The Good:
So many nods to fans of the comic and the tv series it'll make your head spin!
The film really picked up on the feel of the television series and added many comic elements to it.
Norton was a great Banner.
Hurt was a decent General Thunderbolt Ross.
It was cool to see a gamma-irradiated brawl played out.
Tim Roth was pretty good as Blonsky.
The special effects were good... but...
The Bad:
The Hulk still looked CG to me.
I didn't like the propotions of the Hulk.
The continuity of at least one scene (early chase scene) was AWFUL, I mean Ed Wood style awful. Night then day then night... ugh.
The film seemed somewhat anti-climatic.
Liv Tyler.
Overall: This is no Iron Man by any stretch. Is it better than Hulk from 2003? Well, yes and no. The movie was a more traditional tribute to the character's history, but the editing wasn't nearly as good. In 2003 you had the wonderful Jennifer Connelly, in 2008 you get sub-par Liv Tyler. The storylines in both leave something to be desired. Both Hurt and Elliot were good General Ross-es. Norton was better than Bana (though I didn't hate Bana). I think it all comes down to in 2003 you had a terrible version of Absorbing Man and in 2008 you get the Abomination - 2008 is a better film just because of that. I liked it, but I would rent it.
3 comments:
I forgot to mention a few other negative aspects:
- I did not care for the Hulk's proportions in the film (I thought the 2003 Hulk was much more true to the form).
- No Rick Jones.
- The Hulk's hair looked plastic, as did much of his body.
And again I want to emphasize, it is only better than the 2003 film because the writer had the sense of mind not to include his dad as Absorbing Man.
You forgot to mention the lovely nude shower scene of Norton as a "good" ... for all the ladies out there (and those of an alternate sexual preference).
I agree with the rest of your take, especially on Liv. If I had to listen to her whisper "Bruce!" one more time...
~Misty
I have not seen this one yet, but I plan to at some point. I hesitate only because a. Ed Norton washed his hands of it after it was complete and b. they changed the name of The Abomination because they didn't think it made sense? Seriously? The idiocy of directors/screen writers when it comes to making pre-existing stories into movies never ceases to amaze me.
I always felt that the character of Betty Ross was incredibly flat and kind of pointless - kind of like something intended to humanize Banner that was never fully fleshed out - so, though in general I prefer Connelly to Tyler - I probably won't care who plays her as I kind of don't care about the character already.
Post a Comment