Quote:
|
Originally Posted by STIwish
Hmm.. as to why I didn't like it.. It was incredibly slow.. I couldn't stand the attempt at comic book cinematography... The acting was absolutely atrocious... Everything seemed like it was built on a horribly low budget with sub par special effects, horrid screenplay that bordered on 'horror movie horrible'.. and I mean come on... a giant raging poodle!? please... an absolutely wasted opportunity.
|
I can agree a bit with the "slow" part... but I figured it was just cuz I drank a liter of cola during the previews and had to pee throughout most the movie.
I thought the comic book cinematography was well done. Other movies have tried it and failed. The use of the multiple angles and borders was cool IMO, Ang Lee should have used it more often, so it would have been less of a gimick and more of a method. The scene with Betty Ross and Talbott first seeing each other was awesome (the 2 perspective thing), and when Talbott gets flung at the camera by the explosion and freeze-framed and outlined was hilarious, looked just like it would have in a comic.
Acting... well, it wasn't great... but it wasn't any worse than other movies.
Everyone in Hulk was about 1000 times better than Keanu in either Matrix Movies, and noone bitches about how bad the acting in the Matrix was...
And frankly, regarding the special effects.... I didn't see a single thing cheap or sub-par anywhere. I did a VR and 3D Animation concentration in college... everything they did in the Hulk was tremendous. Granted the Hulk himself still looked CG, but I think it was somewhat intentional, considering the comic-book qualities of the movie. However, his interaction with the live action elements was damn near flawless. The sight-lines of all the other actors matched up with the CG elements (even Star Wars episode 2 messes that one up.. watch Duku fight Yoda), the quality of the smashing of real elements mixed with the CG is unprecidented (watch him wreck the lab... I can't understand how ILM did it so well), the matching of real world and CG lighting was very well done. Other movies have done pretty good in the CG/live action integration, but they all have to use pre-recorded, computer controlled camera movements, resulting in a mechanical feel to the camera movement. I'm assuming Hulk filmed the live action w/ a real camera operator and some sort of high resolution camera tracking mixed with a great job of scene to render matching, because the CG elements never seemed to "float" over the live scene, even with drastic and unpredictable camera movements. Check out the scene where Hulk is standing in the SF intersection being filmed from a helicopter. That scene would be impossilble w/o the invention of some new CG to live action mapping method. I thought the special effects were the crowning achievement of the movie.
As far as the plot elements like the giant poodle... I agree it was a bit comical, but this *is* a movie from a comic... and giant raging poodles are the kinda of foes that turn up in comics... I mean, there's gotta be a genre of movie where somthing like that turns up, and if it's not in the comicbook-movie genre, then I dunno where else! Besides, that fight scene was another good example of the CG/real world interaction.. it's gotta be pretty hard to smash a car with imaginary characters!
Perhaps it was because I had low expectations going in that I thought the movie was so good, but I was well entertained.