http://panelsonpages.com/?p=27004

Awesome article and I agree. I did like this movie a lot. Do I wish it had a bit more "Hulk Smash"? Sure but I still very much enjoyed it. I also liked Eric Bana as Dr. Banner more than Edward Norton. Just an opinion but I did.

Just voicing my opinion here, that movie should die of gonorrhea and rot in Hell.

The scene where Josh Lucas has Hulk trapped in that hardening goop and is getting ready to plug that syringe into his eye was awesome. Hulk getting angerier and simply outgrowing his retraints was a great visual indicator of "The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets." One of my gavorite comic movie scenes.

krpykrwly wrote:The scene where Josh Lucas has Hulk trapped in that hardening goop and is getting ready to plug that syringe into his eye was awesome. Hulk getting angerier and simply outgrowing his retraints was a great visual indicator of "The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets." One of my gavorite comic movie scenes.

Agreed. That was an awesome scene.

I'm a huge lover of Ang Lee's Hulk. I've never understood the complaints people had with it. It had just as much action as any other quality super-hero flick, maybe even a little more. Perhaps general audiences were just put off my the cerebral nature of the film, but personally, I thought that's what made it good. I went in expecting a mind-numbing summer action flick and was treated with a smart, emotionally-challenging action movie with some of the best action of any comic book movie ever.

I thought the cinematography was absolutely amazing.

I found the movie relatively boring, though. It wasn't horrible, but maybe 2 movies worth of depth squeezed into 1 movie was a bit much.

It definitely could have had 15 or 20 minutes trimmed off of it, but it's certainly not the aberrant piece of shit most people tend to make it out to be.

^ My point, exactly. I admired the movie's ambition, and maybe I was a bit harsh on the action. It definitely warrants another viewing.

Joshua wrote:I'm a huge lover of Ang Lee's Hulk. I've never understood the complaints people had with it. It had just as much action as any other quality super-hero flick, maybe even a little more. Perhaps general audiences were just put off my the cerebral nature of the film, but personally, I thought that's what made it good. I went in expecting a mind-numbing summer action flick and was treated with a smart, emotionally-challenging action movie with some of the best action of any comic book movie ever.

I quite agree. Absorbing Dad aside, the movie hit all the notes I wanted in a Hulk movie, and gave some depth to the characters.

My biggest complaint about it wasn't the absence of action, but the shoe-horning of so much psychological influence that it seemed to slam the brakes on the pace of the flick. It's like trying to take the emotional discovery of the entire tv series and compacting it into 2 hours, while squeezing in The Hulk fighting all things that the Hulk fights: The Military, Gamma irradiated things, and Nick Nolte after he escaped from prison.

The problem is that the Hulk has like, 2 workable villains. The Abomination and then what? The Leader? Good luck working "Giant-Brain Guy" into a legitimate film. The Hulk is a force of nature, not a hero.

And all this acting talk reminds me that we shan't overlook Modern Family's Phil (Ty Burrell) in the Incredible Hulk. Jus' sayin'...

Wow, this is more Ang Hulk likers than i've ever run into in my entire life.

Joshua wrote:I'm a huge lover of Ang Lee's Hulk. I've never understood the complaints people had with it. It had just as much action as any other quality super-hero flick, maybe even a little more. Perhaps general audiences were just put off my the cerebral nature of the film, but personally, I thought that's what made it good. I went in expecting a mind-numbing summer action flick and was treated with a smart, emotionally-challenging action movie with some of the best action of any comic book movie ever.

Word. Very true.

Heytherejeffro wrote:I thought the cinematography was absolutely amazing.

Agreed. It was beautiful.

Debaser77 wrote:^ My point, exactly. I admired the movie's ambition, and maybe I was a bit harsh on the action. It definitely warrants another viewing.

I think this was an ambitious movie and I think it worked. It was more than just a smash them up kind of movie and that was interesting to me. I did enjoy it.

What I hate are the random posts on IMDB and Netflix from haters of the movie who say that Ang Lee should "stick to making movies about gay cowboys." Okay...first off, he made Brokeback Mountain AFTER he made Hulk, and secondly, he hasn't made any other movies about gay cowboys that I know of.

Debaser77 wrote:What I hate are the random posts on IMDB and Netflix from haters of the movie who say that Ang Lee should "stick to making movies about gay cowboys." Okay...first off, he made Brokeback Mountain AFTER he made Hulk, and secondly, he hasn't made any other movies about gay cowboys that I know of.

Didn't you know that The Wedding Banquet and Sense & Sensibility both featured gay cowboys? You really had to look for 'em, but they were there!

Heytherejeffro wrote:I thought the cinematography was absolutely amazing.

That's what stood out to me.

I made a thread about this being ridiculed unfairly before. (To lazy to find it.) Pretty much what Debaser was saying. Pretty bad adaptation, yet not a horrid film by any means.

I got yer means right here ya blue sonova@#$%*^$$#@!!!

I just figured out what Hulk was lacking.

Gay cowboys are like bacon, they make everything better.

The movie was really slow for a comic movie but alright. The main problem with that movie was the Hulk. He looked really, really fake and stupid. When the main character pops up and looks like claymation or a video game then that movie isnt going anywhere. Nobody that I know liked that movie and most mention how stupid that Hulk looks. They should have used a muscle guy and used the same technology as Lord of the Rings to make him look much bigger than everyone else.

Maybe in the future when faces can really be CGI'd they can go back and fix that movie.

BlueMaxx wrote:

Heytherejeffro wrote:I thought the cinematography was absolutely amazing.

That's what stood out to me.

I made a thread about this being ridiculed unfairly before. (To lazy to find it.) Pretty much what Debaser was saying. Pretty bad adaptation, yet not a horrid film by any means.

Agreed. The cinematography was awesome. I thought this was a very good movie. Maybe not a great superhero smash them up flick but I enjoyed it none the less.