooked, because of the todays's lack of an attention span. Yes, I said it. I don't want to seem ignorant, but that's how I feel about people not being able to accept movies, like "The Hulk." It's my opinion, as well as, seemingly, C-Desecration's.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-09-2003, 08:40 PM
Haven't seen it...don't know if I will...after reading this...probably.

How come you haven't reviewed Donnie Darko? Im sure you really really like it, reading 'Hello and Goodbye' made me see lots of similarities. Inspiration?

Oh, btw C. Could I send you a sample of a novel i'm *trying* to write so you can give me some pointers with respective bashing?

Hehe...you're like Simon from American Idol. No offence intended.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-10-2003, 10:55 AM
Oh my god . . . I agree with duke! The fact that you liked Wicker Man (I believe) is rited by your appreciation of the hulk. Bravo.
*scratches duke off the list of people to kill*


And X, see the movie. I'll probably put up a review of DD later today (I have a feeling my time on the boards is numbered), because yeah, I did love it. Check out my fav movies list.


All in all I'm just trying to bump this.
Come on, more reviews from people who appreciate this masterpiece (or those who disliked it so they can be lynched )!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-10-2003, 11:57 AM
I appreciated The Hulk's downbeat tone. The hushed first half complements the souped-up second half. The CGI is serviceable, the love angle is believable, and the acting is mostly refined. Ang Lee's direction is a tad too stylized. At times, the three-panel approach took me out of the action, and it really wasn't necessary. Yes, The Hulk was once a comic book. I get it. I dug Nolte's hammy role, although the ending is a glitzy, vociferous mess. The villains were also too conventional, but that's enough bitching for one post. I wouldn't call it faultless, but The Hulk definitely deserved more attention. Perhaps an earlier release date would have done the trick.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-10-2003, 02:45 PM
I enjoyed THE HULK for what it was, the action was amazing and the story was lush enough to compliment it with a down to earth approach to the spectacular special effects. The movie could have veen toned down though, the running time ends up to beefy for its material.

RELATED:

THE INCREDIBLE HULK RETURNS: TV movie from 1988 that has the Hulk and Thor teaming up to fight off Tim Thomerson (!) and his cronies. The action is well done, the characters are decent, and besides the horrible slow motion, the movie had a professional direction. Good stuff.

As was TRAILS OF THE INCREDIBLE HULK
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-10-2003, 03:03 PM
I saw some of the movie(My brother rented it), and what I saw was good(The hulk-dogs and some of the more serious scenes)

I'll have to see the whole thing for myself though. Great review, BTW.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-11-2003, 08:02 AM

I don't mean to sound like a prick, but this is not a horror movie. My question is. Can we post other movies in this section, or do they have to be horror? I don't mind posting about horror at all, but maybe we could have other genres like action/sci fi/ thrillers, or a hybrid of them. What do ya people think. Anyhoo, I'd give The Hulk a decent review.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-11-2003, 09:03 AM
I felt that Hulk works great as a tragic monster film, which is probably why it was disliked by so many movie-goers this past summer. They wanted a superhero movie in the vein of Spider-man or something of the like. It was great that Ang Lee made the Hulk a sympathetic creature with intelligence and not just some lumbering giant. I wasn't the least bit convinced by Josh Lucas, though. He seemed to overact with his character Talbot. And the Hulk dog-fight sequence kicked ass!

My rating: 3/4
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-11-2003, 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Movie Man
I don't mean to sound like a prick, but this is not a horror movie. My question is. Can we post other movies in this section, or do they have to be horror?
The Hulk is debatable as to whether or not it's horror enough (it could go either way), but in general, the answer would be no. For non-horror films, you have the Video Reviews forum, not to mention the rest of the "normal" forums.

And I agree, Klown. Lucas rubbed me the wrong way, and he wasn't the love-to-hate character that he should have been.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-11-2003, 04:30 PM
Well, arrow reviewed it in the horror section, so I decided to toss Hulk into this forum. I've seen the likes of T3 and Revolutions (matrix) in here, so I guess the rules are bending a little, huh?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-11-2003, 04:40 PM
I think it's horror-related since the very notion of the Hulk came to Stan Lee from Frankenstein's monster (Boris Karloff) and the Jeckyll & Hyde premise.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-11-2003, 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by C-Desecration-
*scratches duke off the list of people to kill*
*clears throat*

AHEM...*cough*whatamidoingthere?*cough*
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-11-2003, 11:41 PM
Don't worry X, I don't know where you live . . .
. . . yet


Anymore? Spread love for the hulk, guys (gals included)!





Last edited by C-Desecration-; 11-11-2003 at 11:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-12-2003, 12:47 PM
I agree. This is a HIGHLY underrated film. I give it a 8/10.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-24-2003, 10:03 PM
Seen it.

C. . .I will tell you. . .I utterly disagree. I didn't like this movie. . .I'll do a full review later but as far as this goes, I'll tell you I gave it a 5/10. I did like it better than I thought I would though.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-25-2003, 07:00 AM

The Good about The Hulk:

1- Good Cast - Jennifer Connely was great, Bana was perfect as Bruce, and Nick Nolte was what he was meant to be, a crazy wacked out scientist with a thirst for power.

3- Great Special fx- The Hulk looked amazing! Despite some schmoes hating the cgi, I thought it was quality stuff and a joy to look at. I cant take my eyes of the screen whenever I see the Hulk up there. I mean, come on hes a green behemoth. What else did you expect?

4- The Action sequences were mind blowing - The pacing on this film was weird Ill accept it. But once the action gets going....it really goes into high gear. Hulk really does SMASH! It almost felt like the amount of action sequences balanced out for the amount of excessive banter.


The Bad about The Hulk:

1- Certain scenes could have been trimmed - I mean in certain scenes a character would take forever to say something, to put just one point across the character would talk for 10 minutes. I just think, for pacing reasons this film did need to have certain conversations trimmed down a bit and they would have still stated their point. At the same time the pacing would have moved along just a tad faster.

2- The ending. There were sometimes during the ending sequence were it was hard to understand what the hell was happening on the screen. It was almost bordering on abstract images.

3- The comic book panels. Ok the film is based on a comicbook, but we came to see a movie. Not see a comic book. I myself am a comic fan, but I found this technique of Lees a bit too distracting. It completely takes you out of the story. Your like "what the fuck is going on here" and when you ask yourself that, you are taken out of the film because you were distracted by the tricks. And that does not do a film good.

Final comments:

As you saw from my comments above, my main gripe with this film was the pacing. Its not that I dont enjoy good character development or an interesting conversation....but on this film certain scenes felt unnecesary. Certain conversation way too long. I kept remembering that in a script everything that a character says or does should help to move the story along.

In the end this was detremental to the film. But it didnt stop me from enjoying the great fx, good acting and incredible action sequences. I mean, it was a true delight to see The Hulk a character Ive seen for ages on the pages of comics finally come to life on the big screen...and in such a big way.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-25-2003, 12:30 PM
Cast:
Eric Bana - Bruce
Jennifer Conelly - Betty
Nick Nolte - Banner

Plot:
An accident involving Gamma radiation hits cientist Bruce Banner, unleashing a huge ass monster when he gets pissed, a lot of weird things happen.

What I Thought:
Ok, maybe you've seen before that I am not exactly the biggest fan of comic book movies, the only ones I have really enjoyed are X2 (which strangely enough became one of my favorite movies) and Spider-Man. I didn't expect much from this one, The Hulk was never a comic book/comic book character that interested me and I thought watching the movie would almost be pointless, I was torn apart by the reviews I heard, it was either a masterpiece or a cheap excuse for an adaptation. But hey, I'm not a square so I decided to give it a shot.
I will have to accept, this movie was much, much better than what I expect it would be (fair enough, I was expecting a fat zero), but I still have quite a few complaints and not so many props. I'll start. The first thing you must have in mind while watching this movie is that this is most definitely NOT a superhero movie. Who's the superhero? Hulk wouldn't be, he does more harm than help so that in mind you have to notice how this movie plays like a minimalistic drama and it's very well executed. The main character, Bruce hits a jackpot on the emotions (I'm talking about character, acting will go later), he looks concerned about the problems going on.

Now about the creature itself, The Hulk being CGI and all, let me say that I was completely blown away by the amazing quality and lifelike detail given to the big dude, the transformations (alothough it's not exactly meant to be exciting) had me 'Wow'ing like audience at a David Copperfield show. The only second where the Hulk didn't hit it totally was the scenes where he was put aside a real person, nevertheless, well done. The creature isn't the only cool FX, the other effects (hand blending with metal for one) were very well done and extremely well handled. Props.

What I would say is it's biggest flaw (but not the only) would be it's very slow pace and fall-asleep narrative, I mean, the movie runs for two hours and a half, when it could have gone for around two hours. The characters take ages to go from 'point a' to 'point b' and it gets very boring. It takes around half an hour for the gamma radiation accident to happen, go figure the rest. But wait, at times this extra character driven narrative works well to develop the emotion given. Another big ass flaw is the ending, I was like "Come on!", I am sure they could have done something more powerful than the cheesy ass excuse for an ending given. You may disagree but I couldn't swallow those final three minutes.

Ang Lee hit it on both sides of the good-bad line. For the good side, his action packed sequences (namely the desert) were a blast to watch. He nailed it with the very dramatic shots of The Hulk against the shadows, standing in the closet door and the very surrealistic Hulk blasting through a door (symbolic-wise) and through a mirror. But on the other hand, there were those strange transitions going like a comic strip panel from side to side, the screen being split in two and three. These were cool but extremely overused, forty minutes through the movie, I got annoyed by them. It won't stop. There is also the mixture of surrealistic images annoyed me to a point of saying "What the fuck is going on??".

As for the acting...I'll put it quickly: All actors are wonderful, I am amazed. Not only did they hit the emotional peaks like champs, they were very well cast. But I must say that Nick Nolte (both him and his character) annoyed the living hell out of me, probably what was supposed to happen but after one hour, I didn't want him to appear on screen.

Overly, the movie happened to amuse me but annoyed me a lot of times, read the bottom line.

Gore:
We see a frog that goes all bubbly, someone cutting up a starfish, some random blood here and there and the transformations look allright. No gore was needed.

Overall Rating:
"6/10", although the movie annoyed me with it's visual 'treats' (bright colors, crazy movements and the panels) and an extended appearance by Nick Nolte, it's well cast, well acted and well executed drama amused me.

Last edited by X-Nightcrawler; 11-25-2003 at 12:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-25-2003, 03:13 PM
Poor hulk. So many people misunderstand it.

I'm a little taken aback by X's review (*circles X's name on list of people to kill*), but some of the cons he mentioned I can see depending on your mood. I sat down with this and expected a slow, thoughtful film; that's what I got. For me this movie never dragged, always having something that kept me interested. Again, I'm also the guy who dislikes Wicker Man and thinks Phantasm is laughably B-grade, so people tend to disagree with me.
I am glad that everyone agrees the effects were fucking amazing. Hulk really looked real on some occasions.

Pyschopath, you've seen it yet? From what you said it seems like you'd like it, and we need some more good reviews.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-25-2003, 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by C-Desecration-
*circles X's name on list of people to kill*
Damn, and I was here hoping I got removed.

Hehe, I must accept that writting the review made me appreciate the movie more.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-25-2003, 03:22 PM
Quote:
Damn, and I was here hoping I got removed.
Nope. I'm pretty picky with the people I, you know, would kill. I don't get the urge to murder very easily, so once you're there you're staying . . . uh . . . why the fuck's that dog lookin' at me like that?
*writes down 'the dog' on list of things to kill*

How's that for overplaying a joke until it's not funny but sad (or maybe creepy)? Oh well. I'm done.

Anyways, forgot to mention the thing about the panels (look here spacemonkey): I loved them! I never found them distracting or overused, and usually quite clever (the scene with Betty running down the stairs when Hulk's in the street and the editing does this VERY cool thing that kind of makes her run/pivot to the screen . . . hard to explain, but the people who've seen it should know). And the ending itself I thought was fairly mundane (it followed the likes of spider man, what with Hulk facing off against some arch nemesis), but it worked.
Take it ALLLLLLLLLL!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-25-2003, 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by C-Desecration-
Forgot to mention the thing about the panels (look here spacemonkey): I loved them! I never found them distracting or overused, and usually quite clever (the scene with Betty running down the stairs when Hulk's in the street and the editing does this VERY cool thing that kind of makes her run/pivot to the screen . . . hard to explain, but the people who've seen it should know). And the ending itself I thought was fairly mundane (it followed the likes of spider man, what with Hulk facing off against some arch nemesis), but it worked.
Take it ALLLLLLLLLL!
The first time I saw it I was like "what the fuck" the screen kept splitting in two three, and sometimes FIVE panels you couldnt focus on one thing...though I must admit sometimes it worked, like in that conversation Talbot has with Bruce in the office. The second time I saw it I was prepared for it, so it was less distracting. But still I could feel people going "what the hell is this shit?"

Some directors have used the split screen thing, but they havent overused it. A good example of this was in Requiem for a Dream, their it was used but not overdone, why? Because after a while it just gets annoying as was the case with The Hulk.

I appreciate a director trying new things, but if Lee had used those split screens a bit less, I would have appreciated it a bit more.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-25-2003, 04:22 PM
I saw it, and thought it sucked. 3/10. An C-Desecration, leave me the hell alone.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-25-2003, 04:25 PM
it was a decent film in my opinion I don't get why it was Getting so mush bad review to me the pace is just right for the Character development Eidting Techniques is overused but was a cool idea and Course like most guys you said all ready casting was great and acting good but I did feel the the main bad guy was Over the top and last thing the CGI was better looking then Spider-Man too Cartoonish style for my liking

7/10
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-25-2003, 08:59 PM
BUT, I am not worried because I'm in your black list, C. You know something? I'm safe here!! Nyahahahaha! You said it yourself you aren't coming anywhere near Mexico City!! Nyahahahaha!

Ok, now back to the reviews on THE HULK.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-10-2003, 02:13 PM
C-DES as a fan of the hulk comic I was awaiting the film with baited breath.
All I can say s that it is one the best films I have seen in a long time time Ang Lee really got behind the intreior of THE HULK in this film.
I personaly don't have time for people who think the film should have just been "HULK SMASH"...Peter David anyone.
Equaly I can't stand people who think the film is terrible because it isn't anything like the 1970's T.V camp fest.

C-DES I am sooo glad you rate this so highly...I would rate it as

9/10
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-10-2003, 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by psycho path
I saw some of the movie(My brother rented it), and what I saw was good(The hulk-dogs and some of the more serious scenes)

I'll have to see the whole thing for myself though. Great review, BTW.
Hell you don't sound like a prick just becuase you wanted to make a point

HULK is in the horror section due to the fact that the character is a typical depiction of a Jekyel and hyde syndrome.
That along with Frankenstiens mionster was the bases of Stan Lee and Kirbys character.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-10-2003, 09:12 PM
Review:6/10

The hulk is good on some levels...when its action time...this movie hits the spot. I enjoyed almost every sequence when Eric turned into the hulk. But, plot-wise.....this is where the movie blew the big one. I felt it dragged on a little and very much didnt keep my attention. Anyway, overall this was an alright movie , worth a peek if your interested, but if you want to see a good sperhero action film...i would suggest Spider-Man
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-17-2003, 12:07 PM
I like this FILM. I think many people were expecting a movie, but this film is more art than fluff.

Although some comic book style devices were used (and used effectively) "The Hulk" was another example of why Ang Lee will one day be mentioned in the same sentence as Scorsese and Tarantino. Lee has a definite knack for communicating human relationships that many other directors just don't.

To add, the casting worked well. I am biased however, Jennifer Connelly is one of the most attractive actresses working today (IMO), and additionally she's got game.

The Hulk is not a typical superhero, "The Hulk" is not a typical superhero movie.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-02-2004, 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack_Cheze
I like this FILM. I think many people were expecting a movie, but this film is more art than fluff.
Oh Reginald . . . I disagree!! *drives off*

This movie is mainstream as mainstream gets, it's as artsy as a pair of underwear (which can be artsy, Hulk isn't).

Still, a decent, slightly above average movie.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-02-2004, 08:08 PM
I'd go for artsy.
Mainstream doesn't have this methodical a pace, Mr. I-love-Final-Destination.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-02-2004, 08:42 PM
i really like Hulk, its definitely one of the best superhero flicks ive seen...i dont see why people bitch about it so much, sure it doesnt have a lot of action for the first half, instead it decides to have character development, something most films lack in...but when the action starts, it kicks ass, lots of smashing and bashing

and as far as it being mainstream, it isnt IMO, if it was there would be paper thing characters and it would just be 2 hours of carnage...i prefer it the way it is

10/10
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-02-2004, 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by C-Desecration-
I'd go for artsy.
Mainstream doesn't have this methodical a pace, Mr. I-love-Final-Destination.
I think I misunderstood, do you mean the pacing decides if the movie's mainstream or not?

The pace isn't slow, the pace is BAD, they're different things.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-02-2004, 10:01 PM
Mainstream pacing is different, you bet. T2? Fantastic movie. X2? Also great. But they're mainstream, and you can tell from their pacing. The slower, more deliberate movies aren't necessarily mainstream. Slow doesn't mean artsy, but, it just means "not intended to be maintream", not strictly or obviously.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-02-2004, 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by C-Desecration-
Mainstream pacing is different, you bet. T2? Fantastic movie. X2? Also great. But they're mainstream, and you can tell from their pacing. The slower, more deliberate movies aren't necessarily mainstream. Slow doesn't mean artsy, but, it just means "not intended to be maintream", not strictly or obviously.
You're kidding! That's . . . well . . . I disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-02-2004, 10:31 PM
Okay, I have to cut in here and help the defense. To elaborate more on C's ideas, T2 and X2 are both good movies, but they spend less time on character development and more time on action. That's not to say that the characters aren't developed all, but their stories pretty much jump in for action soon into the movie (not that its a bad thing) and we only get so much character development (I'd say around 2 dimensional).

"The Hulk," however, spends a good hour before seeing any action in order to develop the characters. And even afterwards, we only see the Hulk in small bits of action set pieces before the rousing finale. The whole time, between the action scenes, it is all talk and talk and talk as the characters are developed more and more indepthly (making them 3-dimensional). You don't see that in most movies today, especially action movies. That's the way "artsy" movies are basically made and that's why "The Hulk" can safely be classified under "artsy," whether you all like it or not.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-02-2004, 10:55 PM
Duke managed to untie whatever knot I got myself in.
Oh, and also, T2, X2, remember their humor? That's also an ingredient.
And just to clarify and all, even things like Mystic River? That was a hit. But it wasn't at all "mainstream". So I don't mean popular financially or anything, but mainstream is a tone, I think.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump