[SPOILER használata kötelező]!
CAM verziós filmrol ne irj. Ne pontozz. Ne véleményezz!
Posztereket ne linkelj olyan filmről amit megnéztél. Új film, bemutató/poszter az rendben van.
Film címeket erdeti nyelven is / vagy angolul írjátok ki (zárójelben magyarul is akár)
IMDB linkért extra piros pont jár.
-
#37912
Najo csak neked. De mar nem forditom le magyarra mert annyit nem erdemelsz meg.
I had read some bad reviews of the Hulk film before I watched it. Ang Lee is one of my favorite directors (I loved the English Patient and Crouching Tiger) so I assumed he had added some intelligence and lyricism to the Hulk, and perhaps that was turning off some of the comic book film reviewers. In any case, I really wanted to see this film, just to see what Ang Lee would do with the material.
If you feel the same way, I entreat you: don't bother watching The Hulk! For every interesting scene or technique Ang Lee presents, there are a dozen frustrations. This movie wasn't just bad, it was sometimes infuriating.
The "story" was by James Schamus, a long-time Ang Lee collaborator and, I'm guessing, not much of a comic book fan. The premise of the original Hulk was simple and powerful: a wimpy scientist with qualms about making weapons gets caught in the blast radius of a Gamma bomb and turns into the Hulk whenever anger overcomes him. In this film Schamus alienates every Hulk fan with a cliché and convoluted new backstory involving a lunatic father, microbiological "nanomeds", a family tragedy, reptile experiments, and a poorly contrived Gamma radiation lab accident. To make matters worse Banner's Hulk transformation is now caused by "repressed memories," not anger! Ridiculous scenes follow. At first Banner transforms because of a phone message he hears (that triggers a memory). Later Banner gets beaten and tasered by a bad guy, and he won't transform! They have to resort to a crazy underwater psychological experiment to trigger a repressed memory so he can transform.
Stan Lee and the Marvel comics guys crafted some great, classic stories. The Spiderman films show that being essentially true to these stories can lead to great films. Ang Lee and James Schamus must not have understood the original story, or thought they could do better, and they created an incoherent mess instead.
That said, Ang Lee's talents were not completely misused. The film is not 100% bad.
What worked: The split-screen montages are the best approximation of comic book panel pacing that I've seen. The CGI model of the Hulk is awesome, with great musculature. The bounding-through-the-desert scenes are liberating, especially after the plodding pace of the rest of the film. Occasional flashes of good acting come from Sam Elliott and Jennifer Connelly.
What didn't work: The lame new Hulk origin story. About 100 obvious holes in the story continuity (such as: Hulk destroys the research lab, but then a day later the evil Dad gets into the now clean, non-destroyed lab and uses it for his own purposes). The Hulk's skin texture maps: all the layering and work that went into making them realistic was wasted because of the neon green coloring. The extreme darkness of many of the action scenes makes it impossible to know what's going on.
The list of bad stuff could be longer, but I'll stop there.
If you watch this on DVD you can get some clues about why this film went so wrong. In Ang Lee's commentary he says that his wife has been a molecular biologist for years, and biology labs "are what I know"-- so you can see how the forced biology and "nanomeds" elements in the story came about. Lee also describes, almost proudly, how he came up with some of the "pseudo-science" that made the story so nonsensical. I guess he doesn't realize that comic and sci-fi movie fans want their pseudo-science plausible and coherent. He talks about how costly it was to build a log cabin all the way up in Sequoia National Park--for a 10-second scene where the setting was not even important. Did the film's investors know how much money was being squandered this way? Has Lee's artistic ego gotten the best of his judgment?
You also learn that James Schamus is credited as Producer/Story/Screenwriter, and that there were two other screenwriters added later, one of whom is a comic book fan. When a Producer writes the script, you can bet that story editing is going to be thin (who wants to cross the producer?). The comic book fan was probably brought in to fix some of the most egregious holes in the story, but it was too little too late.
I'm afraid I can't recommend this film to anyone except film students who want to learn how NOT to make a comic book inspired movie.