LE COQ,

I'd give the movie **1/2. A solid, entertaining movie.....but nothing overly special. Suprisingly enough, the part I was worried about......the special effects......were actually fantastic. It was amazing how much The Hulk physically resembled the comic book character. Where the movie comes up short is in the plot and the story. Very, very weak and thin.

Positives:

1) The CGI special effects. Very cool......and surprisingly effective. Some of the scenes were quite convincing. I do think they made the Hulk TOO big. He wasn't quite that tall in the comics. His height is more like 9 or 10 feet.......not the 15 or so it is in the film. Nevertheless, it was pretty effective.
2) Cameos by Stan Lee and Lou Ferrigno were nice.
3) Nolte basically turns into a character that is inspired by a Marvel villian known as "The Absorbing Man." That was kinda neat. The Absorbing Man was actually a Thor villian who gained powers by way of Asgard and Thor's evil brother Loki.
4) The scenes showing the change from Banner to the Hulk are cool.

Negatives.

1) What was the point of Nolte's David Banner character? I don't understand this. Why? His whole story was never part of the comics........and you can see why. Boring and pointless. Nolte was terrible, BTW.
2) Bruce Banner worked at a military base for nuclear testing in New Mexico. He gets turned into the Hulk when he runs out to a testing field to save a teenager (Rick Jones) who's wandered onto the base in his sportscar. He saves him.......but gets hit with a gamma bomb that changes him. This origin is nowhere to be found in the movie. Instead they go for a duller, less riveting laboratory scene......this change didn't make sense.
3) Bruce Banner didn't inherit any weird genes from his father. The Hulk was created entirely by the Gamma bomb in New Mexico......not so in the film.
4) Connelly may be nice to look at, but she seemed miscast a bit. Her character was not well written or defined........
5) In the comics, "Thunderbolt" Ross is an AIR FORCE general......here he's an ARMY general. He's a pretty dynamic character, but I was surprised to see Sam Elliot so inneffective in the role. Again, I think it's due to the writing.......
6) No super villian. Nolte's character should've been scrapped. Instead, devote that time to the Hulk's number one villian, "The Leader". Would've made a great screen character. The Leader is also the victim of Gamma rays, but his MIND gets overdeveloped, not his brawn.
7) Why are movie and TV producers terrified of having The Hulk speak? The Hulk speaks regularly in the comics. At least he did utter a "Puny Human" phrase.....that was nice, since that's something he said over and over in the comics.
7) Movie was way overlong........at times seemed to go on forever.

Overall, an OK film worth checking out if you're a comic fan. Great special effects.......but a poorly written, unexciting story with ridiculous, unnecessary changes that loused up a lot of things. It's a shame, because the computer animation stunned the heck out of me.

So I pretty much agreed with your review, Coq. Some points for you that you mentiuoned: Yeah......the Hulk could survive that plane ride. He used to survive for hours underwater because of his ability to hold his breath. He was always labeled "the strongest mortal on Earth." In the Marvelverse, the "mortal" designation is important.......meaning guys like Asgardians or Eternals or Galactus or The Stranger and so forth, wouldn't count.

Had to have your very own thread, huh? You planet eating, galaxy hoppers are a strange sort.

:)

Oh.....I should've mentioned Major Talbot......another character who was poorly defined by the film. Physically, Talbot looks nothing like that. He's dark haired with a dark, thin moustache. He's not a totally bad guy.......but he does have a thing for Betty and thinks Banner is a wimp.

Also......in the comics, General Ross and Talbot did not know (at least at first) that Banner and The Hulk are one and the same.

Galactus Wrote:4) Connelly may be nice to look at, but she seemed miscast a bit. Her character was not well written or defined........
5) In the comics, "Thunderbolt" Ross is an AIR FORCE general......here he's an ARMY general. He's a pretty dynamic character, but I was surprised to see Sam Elliot so inneffective in the role. Again, I think it's due to the writing.......

Wow, two of your weaknesses were strengths, I thought. Just shows how opinions go, eh?

I thought all of the supporting cast was excellent, with the exception of the guy playing Talbot. His character was wincingly one-dimensional.

My thoughts:
Connelly - Excellent actress and played her part well.
Elliott - Tough as nails and very believable.
Nolte - He's crazy in real life, so this one wasn't much of a stretch. Still good.

Connelly and Elliot would've been better served with a better story. This story didn't give them enough to do.......

Nolte's part was stupid, I thought. Bruce Banner's father was never a factor in his origin.

See above for my Talbot comments. It was OK.....just could've been much, much better.

Galactus Wrote:It was OK.....just could've been much, much better.

You thought last year's Spider-man was the best ever comic movie, right? See, I thought it was corny and overall just mediocre. On the other hand, I thought the Hulk was a movie that non-comic book fans could enjoy. It's a movie I think could even play in an art house, because the story (the father/child relationships for both Bruce and Betty playing against each other) stands on its own.

Funny, huh? That's how opinions are though.

Naww......I think "Superman" (1978) is the best comic book movie ever. That one is just about as perfect as a comic book movie could ever get, IMO.

Spidey I would rank a close second. Keaton's first "Batman" would be a close third.......in a tie with "X-Men." After that, they're all debatable.

A lot of it probably has to do with our backgrounds. I come from a direction where in my childhood I basically read, ate, breathed and slept Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (or John Romita, in Spider-Man's case).....so I know the joys of their storytelling and what's good about it. In my opinion, many of their ideas would work fine on film.......but obviously, current directors and screenplay writers don't agree........or simply don't get it. And maybe you can't really "get it" unless you grew up absorbing this stuff. After all, many directors these days weren't even born when I was reading that stuff. (Scary, huh?? :eek: )

You'll note that my top three.......Superman, Spidey, Batman......all stuck very close to the original source material.....and they did so effectively. There were only slight changes. Naturally, those that deviate more I'm going to like a lot less. That's just the way I'm probably always going to feel. For example, I think Thor, Fantastic Four or Captain America would make a terrific movie.....but only if they are faithful to the material. If not, it could get ugly.

Those of us who grew up on these characters just wish those non-comic fans could experience what we experienced, I guess. You hate to seem them get wrong impressions about characters like The Hulk or Blade.

Don't get me wrong. I think The Hulk, Blade and Daredevil all had their good points. I mean, I go into the theatre WANTING to like the movies.....badly. It does beat where we were 20 years ago when none of these characters had a prayer of making it to the big screen. There's just not enough of those good points to get me overly excited..........Ah well. I think "Namor, The Sub-Mariner" may be next. Or possibly "Fantastic Four." Either of those could be really special if they do a good job on them.

Sorry, Gal...I thought I remembered you and ATWC gushing over last year's Spidey and crowning it the "best ever" comic adaptation. Maybe that was just ATWC.

Galactus Wrote:For example, I think Thor, Fantastic Four or Captain America would make a terrific movie.....but only if they are faithful to the material. If not, it could get ugly.

Anyway, if you're looking for a Fantastic Four movie, you're in luck. One's in the works...for a 2004 release. Check it out.

<a href='http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808403967' target='_blank'>Fantastic Four Preview</a>

Other's of note:

<a href='http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808490909' target='_blank'>Batman 5</a>

<a href='http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808473209' target='_blank'>Blade 3</a>

<a href='http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808490829' target='_blank'>Xmen 3</a>

<a href='http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808417249' target='_blank'>Spidey 3</a>

<a href='http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808472689' target='_blank'>The Punisher</a>

And even...

<a href='http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808492632' target='_blank'>Plastic Man!</a>

I'm sure it's a foregone conclusion that there will be a Hulk sequel now, as well.

Is this a renaissance period for comic movies, particularly Marvel ones, or what?

Thanks for the links! Well.....I might've done some gushing with ATWC! But I still told him that I thought "Superman" was the best.........with Spidey not far behind!

The Fantastic Four could be awesome if they do it correctly! And need I say who needs to be the villian in this one? The one and only Doctor Doom, of course!! Sounds like that's the case!

I don't think I can ever remember Doom, MD ever appearing in a live action flick, TV or big screen.

Heck, with all these other comic heroes hitting the big screen, it's time for Blue Devil to make his long awaited appearance.

Well, that would go over well in Durham, I guess! I remember DC's "Blue Devil." Didn't Ernie Colon draw him? Some of your links point out that Warners (who owns all the DC characters) seems intent on focusing on Superman and Batman.....while ignoring "lesser" DC heroes like The Flash or Green Lantern. However, DC owns the rights to Plastic Man and THAT'S getting done, so who knows? Plastic Man was originally a Quality Comics character......DC really has a wealth of characters because they own all the old Quality characters (Plastic Man, The Black Condor, The Ray, Uncle Sam, etc.) and Fawcett (the original Captain Marvel, Bulletman, etc.).

I also saw where one of your links mentioned "Iron Man" as a possibility......listing Nicholas Cage or Tom Cruise as possiblities for the role.....as well as Leonardo "DeCrappio".......they seem pretty unsettled on it in terms of costume design and villians, though. The ideal one there would be "The Mandarin"......as Asian villian (chinese, I think) who has 10 power rings and seeks to rule China and all the world with them. Iron Man could be interesting because his origin takes place in Vietnam during the war. Don't know if they'd use that setting now, though.

Another one I'm not hearing much on anymore is "The Black Panther." At one point, it sounded like Wesley Snipes was up for that role.......

I'll tell you what would make a good, dark, street-wise, film noir, mysterious detective film (right up your alley, Gamecoq!! :) )......would be Will Eisner's "The Spirit." Haven't heard a thing about that, though.
Still think they should revisit "Conan."

Galactus Wrote:I remember DC's "Blue Devil." Didn't Ernie Colon draw him?

He did later in the series. An artist named "Paris Cullens" was the original artist though. I don't think he did a lot of other work (Firestorm and Booster Gold come to mind), but I really liked his style. See if you can dig up anything on him and take a look.

Galactus Wrote:Another one I'm not hearing much on anymore is "The Black Panther." At one point, it sounded like Wesley Snipes was up for that role.......

Check out the link for "Blade 3" above. Snipes is waiting to wrap up his work as Blade before he tackles the Black Panther character. Your dream come true.

Galactus Wrote:Still think they should revisit "Conan."

And, I still think a "King Conan" vehicle would be just the thing for Ahnold's struggling movie career (I have a feeling that T3 is gonna bomb). He's at just the right age for the role of "King" and looks like he's still fit enough for the role too. I used to enjoy my "King Conan" titles just as much, more even, than the CTB ones.

Galactus Wrote:Some of your links point out that Warners (who owns all the DC characters) seems intent on focusing on Superman and Batman.....while ignoring "lesser" DC heroes like The Flash or Green Lantern. However, DC owns the rights to Plastic Man and THAT'S getting done, so who knows? Plastic Man was originally a Quality Comics character......DC really has a wealth of characters because they own all the old Quality characters (Plastic Man, The Black Condor, The Ray, Uncle Sam, etc.) and Fawcett (the original Captain Marvel, Bulletman, etc.).

It's so funny that we're having this conversation, because just last night, I was flipping around on the tube and trying to find something watch. I stumbled across "Super Heroes Unmasked" on A&E, which was a feature on the history of comic books....starting back in the late 30's and going all the way to today's "Spawn" and "Sandman." They talked about all of the characters you've listed above, and hit on some of the issues you, me, and ATWC have talked abuot before too (comics code, for example). I'm sure it was prompted by the recent rash of superhero movies, but it was very educational and interesting for me. I'm sure it will be repeated, so check your local listings so you can catch it next time. I think you'd like it.

-No threadcraps anymore Cocky Road.

This is your last warning.

Arrrgghhhh!!! I knew that was coming on, and I still missed it!! Man, I MUST be getting old........I can't remember anything anymore! (Heck.....I left my lunch at home this morning, even after making an effort to put it together...... :frown: ).

I've got to catch that when it comes back on.......I heard it was supposed to be really good. Maybe it'll come to DVD. I have the "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way" on DVD......so anything's possible.

Man, I totally agree with you on "King Conan." I always liked that one better as well.........a lot of it had to do with Ernie Chan's inks on that series, which I thought was some of his best work ever. Of course, having John Buscema as the penciller never hurts.

And yeah......the Black Panther could make a great film. This is one time where sticking to the comics series would be the "artsy, coffee house" way to go. There was a storyline in Marvel's "Jungle Action featuring The Black Panther" in the 70s called "Panther's Rage." It was like a 12 part story which took place in Africa where the Panther's kingdom was invaded by a bad guy called "Killmonger." It was extremely well drawn and written. Before that, the Panther had always been a more "fantastic" character (a la Kirby).....but this story brought him down to Earth in a very realistic fashion. A lot of cool outdoor sets would work well.....(I hope no one thinks it's associated with the Black Panther party......because the Black Panther was created prior to the party's formation and really has nothing to do with it.....except, perhaps, in reverse, which is an interesting thought!).

Hey, Cocky Road.......I thought you had no interest in this stuff? That's quite an effort you made to contribute to a thread you have no interest in, isn't it? I can't believe this stuff bugs you that much. Too funny!

Cocky Road Wrote:-No threadcraps anymore Cocky Road.

This is your last warning.

I just did not enjoy the movie. I left my opinion and I have been reprimanded.

One shell shocked forum I must say.

I apologize and retract the warning. With Grantz and all I guess I got antsy.

Okay, I saw it tonight & really enjoyed it.

Gal, I pretty much agree with your initial post except for neg #4, & while I wont quibble over a difference in the branch of service, I thought Sam Elliot did a great job, & didn't really feel the roles of Gen Ross nor Betty were as insignificant as you do.

'Coq, like you I felt that it took too long to get things crankin', & that's probably due to the strange story surrounding David & Bruce Banner from the early years. Like you Gal, I think that whole deal was senseless & bizarre. The only thing that I can think of is that the writers wanted to have some kind of link to the TV show that folks could indentify with. Other than that I have no idea what brought all of that on. In fact, in the early stages of the movie (before I picked up on the fact that David was the father) I was gettin' po'ed because it looked like they were going the TV route with the whole David/Bruce name misindentification thing. Anyway, once the movie got rollin' it was awesome.

'Coq, I don't recall The Hulk being able to regenerate in the comic book, but I'll defer to Gal on that one. Maybe it was a Swamp Thing ripoff.

Speaking of ripoff. Gal, when I saw David Banner start up with the whole absorbing thing the first thing that went through my mind was "okay, they're bringing in Crusher Creel from a whole different comic (Thor). As for your comments about a possible Thor flick, I agree that it could be awesome, but it'd be real tough to pull off. Like you I'm afraid they'd "F" it up. Never really thought about Capt America 'til you mentioned him, but with the whole post 9-11 era/homeland security/patriotic spirit thing going on I'm actually surprised he hasn't been done. I could easily see a Cappy flick made in modern times where he's chasing down terrorist who have infiltrated the US. Imagine if they had rolled that out last July 4th?!

All in all, I dug the flick once it got rolling. I was most pleased with the likeness of the movie Hulk to the comic book Hulk as far as appearances. The special effects were great in that they weren't overdone, which was something that concerned me going in. They were just right.

Oh, someone please do me a favor & remind me why David Banner sicked the dogs on Betty? Was it just because he was crazy, or did I miss something?

The Hulk could heal quickly.........regenerate, if you will......but the thing is, he rarely had reason to in the comics. He was indestructible by mortal hands, I think.

"Crusher Creel." Lol......what a name. Thor really would be cool.......but could they do it right?

Maybe I was a bit harsh by saying Elliot was "inneffective." That's not true.....Elliot was fine in the role. I just don't think the writers gave him enough to do.....or enough depth. Still didn't care much for Connelly, but she'd've been fine in a better story.

Again, the whole Nolte/David thing was weird and haphazard. Things just jumped around in that part of the plot that made no sense (like the dogs attacking Betty that you mentioned, Drake).

As for Cap.......a modern setting would work a la terrorists and so forth. But I'm picturing a movie that takes place during WWII.......can you imagine the "Band of Brothers" type of sets that could serve as the backdrop? Hitler and the Red Skull?? Bucky at Cap's side? Private Steve Rogers?? A great soundtrack heightening the drama?? How about Cap leading the European invasion.......and a final scene after victory over the Red Skull and his Nazi henchmen showing Cap and Bucky raising the American flag against a sunset battlefied!! The music chiming in.....OOOO..... I get goosebumps......Bring it on!

Galactus Wrote:As for Cap.......a modern setting would work a la terrorists and so forth. But I'm picturing a movie that takes place during WWII.......can you imagine the "Band of Brothers" type of sets that could serve as the backdrop? Hitler and the Red Skull?? Bucky at Cap's side? Private Steve Rogers?? A great soundtrack heightening the drama?? How about Cap leading the European invasion.......and a final scene after victory over the Red Skull and his Nazi henchmen showing Cap and Bucky raising the American flag against a sunset battlefied!! The music chiming in.....OOOO..... I get goosebumps......Bring it on!

That may sound like heaven to you...but it sounds ridiculous to me. And, would not go over well with the public either, IMHO. World War II is pretty sacred to a lot of folks, for a lot of reasons...and something like that would probably be offensive to them.

The A&E special we talked about earlier this week touched upon that. Superheroes were unabashedly fighting the "krauts," "japs," and "reds" back then...but that wouldn't go over well now. Stan Lee himself talked about this in particular. He couldn't see a current comic with a "Capt Marvel" beating up arab terrorists being anywhere near viable in today's climate, for example. I think our public considers itself too sophisticated to fall for this type of propaganda anymore...whether that is a good thing or not is up for debate, of course.

I tend to agree with 'Coq on this one, although I wouldn't characterize an attempt at a WWII setting as ridiculous. I do feel, however, that a modern era setting with Cappy would be much more appealing to the masses than something from 60 years ago.

Maybe there'd be some way to incorporate Red Skull with some type of Al Queda organization, or maybe even a Neo-Nazi outfit.

As for Bucky I could take him, or leave him. Probably just as soon leave him.

Someone mentioned the Submariner. Now that would be an awesome flick! I'd love to see Prince Namor, but would they make him a hero, or a villian?