By now, many people have read the dismal reviews of the Hulk. It’s dull, plodding, brooding and not just a little disjointed.
But I say it already had a HUGE stike against it when the movie execs picked a comic book character with absolutely ZERO sex appeal.
Spiderman was enormously successful for many reasons, and having a stud in tight spandex was one of them.
What was Hollywood – which normally does think with its gonads – thinking this time around?
I think you might be jumping the gun a bit, Rotten Tomatoes is reporting that about two-thirds of the reviews it’s counted so far were positive. Why don’t we wait for some fellow dopers’ reviews and its box office return to come in before we start dancing on the Hulk’s grave?
I think they just wanted to make a cool action movie, but then they hired the wrong director and instead ended up with an action movie that’s trying to be dramatic and philosophical. I’ll still watch it anyway though, because I want to see the Hulk go nuts and destroy stuff.
oh really?
http://www.channel4000.com/sh/entertainment/stories/entertainment-228320020030620-080634.html
http://www.comics2film.com/StoryFrame.php?f_id=2774&f_sec=6
Ebert and Roeper give it 2 thumbs up
Not everything is measured in sex appeal. Hulk Smash your bad critics!!!
I’d hardly categorize Toby McGuire as a “stud”. “Heartthrob” would even be pushing it. Probably the most accurate would be “well-cast”.
I agree that the reviews have been mildly positive on average rather than “dismal”. Still considering this is an Ang Lee film I was expecting better. I am not sure I will see the film now.
As for its box-office appeal I still think it will do very well and make a profit. The fact that the film has got some bad reviews doesn’t mean much from the box-office pov.
Opinions will vary, but 2/2 of my local (Mpls./St. Paul) ink-stained movie critics say The Hulk stinks up the multiplex:
Review: ‘The Hulk’ gets mired in psychodrama
Colin Covert, Star Tribune
Call it “The Uncredible Hulk.”
The latest in the ongoing overdose of Marvel Comics characters to hit the screen is also the least engaging. Never for a moment can the eye accept that the computer-generated Hulk exists in the same dimension as his filmed environments and human counterparts.
Like Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion dinosaurs, the Hulk is a wonder of technology that doesn’t remotely resemble a living, breathing being. He’s a combination of inanimate, synthetic elements, one part Shrek and one part Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But that’s only half the problem. “Hulk” is the lumpiest amalgamation of sci-fi and psychological drama since Steven Soderbergh’s misfired “Solaris.” And the reasons are much the same.
=================
Boring ‘Hulk’ an unconvincing mess
Chris Hewitt, St. Paul Pioneer Press
Anger is the new black. This season, it goes with everything: It’s what unites Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson in “Anger Management”; it’s the theme of Metallica’s CD, “Saint Anger”; it’s the result of a virus in the upcoming “28 Days Later”; and it’s what makes our hero get all green and sinewy in the movie version of the comic book (and TV series), “The Hulk.” It’s also what some audiences may feel when they fork over 8 bucks for this boring, unconvincing mess.
=================
(Yeesh. I didn’t realize it was so tough here in Cafe Society … I think I’ll return to The BBQ Pit and GD where it’s easier sailing …)
MUNCH, you be whack.
Tobey Maguire is DEAD SEXY. White hot. I’m not the only one who believes it either. That upside down kiss in the rain? Good god. His muscles? tight stomach? Guh.
I’m sure there’s at least one woman who looks at the Hulk and thinks, “He must have an enormous Schwanstucker!”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
(Haven’t seen the movie yet, but am tempted.)