Comments for Slate Scrawl

Comment on The Incredible Hulk (2008) by gproject

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:21:23 +0000

In response to JJ, I can only agree that the intentions behind Ang Lee's film were good. In fact, when praise is given, it's usually directed towards the fact that he was at least trying to make a film that was above the usual popcorn spectacle. Of course, back in 2003 we hadn't yet been subjected to the overbearing slew of weak action-oriented comic book flicks. Other errors aside, maybe a film like that might mean more to audiences if it was made now. Also, I never knew of the 1994 Fantastic Four movie - curiosity alone is going to force me to hunt it down now. Thanks for the insight guys!

Comment on The Incredible Hulk (2008) by anephric

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:23:15 +0000

The only reason the previous FF movie got made was to retain the rights - it was never intended to be seen. If you hunt around the interwebs, it’s lurking in plenty of seedy places.

It’s actually quite entertaining.

Comment on The Incredible Hulk (2008) by paulwjm

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:08:40 +0000

There’s an interesting parallel between the Hulk franchise and that of the Fantastic Four by the way and your comment about the new film wiping the slate reminded me: Years before ‘Fantastic Four’ (around 1993) there was another movie adaptation of the comic that pretty much got shelved in the hope of it being forgotten about - I’ve never seen it as it was virtually disowned and not really released in the UK but it’s supposed to be pretty bad. The Aurum Sci-fi encyclopaedia included a review back in the 90s and it’s one of cinema’s most obscure oddities of modern times.

Comment on The Incredible Hulk (2008) by JJ Paul Hickling

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:00:55 +0000

There was never anything wrong with the intentions of the first film. It’s just that any attempt to make these films intelligent as well as entertaining HAS to be done while the film is in motion. In other words sread it throughout the film. Give the core, target audience what it really wants, and then by all means put some extra quality among the blood and thunder. If it’s done right everyone’s happy. The best blockbuster is that which has the capacity to be reach the higher brow without diminishing the more obvious, fun attractions. The Marvel strips from the beginning always strove to give comics readers something a little more artistic in their own way.

Comment on Hulk (2003) by paulwjm

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:17:54 +0000

Well the comic has found an endless supply of stories so I suppose if they can’t come up with a new one they can always dip into there for inspiration.

Next though…. Avengers vs Hulk! Maybe anyway (just guessing from the final scene).

Comment on Hulk (2003) by gproject

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:00:44 +0000

Thanks Paul – I did catch the new movie last week (just came from reading your review, actually). I’ll have my own ramblings on the matter up in the next few days, but without wanting to give too much away, I agree with you that it’s a step up. Where they go with it from here though, I’m not quite sure.

Comment on Hulk (2003) by paulwjm

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:05:20 +0000

Some well thought out comments regarding the issues of Lee’s film - have you seen the new film yet? I thought it was much more well rounded and less tedious (I’ve just reviewed it).

Comment on Doomsday (2008) by gproject

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:57:21 +0000

You may well be right - imdb lists his next project as ‘Drive’ for Universal Studios with Hugh Jackman currently attached. It would also be the first film he helms that he didn’t write, which you could argue suggests he has made enough of a name for himself to get offered these opportunities, or alternatively, that he’ll be less personally involved and that it will be rubbish.

Comment on Doomsday (2008) by paulwjm

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:10:59 +0000

I like the last comment there - it perhaps does successfully compete with some bigger budget American movies and adopts some of the same dumbass approaches along the way, but maybe that’ll please the studios who like to play it safe when aiming for the masses and his future in Hollywood will be secured.

Comment on 25th Hour (2002) by gproject

Fri, 16 May 2008 08:47:58 +0000

Thanks for your comment Clydefro, you make some excellent points and I thank you for reading despite our differing opinions - although maybe that’s part of the appeal? (The same reason I continue to plague myself with Christopher Tookey’s reviews in the Daily Mail.)

When I first saw this shortly after its DVD release, I enjoyed it a lot more. Watching it recently, the 9/11 stuff just jarred - now maybe that has something to do with coverage-overkill in the passing years, but even the way it is portrayed always seems like an afterthought. The window over Ground Zero, for example, gets ignored for a while and then is given a laborious mention at the end of the scene, just so you take note of the fact that it’s there.

If the responsibility and possibility themes you so rightly mention are supposed to sit alongside the 9/11 material, then maybe the images would have been enough. The audience could still extract the meaning from there rather than the awkwardly sporadic references that pop up in the dialogue. Plus, my favourite part of this film has always been Monty’s admission of his own downfall - the fact he acknowledges fault in himself. The rest of it (even the disappointingly unresolved student / teacher stuff with Hoffman’s character), I can take or leave.

Your post has certainly got me thinking about this again - maybe I’ll re-assess it in another five years!