?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
21 June 2003 @ 01:40 am
Comic scenario...  
"Hi, I'm Ang Lee, and I'd like to make the Hulk movie."

"Oh, alright, Mr. Lee. Now, what have you done previous to wanting to do the Hulk."

"You know, a little of this, a little of that. I did 'Sense and Sensability', 'The Ice Storm' and 'The Wedding Banquet', to name a few. 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' was me too."

"I see. So, what do you think you know about making a comic book hero movie, exactly?"

"Oh, I dunno. Everything, I'd say."


At least, I'd like to imagine it that way. If he'd said that, he'd be absolutely right. The only other comic book hero movie to even be put in the same league as this film is the original Batman movie. It's brilliant. Even flawless, I'd say. Everything that Spider-Man wanted to be and failed at, especially by comparison.

I loved it. So it makes me sad to know that it will fail, box-office-wise. I felt the majority of the audience was lost on the movie, you can always tell by the misplaced laughter. With the wrong expectations, or maybe even some of the right ones, people may be disappointed, I suppose.

I wasn't. Then again, I thought "Signs" was a brilliant film, so I know some of you are not inclined to agree with my opinionations. Too bad, though, because you can't stop me from loving this movie, and recommending it to anyone who wants to see what I saw in it.

Smashing good movie ^_^
 
 
Mood: Pleased
 
 
 
337common_as_stone on June 20th, 2003 11:36 pm (UTC)
i have had absolutely no interest in seeing this movie until i just read this short review of yours. now i'm really curious. "in the same league as . . . the original Batman movie?" well then, if your serious about comparing it to the holy grail of super hero movies it must be some incredible stuff. *anticipation rising...*
Laudrelaudre on June 20th, 2003 11:42 pm (UTC)
Actually, ironically enough, I don't hold up the first Batman film to be the best superhero movie ever made -- there were too many odd and needless diversions from the source material, and Jack Nicholson overshadowed the part he was playing.

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is a vastly superior movie, and even head and shoulders above the first Superman movie (though that one suffers now from being a bit dated). And if you try to get pedantic and say that MotP didn't have a theatrical release, it did, for all that it was maybe two weeks long :). No, it wasn't a summer blockbuster event picture, but it was a theatrical superhero film.
Laudrelaudre on June 20th, 2003 11:39 pm (UTC)
One of the quirks of my job is that I get a good feel for what movie's going to do well at the box office on a given weekend, and while Hulk might not hit the numbers of, say, X2 or Reloaded or Finding Nemo, the majority of movie-listing-calls I got today were for Hulk. (Though one guy specifically referred to it as being "for his kids.")

I suspect it'll have a good, if not stupendous, opening weekend -- it'll definitely be #1, as there's nothing opening against it that can compete with it -- and the buzz from the first weekend will determine if it has legs. (Finding Nemo, for instance, has legs as thick as Hulk's thighs -- it's going to be around for a while.)
2πrtwopiearr on June 20th, 2003 11:42 pm (UTC)
I dunno...I can't help but think that a) there was too much exposition in the first hour and b) the entire Atheon subplot was unnecessary and would have saved a lot of restlessness on the part of the audience.

MUCH better than I expected tho. Cinematography was just breathtaking. Especially the helicopters flying over the desert.
xanthyosxanthyos on June 21st, 2003 06:22 am (UTC)
opinionations!?

Aah! Blossom flashback!
J. Moleneilx on June 21st, 2003 07:13 am (UTC)
"in the same league as . . . the original Batman movie?"

I was wondering which batman flick u were talking about, cause this is the one I would consider the orginal.

337common_as_stone on June 21st, 2003 08:19 am (UTC)
harr harr harr! holy old-skool caped crusaders, batman! pow! whiff!! bam!!!

no, not that one. i shoulda' remembered the adam west version. i was referring to tim burton's first contribution to the modern day mythology. apologies for the imprecision.
Mellenabsentmammoth on June 21st, 2003 12:15 pm (UTC)
Likewise
Mandafee_b on June 24th, 2003 08:02 am (UTC)
Neither of you has explained the whole 'Signs' thing, yet. It's frustrating to me, because I still think the movie was rather shallow.

All you say is, "It wasn't about faith, it was about SIGNS." but... if you ask me, most faith is based on signs, and well...I don't know where you two are coming from.

I think you don't know either, or you (plural) would have explained it long ago.

So there.
Mellenabsentmammoth on June 24th, 2003 10:26 am (UTC)
Re:
Hehehe, well, what we SHOULD do is watch the movie WITH you, then, and just go play by play, since writing the review would take too long (which is why it's been put off).
Mandafee_b on June 24th, 2003 12:25 pm (UTC)
Re:
ack!! TORTURE!!! what if I'm not convinced?! Then I will become subject to awful movie-ness TWICE! For no reason!

TORTURE!!!