«Issue with delivery»
For some reason my product didn't arrive yet after more than 30 days from my original order.
Amazon's people asked me to wait until December 1st and then if nothing happens they promised to resend other product.
[Saturday, November 22, 2008]
|
«better than 2003 version»
Watch the 2003 version of The Hulk, and then watch the 2008 release. Obviously the new release is a HUGE improvement over the previous. Better script, better special effects, better cast led by Ed Norton, Tim Roth and Liv Tyler. Overall, this film is the better of the two... but that still is not saying much.
I have to go on a limb and say this movie was hyped to the point of near self destruction. It is possible the hype was created because this was known to be the year for comic book action adventure movies to explode into the box office. Sure enough, it was... Iron Man came through and made a huge impact on the big screen. Dark Knight shattered so many box office records they practically had to shove it into it's own category. Even Harry Potty 6 (a highly anticipated movie) needed to be puched back to winter of 2009 because of the competition created by the Marvel and DC Comic universe. Clearly, comic books have made a huge impact on screen writers, and frankly I see no end in sight.
When first saw The Hulk, I was so excited to finally see a version worthy of my time that I even rented the 2003 version just to have a chance to give it a symbolic farewell gesture. That excitement, excluding the performance of Ed Norton and Tim Roth, was met instead with a feeling of betrayal; a stone cold slap in the face which left the bitter scar of six years of waiting bruised into my face by an oversized green palm.
Better screenplay? Sure, but this doesn't change the fact that the film was completely predictable, and had absolutely no inspiration at all. From beginning to end, it was the same thing: nerd gets mad, nerd turns into Hulk.
Better special effects? Absolutely... but this comes with six years of evolving film technology. This entire movie was based abround how many times special effects could be used. The movie might as well have been a Jon Woo or Jerry Bruckheimer produced "action packed thriller" directed by Michael Bay. Better special effects do not make for a better movie. If any reader does not believe me, watch The Fountain, Pi, and Requiem for a Dream... all by the same director, Darren Aronofsky, who uses almost no CGI in any of his films.
Better actors? Here is my one critique that will not be negative. Edward Norton is now and has been my favorite actor since I first saw him in Primal Fear (starring along side Richard Gere). Tim Roth, another fantastic actor since stepping out of the shadows of earlier with with Quenton Tarantino in films such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, gave a great performance which almost overshadowed Norton. These two combined make the movie worth watching. However, their efforts alone do not make the movie worth the hype it received.
Only two stars? Why not?... I am dissapointed in this movie. I do not feel like I should give it a higher review simply because of the fact that it isn't worth more than what it delivered to me. It delivered a two star level of satisfaction, and I use the word satisfaction loosely.
[Thursday, November 20, 2008]
|
