list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Hulk on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Hulk/215719/default.aspx Title: The Hulk
Year: 2003
Director: Ang Lee
Plot: Ang Lee directs the live-action feature film The Hulk, based on the Marvel comic book created by Stan Lee and illustrated by Jack Kirby. Emotionally stunted Dr. Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) is part of a research team at the University of California at Berkeley. Corporate hustler Glenn Talbot (Josh Lucas) takes notice of the lab and makes plans to take it over. Then Bruce accidentally gets hit by an experimental ray and grows into a huge beast, destroying the lab in the process. A creepy janitor who claims to be his real father, Dr. David Banner (Nick Nolte), starts to secretly use the experimental ray on himself. He creates some mutant dogs and sends them after Bruce's lab mate and ex-girlfriend Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). After Bruce saves her life in the form of the Hulk, she lets her distant father, General Ross (Sam Elliott), take him to an abandoned army base in the desert. However, Glenn Talbot takes over the operation and wants to patent the creature's superpowers for his own profit, so he holds Bruce unconscious in an isolation tank. When provoked, Bruce turns into the Hulk and makes a break for San Francisco, leading to a desert chase sequence involving military aircraft, tanks, and bombs. Only the sight of Betty can make him turn back to his human form. When he is eventually captured, Dr. David Banner shows up for a final confrontation with his son and his old adversary, General Ross. ~ Andrea LeVasseur, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 7
Number of Lists: 35
Number of blog posts: 9
Number of discussion threads: 10
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Sun, 10 May 2009 22:20:55 GMTThe Hulk2003Ang Lee<a href="/players/P___166472/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ang Lee</a> directs the live-action feature film The Hulk, based on the Marvel comic book created by <a href="/players/P____99176/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stan Lee</a> and illustrated by Jack Kirby. Emotionally stunted Dr. Bruce Banner (<a href="/players/P___224103/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eric Bana</a>) is part of a research team at the University of California at Berkeley. Corporate hustler Glenn Talbot (<a href="/players/P___187022/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Josh Lucas</a>) takes notice of the lab and makes plans to take it over. Then Bruce accidentally gets hit by an experimental ray and grows into a huge beast, destroying the lab in the process. A creepy janitor who claims to be his real father, Dr. David Banner (<a href="/players/P____52916/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Nick Nolte</a>), starts to secretly use the experimental ray on himself. He creates some mutant dogs and sends them after Bruce's lab mate and ex-girlfriend Betty Ross (<a href="/players/P____14510/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jennifer Connelly</a>). After Bruce saves her life in the form of the Hulk, she lets her distant father, General Ross (<a href="/players/P____21648/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sam Elliott</a>), take him to an abandoned army base in the desert. However, Glenn Talbot takes over the operation and wants to patent the creature's superpowers for his own profit, so he holds Bruce unconscious in an isolation tank. When provoked, Bruce turns into the Hulk and makes a break for San Francisco, leading to a desert chase sequence involving military aircraft, tanks, and bombs. Only the sight of Betty can make him turn back to his human form. When he is eventually captured, Dr. David Banner shows up for a final confrontation with his son and his old adversary, General Ross. ~ Andrea LeVasseur, All Movie Guide7Taggedy Taggged (6-10)359102http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t87913igeju.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Hulk/215719/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/23/38761.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/23/2008 12:00:52 PM
Body: Should special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/23/2008 12:00:52 PMShould special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Comic_Book_Movies/The_Hulk_VS_The_Incredible_Hulk/211/37435/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: Comic Book Movies
Post Date: 11/19/2008 10:49:12 AM
Body: My comic-book loving nerdy gamer friends keep telling me that Ang Lee's The Hulk (trailer) sucked, and that Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk (trailer) was waaaayyy better. Personally, I think their taste in movies is just sad, and I really liked Lee's The Hulk. So what does everyone else think? I want to compile a definitive vote on the matter.
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:49:12 GMTrjspragueComic Book Movies11/19/2008 10:49:12 AMMy comic-book loving nerdy gamer friends keep telling me that Ang Lee's The Hulk (trailer) sucked, and that Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk (trailer) was waaaayyy better. Personally, I think their taste in movies is just sad, and I really liked Lee's The Hulk. So what does everyone else think? I want to compile a definitive vote on the matter. http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/11/7/37100.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 11/7/2008 11:01:33 PM
Body: As a longtime fan of Marvel Comics characters I’m having a blast with all the movies that have been coming out in the last eight years or so, going back to 2000’s X-Men. But while they’ve been alternately fun or exciting it’s just now that it’s getting interesting, with Marvel now tying all their movies together in anticipation of 2011’s The Avengers. The Incredible Hulk is quite good, and this is coming from someone who actually more or less enjoys 2003’s Ang Lee-directed Hulk. Edward Norton does a good job as Bruce Banner and everyone else, including Liv Tyler, is enjoyable as his love interest Betty Ross. What The Incredible Hulk manages to do is both be more serious and be more of a comic book movie. It’s fast-paced and exciting. Plus there’s a lot of inside Marvel stuff going on, including a lot of stuff about the Super Soldier serum that’s likely to tie into the upcoming Captain America movie.        Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 04:01:33 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog11/7/2008 11:01:33 PMAs a longtime fan of Marvel Comics characters I’m having a blast with all the movies that have been coming out in the last eight years or so, going back to 2000’s X-Men. But while they’ve been alternately fun or exciting it’s just now that it’s getting interesting, with Marvel now tying all their movies together in anticipation of 2011’s The Avengers. The Incredible Hulk is quite good, and this is coming from someone who actually more or less enjoys 2003’s Ang Lee-directed Hulk. Edward Norton does a good job as Bruce Banner and everyone else, including Liv Tyler, is enjoyable as his love interest Betty Ross. What The Incredible Hulk manages to do is both be more serious and be more of a comic book movie. It’s fast-paced and exciting. Plus there’s a lot of inside Marvel stuff going on, including a lot of stuff about the Super Soldier serum that’s likely to tie into the upcoming Captain America movie.        Originally posted on:Chris Thilk http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_THURSDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35566/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: RaeRae84
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/26/2008 2:47:31 AM
Body: [quote user="csprague"] Thursday Eagle Eye ChallengeJudge Dredd (2005)(1) staloneDemolition Man (1993)(2) wesley snipesBlade II (2002)(3) ron pearlmanHellboy (2004)(4) john hurt V for Vendetta (2006)(5) hugo weavingLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) viggo mortensonA History of Violence (2005)(7) william hurtThe Hulk (2003)(8) jennifer connellyThe Rocketeer (1991)(9) paul sorvinoDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: based on comic books [/quote]
]]>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:47:31 GMTRaeRae84Filmgaming9/26/2008 2:47:31 AM[quote user="csprague"] Thursday Eagle Eye ChallengeJudge Dredd (2005)(1) staloneDemolition Man (1993)(2) wesley snipesBlade II (2002)(3) ron pearlmanHellboy (2004)(4) john hurt V for Vendetta (2006)(5) hugo weavingLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) viggo mortensonA History of Violence (2005)(7) william hurtThe Hulk (2003)(8) jennifer connellyThe Rocketeer (1991)(9) paul sorvinoDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: based on comic books [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/THURSDAY_Challenge_freebie_from_skypilot/563/35563/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/25/2008 10:57:56 PM
Body: Hey players, I made a mistake, so everyone's going to get #7 right. I though William Hurt played General Ross in The Hulk (2003), but silly me, he only plays General Ross in The Incredible Hulk (2008)! So again, the answer I was going for was William Hurt...but I blew it. Everybody gets #7 right no matter what they put. Deeply sorry for the fake out, adam forrest
]]>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:57:56 GMTSkyPilotFilmgaming9/25/2008 10:57:56 PMHey players, I made a mistake, so everyone's going to get #7 right. I though William Hurt played General Ross in The Hulk (2003), but silly me, he only plays General Ross in The Incredible Hulk (2008)! So again, the answer I was going for was William Hurt...but I blew it. Everybody gets #7 right no matter what they put. Deeply sorry for the fake out, adam forrest http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_THURSDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35557/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/25/2008 9:27:52 PM
Body: Thursday Eagle Eye Challenge Judge Dredd (2005)(1) StalloneDemolition Man (1993)(2) Wesley SnipesBlade II (2002) (3) Ron Pearlman Hellboy (2004)(4) John Hurt V for Vendetta (2006)(5) Hugo WeavingLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) Viggo MortinsenA History of Violence (2005)(7) Unexpected bursts of anger/violence/rageThe Hulk (2003)(8) Jennifer ConnollyThe Rocketeer (1991)(9) 1930s settingDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: Based on a comic/graphic novel
]]>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:27:52 GMTTenenbaumsFilmgaming9/25/2008 9:27:52 PMThursday Eagle Eye Challenge Judge Dredd (2005)(1) StalloneDemolition Man (1993)(2) Wesley SnipesBlade II (2002) (3) Ron Pearlman Hellboy (2004)(4) John Hurt V for Vendetta (2006)(5) Hugo WeavingLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) Viggo MortinsenA History of Violence (2005)(7) Unexpected bursts of anger/violence/rageThe Hulk (2003)(8) Jennifer ConnollyThe Rocketeer (1991)(9) 1930s settingDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: Based on a comic/graphic novel http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_THURSDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35547/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/25/2008 3:17:15 PM
Body: Judge Dredd (2005)Two words in the titleDemolition Man (1993)Sci-Fi moviesBlade II (2002)Both movies feature actorsHellboy (2004)Shot in colorV for Vendetta (2006)FictionLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)Feature dialogueA History of Violence (2005)Wide theatrical release in the USAThe Hulk (2003)Released with in the last 17 yearsThe Rocketeer (1991)Movies that actually existDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: vowels in the title
]]>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:17:15 GMTRisseladaFilmgaming9/25/2008 3:17:15 PMJudge Dredd (2005)Two words in the titleDemolition Man (1993)Sci-Fi moviesBlade II (2002)Both movies feature actorsHellboy (2004)Shot in colorV for Vendetta (2006)FictionLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)Feature dialogueA History of Violence (2005)Wide theatrical release in the USAThe Hulk (2003)Released with in the last 17 yearsThe Rocketeer (1991)Movies that actually existDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: vowels in the title http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/THURSDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35525/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: csprague
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/25/2008 9:11:08 AM
Body: Thursday Eagle Eye ChallengeJudge Dredd (2005)(1) Demolition Man (1993)(2) Blade II (2002)(3) There's more than one connection here, but we're looking for an actor. Hellboy (2004)(4) V for Vendetta (2006)(5) Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) A History of Violence (2005)(7) The Hulk (2003)(8) The Rocketeer (1991)(9) Dick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common:
]]>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:11:08 GMTcspragueFilmgaming9/25/2008 9:11:08 AMThursday Eagle Eye ChallengeJudge Dredd (2005)(1) Demolition Man (1993)(2) Blade II (2002)(3) There's more than one connection here, but we're looking for an actor. Hellboy (2004)(4) V for Vendetta (2006)(5) Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) A History of Violence (2005)(7) The Hulk (2003)(8) The Rocketeer (1991)(9) Dick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/6/15/31264.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 11:43:02 PM
Body: Oh , Kermit T. Frog. What a sage you are. For you have foretold the dilemma facing one similarly hued hero and his battle for acceptance among the masses. Let's take a look at his Magi-like prognostication on a more thorough level to unveil his astute observations concerning the current box office bind concerning one “Incredible Hulk”: It's not that easy bein' green,Having to spend each day the color of leaves. For five years, the not-so-jolly, lime-colored character has been the target of many a nasty fan-boy rant, ever since director Ang Lee decided to saddle the comic book adaptation with Freudian subtext and layer his tale with psychoanalyses better left on the couch than in a mega-watt movie. The film was levelled by hoards of angry basement-dwellers who puffed up like the titular beast and smashed the best way they knew how – through anonymous postings on message boards. In an attempt to rectify the situation, Hulk's owners, Marvel Comics, have opted to right the wrongs and deliver fans Hulk 2.0 (aka “The Incredible Hulk”), “Now with 50 percent more mayhem!” Truth be told, this version resembles the progression of comic-book-based adaptations hitting screens these days. It features a nuanced, serious actor (Edward Norton) in the title role of scientist Bruce Banner. And allow the depth and breadth of the character to be revealed not by laborious backstory, but by the lead actor's history (just as Robert Downey was pitch perfect to portray a womanizing, substance abusing millionaire, so is Norton at playing a deeply philosophical persona given to fits of confrontation and on-set anger). When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow or gold -Or something much more colorful like that. Hmmmm. Red? Gold? The exact same colors as one other Marvel comic superstar rocketing up the multiplex by the name of “Iron Man” (to date, grossing a hair under $300 million and on its way to becoming the biggest hit of the summer so far). The film opened to stellar receipts and glowing praise from fans and critics alike. Yes, it would be nice to be him, but baby steps are needed even when you are a column-sized slab of sinew and rage. And people tend to pass you over'cause you're not standing out like flashy sparkles in the water – or in the sky. The early trailers for this “Hulk” reboot did not show much promise, demonstrating the typical CGI-enhanced transformation and a climactic battle on city streets that seemed to be swiped straight from “Jurassic Park II: The Lost World.” And while both may be true, there is much more than standard pixel-enhanced entertainment to be found in this version, due, in large part, to Norton as Dr. Banner, and Tim Roth as Hulk's main military man nemesis. Credit is also forwarded to director Louis Laterrier (“The Transporter”). Calling his film's revved-up action pieces “breakneck” would be a disservice to other body part being broken during the proceedings. But green's the color of spring.And green can be cool and friendly like. Perhaps a bit too friendly, Kermie. For all its hurdle-hops over its predecessor, this “Hulk” is diminished only when it stops to smell the roses, or, in this case Betty Ross (played with gaspy solemnity by one Liv Tyler). While there is no doubt she can halt even an enraged 9-foot-tall ogre with her sultry smile, the minute those perfectly puffy lips part to deliver a line, she is as believable a scientist as Denise Richard is a nuclear chemist in the James Bond opus “The World is Not Enough.” Liv and let die, I say. I am green and it'll do fine, it's beautiful!And I think it's what I want to be. Norton's convincing performance aside, “The Incredible Hulk” is at its best when it does not take itself too seriously. Bits of comic tchotchkes are sprinkled throughout (including an inspired comic performance by Tim Blake Nelson in the third act. It is also generous in dealing out hints of a future Marvel filmic universe (don't blink to catch who supplied the military equipment and who makes a brief cameo at the film's end). “The Incredible Hulk” is not in the same stratosphere as this summer's “Iron Man” or 2005's “Batman Begins,” but it does manage to pick off the scabs left behind by its cinematic sibling of similar name. And that alone should have it seeing the most important shade of green it could hope for, all plastered with the faces of dead presidents.
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:43:02 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog6/15/2008 11:43:02 PMOh , Kermit T. Frog. What a sage you are. For you have foretold the dilemma facing one similarly hued hero and his battle for acceptance among the masses. Let's take a look at his Magi-like prognostication on a more thorough level to unveil his astute observations concerning the current box office bind concerning one &ldquo;Incredible Hulk&rdquo;: It's not that easy bein' green,Having to spend each day the color of leaves. For five years, the not-so-jolly, lime-colored character has been the target of many a nasty fan-boy rant, ever since director Ang Lee decided to saddle the comic book adaptation with Freudian subtext and layer his tale with psychoanalyses better left on the couch than in a mega-watt movie. The film was levelled by hoards of angry basement-dwellers who puffed up like the titular beast and smashed the best way they knew how &ndash; through anonymous postings on message boards. In an attempt to rectify the situation, Hulk's owners, Marvel Comics, have opted to right the wrongs and deliver fans Hulk 2.0 (aka &ldquo;The Incredible Hulk&rdquo;), &ldquo;Now with 50 percent more mayhem!&rdquo; Truth be told, this version resembles the progression of comic-book-based adaptations hitting screens these days. It features a nuanced, serious actor (Edward Norton) in the title role of scientist Bruce Banner. And allow the depth and breadth of the character to be revealed not by laborious backstory, but by the lead actor's history (just as Robert Downey was pitch perfect to portray a womanizing, substance abusing millionaire, so is Norton at playing a deeply philosophical persona given to fits of confrontation and on-set anger). When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow or gold -Or something much more colorful like that. Hmmmm. Red? Gold? The exact same colors as one other Marvel comic superstar rocketing up the multiplex by the name of &ldquo;Iron Man&rdquo; (to date, grossing a hair under $300 million and on its way to becoming the biggest hit of the summer so far). The film opened to stellar receipts and glowing praise from fans and critics alike. Yes, it would be nice to be him, but baby steps are needed even when you are a column-sized slab of sinew and rage. And people tend to pass you over'cause you're not standing out like flashy sparkles in the water &ndash; or in the sky. The early trailers for this &ldquo;Hulk&rdquo; reboot did not show much promise, demonstrating the typical CGI-enhanced transformation and a climactic battle on city streets that seemed to be swiped straight from &ldquo;Jurassic Park II: The Lost World.&rdquo; And while both may be true, there is much more than standard pixel-enhanced entertainment to be found in this version, due, in large part, to Norton as Dr. Banner, and Tim Roth as Hulk's main military man nemesis. Credit is also forwarded to director Louis Laterrier (&ldquo;The Transporter&rdquo;). Calling his film's revved-up action pieces &ldquo;breakneck&rdquo; would be a disservice to other body part being broken during the proceedings. But green's the color of spring.And green can be cool and friendly like. Perhaps a bit too friendly, Kermie. For all its hurdle-hops over its predecessor, this &ldquo;Hulk&rdquo; is diminished only when it stops to smell the roses, or, in this case Betty Ross (played with gaspy solemnity by one Liv Tyler). While there is no doubt she can halt even an enraged 9-foot-tall ogre with her sultry smile, the minute those perfectly puffy lips part to deliver a line, she is as believable a scientist as Denise Richard is a nuclear chemist in the James Bond opus &ldquo;The World is Not Enough.&rdquo; Liv and let die, I say. I am green and it'll do fine, it's beautiful!And I think it's what I want to be. Norton's convincing performance aside, &ldquo;The Incredible Hulk&rdquo; is at its best when it does not take itself too seriously. Bits of comic tchotchkes are sprinkled throughout (including an inspired comic performance by Tim Blake Nelson in the third act. It is also generous in dealing out hints of a future Marvel filmic universe (don't blink to catch who supplied the military equipment and who makes a brief cameo at the film's end). &ldquo;The Incredible Hulk&rdquo; is not in the same stratosphere as this summer's &ldquo;Iron Man&rdquo; or 2005's &ldquo;Batman Begins,&rdquo; but it does manage to pick off the scabs left behind by its cinematic sibling of similar name. And that alone should have it seeing the most important shade of green it could hope for, all plastered with the faces of dead presidents. http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/6/12/31190.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 6/12/2008 6:01:28 PM
Body: “If Iron Man was about America’s power overseas — specifically in Afghanistan, where much of the movie takes place — then the Incredible Hulk is about what happens to our soldiers when they come home,” writes Charlie Jane Anders in a long review at io9. It’s about the impossibility of transforming young men into “super-soldiers” and then expecting them to blend back in.” Related: Anders takes a look at superheroes who can’t have sex, including “Poor Rogue from the X-men. She’s got the cool Susan Sontag hair, and the leather jumpsuit, and the hot boyfriend… but she can never touch anyone.” Anders isn’t exactly ga-ga over New Hulk, but she calls Ang Lee’s version “disastrous.” At Bright Lights After Dark, Erich Kuersten vehemently disagrees. “Man, it’s a sad day on our bitterly defended-from-Galactacus earth when an Ang Lee Hulk film is just dismissed outright, and here it is a super and vastly underrated picture. Granted the CGI was a bit cartoony in the previews (I know I laughed at the time) but looked much better in real big screen life.” David Poland bottom lines it: “The truth is, for all its flaws, there is not a single frame of The Incredible Hulk that contains a fragment of the artistry that Ang Lee brought to Hulk. Of course, the film was too long and the psychodrama too thick for most people. But there was true aesthetic beauty. I hate to even pull this one out of the backpack, but Speed Racer? Genius in comparison. Every frame.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:01:28 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog6/12/2008 6:01:28 PM “If Iron Man was about America’s power overseas — specifically in Afghanistan, where much of the movie takes place — then the Incredible Hulk is about what happens to our soldiers when they come home,” writes Charlie Jane Anders in a long review at io9. It’s about the impossibility of transforming young men into “super-soldiers” and then expecting them to blend back in.” Related: Anders takes a look at superheroes who can’t have sex, including “Poor Rogue from the X-men. She’s got the cool Susan Sontag hair, and the leather jumpsuit, and the hot boyfriend… but she can never touch anyone.” Anders isn’t exactly ga-ga over New Hulk, but she calls Ang Lee’s version “disastrous.” At Bright Lights After Dark, Erich Kuersten vehemently disagrees. “Man, it’s a sad day on our bitterly defended-from-Galactacus earth when an Ang Lee Hulk film is just dismissed outright, and here it is a super and vastly underrated picture. Granted the CGI was a bit cartoony in the previews (I know I laughed at the time) but looked much better in real big screen life.” David Poland bottom lines it: “The truth is, for all its flaws, there is not a single frame of The Incredible Hulk that contains a fragment of the artistry that Ang Lee brought to Hulk. Of course, the film was too long and the psychodrama too thick for most people. But there was true aesthetic beauty. I hate to even pull this one out of the backpack, but Speed Racer? Genius in comparison. Every frame.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/father/MemberTagFilms.aspxfather
Number of films tagged: 3580

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 213

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT358051213Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/underrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxunderrated
Number of films tagged: 139

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

]]>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:34:46 GMT13948156Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/monster/MemberTagFilms.aspxmonster
Number of films tagged: 1143

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 95

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:02 GMT11434195Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scientist/MemberTagFilms.aspxscientist
Number of films tagged: 1408

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 77

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:47:27 GMT14083177Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/transformation/MemberTagFilms.aspxtransformation
Number of films tagged: 436

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 40

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:42 GMT4362640Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sucked/MemberTagFilms.aspxsucked
Number of films tagged: 33

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 39

]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:58:18 GMT332539Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/experiment/MemberTagFilms.aspxexperiment
Number of films tagged: 728

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 40

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:14:11 GMT7282240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mutant/MemberTagFilms.aspxmutant
Number of films tagged: 452

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 28

]]>Wed, 27 May 2009 13:02:10 GMT4521828Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beast/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeast
Number of films tagged: 139

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:03:13 GMT13967Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bad-script/MemberTagFilms.aspxbad-script
Number of films tagged: 3

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:20:05 GMT333Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dontmakemeAngLee/MemberTagFilms.aspxdontmakemeAngLee
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:28:09 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/great-direction/MemberTagFilms.aspxgreat-direction
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:58:24 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/notasbadaseveryonesaid/MemberTagFilms.aspxnotasbadaseveryonesaid
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:26:10 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sciencerunsamok/MemberTagFilms.aspxsciencerunsamok
Number of films tagged: 91

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Fri, 22 May 2009 13:15:00 GMT9100Tag