| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 06/13/2008 : 10:40:58
The Incredible Hulk
I know people moan about health and safety regulations going too far. But it seems director Louis Leterrier is using the latest Hulk incarnation as some kind of bureaucratic vendetta, particularly against the rules and regs of academia. Not just one but two college campuses are totally trashed, and why? All because health and safety have been ignored, cast to the wind, scrapped entirely in favor of some crafty military bad-guys, whose top secret future weapons development systems are tied-into a very familiar Marvel Comic R&D franchise featured in another comic-book superhero's recent outing.
Fans will know that Hulk is a mutated form of super nice-guy Bruce Banner [Ed Norton showing yet another facet of his thespian versatility, as well co-writing the script, whereas Iron Man is a super-soldier suit that Stark inhabits to best the baddies.
Norton's Hulk is full of in-jokes and cinema references, from giant monster and dwarfed maiden precariously balanced on a ledge a la Kong to McClane's copter destruction to Bourne's intricate rooftop escapes, with a cute cameo from an old bulked-up friend. Look out for a significant pizza delivery is all I'm saying!
Norton and Leterrier manage to paint some dimension onto the 2D comic portrayal of the human Bruce, and consequently of his pals and nemeses. Former significant other, the patriotically named Betty Ross evoking a revolutionary flag seamstress and played prettily by Liv Tyler, trying her best to transcend her cardboard character - and William Hurt as the devious General in charge of all the secrecy and endangerment,
SPOILER ALERT
who is her bad dad
are joined in the co-star list by Tim Roth. As Blonsky, Russian trained but UK raised, he's set up to be Hulky's big bad battle foe, choosing the very mutation that Bruce is so keen to be rid of.
But, of course, it's as Pistachio Man that both character and film will be judged. If you're not a CGI inspector the film is unlikely to disappoint, moving as it does so swiftly over plot flaws and matters of perspective and expression.
And by the time we get to the final battle which trashes NYC even more resolutely than those college campuses, the question we're all asking is: where is Mayor Bloomberg?
I'm betting he was attending a Health and Safety Conference.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Salopian |
Posted - 12/27/2010 : 03:01:22
Here is an older thread about this film. |
| silly |
Posted - 07/11/2008 : 20:03:18
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Savoir Faire
There have been so many sequels in the last three years, I would have thought this one would for sure be continued. One reason, perhaps, is that often times movie companies and theatres lie about how big profits are to hype a film.
I thought the Hulk problems had more to do with Norton, and the creative types behind the movie not wanting to fight with him over creative differences?
Yes, had it made buckets of money (Iron Man or PotC types money), sure there would be a sequel, but when it didn't, they don't want to press their luck.
Maybe just bring Banner along on some other super hero comic book video game movie.
Sidekick! |
| Mr Savoir Faire |
Posted - 07/11/2008 : 19:27:43
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It's interesting that this Hulk was considered "light" and "fun". I haven't seen the previous one and so assumed it was just naff, rather than brooding.
]
The first was considered too dark. It was more about the evil turmoil inside Bruce Banner.
quote:
It's weird how 'only' making U.S.$100 million profit is a reason to not create a sequel (not that I think there should be one). It doesn't really matter what the percentage profit is, so long as there is a large profit, I would have thought.
I don't understand this either. There have been so many sequels in the last three years, I would have thought this one would for sure be continued. One reason, perhaps, is that often times movie companies and theatres lie about how big profits are to hype a film. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 07/11/2008 : 18:23:02
It's interesting that this Hulk was considered "light" and "fun". I haven't seen the previous one and so assumed it was just naff, rather than brooding.
It's weird how 'only' making U.S.$100 million profit is a reason to not create a sequel (not that I think there should be one). It doesn't really matter what the percentage profit is, so long as there is a large profit, I would have thought. |
| damalc |
Posted - 07/11/2008 : 18:07:25
no more Hulk movies
i think the bottom line is, and i've said it on these boards before, as good as spfx technology has gotten, it's still hard to make a believable, 9-foot-tall, green muscleman. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 07/04/2008 : 17:45:13
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
The difference is that the item in question is in no way like the other things it's listed with. There's a huge difference between child labor laws and restricting children from seeing quoteunquote objectionable material.
That's a possible point of view, but feel free to suggest some reason as to why there is such a distinction! I included that item to show that it is not just things which might physically harm someone: developmental harm is covered as well.
quote:
I really don't think I'm being overdramatic when I say that a government that restricts children from seeing "adult" movies is not far away from saying that children can't see unpatriotic movies.
Hhmmm, I think you are.  |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/04/2008 : 17:30:14
quote:
Voting, drinking, smoking, joining the armed forces, buying weapons, watching violence on film, having sex, watching sex on film, driving, getting a job, going to school.
The difference is that the item in question is in no way like the other things it's listed with. There's a huge difference between child labor laws and restricting children from seeing quoteunquote objectionable material. I really don't think I'm being overdramatic when I say that a government that restricts children from seeing "adult" movies is not far away from saying that children can't see unpatriotic movies. This is why the government does not stick its nose in things like this -- it's a form of censorship. It is not the government's job to decide what children can or can't see.
Also, I don't see how violent movies are in themselves harmful. I would rather my kids see Pulp Fiction than sit around watching The Disney Channel. If we're going to ban kids from anything, ban them from that.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 07/04/2008 : 08:54:54
I certainly think it should be a government body classifying films. I suspect that the situation is similar with the B.B.F.C. here to that in the States, but am only guessing.
On self-regulation, out of the following list, why would anyone think some ages should be nationally standard whereas others should be left to the whims of whatever parents a child happens to be born to?
Voting, drinking, smoking, joining the armed forces, buying weapons, watching violence on film, having sex, watching sex on film, driving, getting a job, going to school. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 07/04/2008 : 08:47:18
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G 0 1 f
Just wondering, when Hostel Part VIII comes out on DVD, how will you enforce selling it only to homes with no children? For that matter, when it comes to cable uncut, how does the government ensure only homes with adults subscribe to the channel?
I would treat it just like alcohol sales. Alcohol can be sold to homes with children, but that doesn't mean the children are allowed to partake of it. |
| damalc |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 20:25:40
usually, i think it's better to self regulate than let the government get involved. however, i almost think it would be better to have an accountable government body assign movie ratings rather than the MPAA. the MPAA is accountable to no one and really doesn't have to justify its ratings. the members take themselves way to seriously and operate like they're the stinking secret service or something.
check out This Film Is Not Yet Rated to see one case of how these holier-than-thou hypocrites operate. |
| Mr Savoir Faire |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 19:55:59
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
It isn't the theater's responsibility to decide whether a kid is emotionally mature enough to see Hostel Part VIII.
Quite. Nor should it be left to parents. It's the government's responsibility, hence there should be a strict age-only basis as there are with other decisions before which one should be at a certain level of maturity, such as voting, drinking, smoking or joining the army. None of those powers varies on a person-by-person basis.
Technically the MPAA rates the movies in the US, and it is not affiliated with the US government. It is the theatre's responsibility to protect children with negligent parents and they should do a better job rating films.
For instance, Jaws, despite frontal nudity and gore, is rated PG, even upon re-release.
However, The ghost and the darkness, with no nudity or cussing, and not too much violence either, is rated 'r'.
To say that adults should watch all the films before they let their children do so is silly. It is too time consuming and that takes away hours from your free time. Plus, do you really not want to be able to drop your kids off at a theatre?
Rockgolf, do you truly believe that your 13 and 14-year-old don't watch family guy and South park when you're not around? That's of course, a different issue, I'm just curious to see what your response is. |
| RockGolf |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 14:36:18
Just wondering, when Hostel Part VIII comes out on DVD, how will you enforce selling it only to homes with no children? For that matter, when it comes to cable uncut, how does the government ensure only homes with adults subscribe to the channel?
I won't let my kids (13 & 14) watch South Park or even Family Guy, because it show really horrible behavior without consequences, but I'd be ok with them watching "Braveheart" or "The Godfather". |
| Salopian |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 00:56:31
That is the kind of thing that parents think, but it doesn't actually make any sense. If there are ages at which certain things cannot be done, they should apply to everyone just the same, not at the whim of parents. You don't decide at what age your children can have sex -- why should you decide at what age they can see sex on film?
This is not about restricting the freedoms of parents -- it's about protecting those children who have negligent parents. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 00:50:16
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO.
I respectfully but firmly disagree with your political beliefs, Salopian. I do not want the government making decisions like this about my kids. The government should not be parenting my kids. They don't decide what food they eat, what TV they watch, what books they read, or what music they listen to. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 00:40:03
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
It isn't the theater's responsibility to decide whether a kid is emotionally mature enough to see Hostel Part VIII.
Quite. Nor should it be left to parents. It's the government's responsibility, hence there should be a strict age-only basis as there are with other decisions before which one should be at a certain level of maturity, such as voting, drinking, smoking or joining the army. None of those powers varies on a person-by-person basis. |
|
|
