my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » HULK (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: HULK Scott D. Neff Theatre Dork Posts: 919 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Oct 1999 posted 06-05-2003 04:48 PM                        Saw it last night in the screening room. It definiely captured the art of the "Graphic Novel" and was edited and produced in such a way that each frame of the film looked as though you were looking at a separate page of a comic book. Unfortunately they took the cheesy dialogue and dramatic effects of the comics and put them into a medium where they don't translate so well. I'd like to say the movie was fun to watch, but nah, for 2 1/2 hours I'd rather have done something else.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 06-20-2003 04:36 AM                        6 reels could have done it. Since all of my prints' DTS discs were either missing or damaged, I got to watch this in glorious DTS pretend SR. I wasn't impressed with the sound at all. I'm sure it would have been much better in DTS Digital or SRD... see it in digital sound. I thought the movie was OK... I wasn't overly impressed with the animation. It just didn't look that good. A lot of it was out of focus around the edges, presumably to blend in with the live action footage. Whatever the reason, it didn't look good. Did I mention that it could have been only two hours long?  |  IP: Logged Jacob Huber Expert Film Handler Posts: 172 From: Evansville, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-20-2003 02:37 PM                     As Daryl said, it could have definitely been shorter. The beginning was pretty slow, but it picks up the pace once he transforms for the first time. This was an OK popcorn flick meant for the summer. The only problems I had, other than length, were the fact that the Hulk looked like Shrek on steroids, especially in the face, and Ang Lee went way over the top with the comic book cinematography (split screens, multiple scenes on the screen using comic frames, fancy camerawork, etc.). It got kind of off the wall towards the end during the stuff with his father, but I guess that's what comic book movies do. 5.7/10  |  IP: Logged Michael Gonzalez Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 790 From: Grand Island , NE USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 06-20-2003 03:06 PM                     Anybody else have framing issues showing this film? The movie kept going out of frame vertically than there would be a horizonal frame line and a couple of times there were 4 or 5 different frame lines on the screen at the same time. I couldn't figure out if there was a problem with the projector or the print. I wonder if I move the print to a different projector, if I would have the same problems?  |  IP: Logged Aldo Baez Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: USA Registered: Mar 2001 posted 06-20-2003 07:20 PM                    LOL I had the same problem too, this movie utilizes a TON of split screen (vertical and horizontally) camera views I guess to make it feel like a comic. First time I saw it I immediately moved the framing knob, then next scene it was out of frame . If you built it up correctly just let it run.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 06-21-2003 08:07 PM                        Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, house #3. Subwoofers and surrounds working 100% again after being out of action for X-2 and Matrix Reloaded. Yay! Probably SDDS. Very good presentation. It requires some patience from the viewer because there's a LOT of talk laying down the foundation of Hulk's origin. But I liked it. I especially liked the uniqueness of the split screen and other comic-book visual tricks. The special effects were better than I was expecting. In fact the movie as a whole was pretty good. Liked it. This print looked GREAT on their massive 25' screen . I'm serious -- very sharp, plenty of detail, bright. Closeups of faces looked really really good.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-22-2003 12:30 AM                     The CGI character turned out to be okay. Certainly, the least of my worries with this film. Too long, The opening was far too slow. Didn't they know that young kids would want to see this movie? We had a number of sleeping kids and also some walk-outs. Tragic! Overwrought melodrama. Poor boy has "repressed memories" and "something inside him." So what? We want to see the green guy! You know what? There was a lot of exposition at the beginning of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE but there was actual poetry in some of that writing. And there was a real sense of majesty and legend in those scenes. This movie doesn't have that. The green guy. What can I say? He shouldn't be able to move like that. Unbelievable. He's green and he's big -- he's HUGE -- I can buy that. But he can leap around the world? No way, man. Sorry. Oh! And he can fall from outer space into the Pacific and just make a piddly little splash? Yeah. Right. Sure. Fine. Whatever. And that dude in the tank...You know the tank...They showed that clip a zillion times on TV...So "angry man" picks a whole tank and flings it out into the desert like he was training for the super-freaking Olympics. And the soldier walks away fromt that wreck!? Throw me a frickin' bone here! Best story angle was the father-daughter subplot and THAT was hamfisted most of the time. Split-screen effect did very little to cover up the fact that those scenes were boring and went on too long. The villain. Wishy-washy and unfocused. Actually, there were a number of bad guys but I'm talking about Nick Nolte right now. I couldn't understand a word he was saying half the time. Mumbles in DICK TRACY had better diction than this guy. Not that I'm complaining, mind you. Who knows? There may be method to Nolte's madness -- he may actually have improved his dialogue by making it unintelligible. And let's not forget the real villain -- Ang Lee.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 06-28-2003 06:20 PM                     I actually found myself enjoying THE HULK. The film had unexpected character depth for a movie of this kind. Although I was somewhat confused as to the actual powers the daddy hulk had. I did find it hard to buy into all the leaping around the Hulk did. The variety of wipes made the film visually interesting, though.  |  IP: Logged Aldo Baez Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: USA Registered: Mar 2001 posted 06-29-2003 06:48 PM                    FYI the Hulk can leap 3 miles in a jump, his skin can take something like 15,000 degrees, and he has a bunch of other powers, thats how his char was originally made and it was protrayed very closely to the comics.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 06-29-2003 08:03 PM                        Saw it again today, Cinemark 17 in Springfield, house #13, Dolby Digital, attendance about 100. Pretty darned good presentation. Picture & sound excellent. Print was outstanding in clarity, detail, and contrast. My only complaint is there were too many ads and trailers, like 50% too many. Hulk was better for me the 2nd time. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The pacing doesn't feel rushed, time is allotted for ample character development (some will be bored by that, but I liked it). This one feels the most "comic bookish" of the recent Marvel superhero efforts for the big screen. Too bad it's dropped 70% in weekend #2.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 06-29-2003 09:34 PM                     quote: thats how his char was originally made and it was protrayed very closely to the comics. OK, I claim ignorance then. I admit to never reading the comic book (I was a DC comic fan, not a Marvel). I did watch the original TV series with Bill Bixby/Lou Ferigno.  |  IP: Logged Aldo Baez Master Film Handler Posts: 266 From: USA Registered: Mar 2001 posted 06-30-2003 12:04 AM                    http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/h/hulk.htm  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 06-30-2003 12:26 AM                     Aldo Well, he was a LOT taller than any seven feet in many of those scenes in the movie.  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 06-30-2003 07:33 PM                        Saw the film last night, and actually liked it quite a bit. I didn't see any cheezy and horrible CGI that so many have complained of. I think people just need to relax a bit and just take it in instead of spitting it all out so quick. Thats what I do with most new food I try, I spit it out, but thats because I am a picky eater. Most people claim to actually like this crap people keep trying to make me eat. As for bieng taller than seven feet in most of the movie, yep. He actually GREW BIGGER the madder he got. In fact, Betty even told her father that the more mad they made him, the more it fueled his rage and the more powerful he got. Dave  |  IP: Logged John Lasher Master Film Handler Posts: 493 From: Newark, DE Registered: Aug 2001 posted 06-30-2003 11:54 PM                        I found it enjoyable. (I read a review in the local paper that accused the film of thinking too much. If they had just made a big, wretched-cgi, effects-charged piece of popcorn flick, the same reviewer would have said it didn't think enough. There's no pleasing these people, but at least they seem to have hired at least 1 or 2 heterosexual critics now, as opposed to before when they were going with a Homo=good, happy, yum, fun/Hetero=bad, mad, stench, wrench(e-mail me for an explaination)) The story was well thought-out, the direction was good, the acting was on the line between very good and excellent, the cgi was... passable but it served the purpose well. ** 1/2 (out of 4) Presentation: Newark Cinema Center Picture: **** Sound: Stereo(SR w/Sub, w/o Surrounds) **  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.