comment #1

CinemaPhreek says ...

THE HAPPENING - worse than bad, its boring

A friend of mine still says that LADY IN THE WATER is the worst film he has ever seen. After watching THE HAPPENING last night he called to say while LADY still has that dishonor, THE HAPPENING is pretty damn close.

After watching, I have to say that THE HAPs is worse because it's far more boring than LADY. And you know a movie is boring when its less than 90 minutes but you find yourself wondering several times "When the hell is this thing going to be over?"

On top of boring, it's also pretty stupid. We've gone from flesh and blood characters like Bruce Willis' in THE SIXTH SENSE to a wasted and horribly directed Mark Wahlburg in THE HAPs who not only doesn't remotely seem like a real science teacher, fuck I wouldn't even buy him as a student.

What can I say good about the film? Well, it was in focus...and only lasted less than 90mins.

comment #2

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Meanwhile, I went and saw The Fall. I have to say, I was expecting something, I dunno, more Tarkovskian than a remake of Nim's Island crossed with Koyaanisqatsi. I thought it was kind of cool and fun, and the two lead actors were top notch (Lee Pace can be the next Russell Crowe), but the raves about it being some kind of visionary masterpiece sure didn't have me expecting the agreeably silly adventure story that it mostly is.

comment #3

actionman says ...

I was blown away completely by The Fall. I thought it was pure art. The best film I've seen this year...that and Snow Angels.

The Incredible Hulk was solid action fun. Didn't have the grace of Iron Man but it was a good, rough 'n tumble action movie. Leterrier has some chops. My fears of it being a little too Playstation-y with the CGI were confirmed a few times, but there were also some spectacular moments. It was basically three big action sequences with semi-interesting filler in between. ***

Awesome full trailer for Hancock; that looks like a blast.

comment #4

EOTW says ...

Wait, wasn't HULK gonna bomb?

comment #5

ScottMendelson says ...

Spoilers, just to be safe...

The film contains far less concentrated action than the previews would have you believe, and the action suffers from the same problem as the first film. Once again, The Hulk never is shown killing anyone. There is a line in the opening act where Hurt states that Hulk is wanted in connection with a few deaths, but Norton later implies that none of that is true. So, is The Hulk a threat or not? Yes, lives may or may not be lost in off-screen chaos or this explosion or that one, but there is no sense of jeopardy to those who dare do battle with the green monster. And of course, no one, not the army not 'The Abomination', is going to inflict any real damage to our hero.

The first set-piece, which concludes the first (and best) act, is a direct steal from Batman Begins. But while Batman Begins used the 'Batman as monster in the shadows' as a set-up for a crowd-pleasing pay-off (even one that aped Burton's opening scene in Batman), there is no real climax for Incredible Hulk's shadowy showdown. Even the much anticipated climactic smack down between The Hulk and The Abomination (Tim Roth is bored here, and I don't blame him) is mostly foreplay, with much of the running time dealing with set-ups to fighting (ie - Hulk and Abomination run at each other, Hulk and Abomination get ready to strike) rather than actual fighting (I'd wager the Metropolis smash-up in Superman II has more combat). It doesn't help that the fight almost immediately leaves the crowded city streets and begins to resemble the far superior climactic fight of the first Spider-Man (that fight had real stunt work and real stakes).

The most troublesome and frustrating portion of The Incredible Hulk is the absolute lack of chemistry between Norton and Tyler. This is where the neutering of the material is most obvious. In Ang Lee's flawed but interesting film, the relationship between Banner and Ross was messy, complicated, and adult. There were hints of romantic discord, the tinniest hint of past abuse, but they truly loved each other as human companions and friends. Jennifer Connelly's Betty Ross was a completely three-dimensional character with her own wants and goals, her own ideas and ambitions, and her own demons. Not so here.

Liv Tyler's Betty Ross is only a love interest, a prize to be won in a battle between her boyfriend and her father. She is reduced to the most conventional sort of love interest, existing only to drop her life to aid her long-lost lover without the slightest regard, making moon eyes at her man because the story gives her nothing else to do. She literally has not a line of dialogue for the first thirty-seven minutes, and almost none of her dialogue is anything other than the usual 'No!', 'Don't hurt him!', and 'Help!' variety. While Connelly was an intelligent and independent scientist, Tyler is never once shown doing anything scientific, and it's almost impossible to believe that she is an educator. Jessica Alba's Sue Storm from the Fantastic Four films is a more credible scientific genius, since we actually see her partaking in science from time to time. Even for this genre, the thin and empty role given to the female lead is rather pathetic. Apparently, and this is the disturbing part, making a film more appealing to the masses means not allowing 'the girl' to be anything other than 'a girl'.

The finished film is proof that Norton and Letterier were right in their fight with Marvel. And, in hindsight, it's a good thing that Norton and Letterier's fights went public, because now no one can blame them for this unfortunate result. It's so thin and so dumb that it is actually far more boring than the admittedly bloated 2003 Hulk. Ironically, this just proves Roger Ebert's old rule: no good film is ever too long and no bad film is ever too short. Even at it's truncated 110 minute running time, The Incredible Hulk is much too long.

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

EOTW: Technically, adjusted for inflation, BOP says that it has a smaller opening than the last film, but we'll see next weekend how it holds up.

comment #7

Rothchild says ...

Hulk is a huge success. It was a big risk making this movie. I honestly thought it was a big mistake. It's very hard to get an audience back after you piss them off. This could have been a more extreme version of what happened with Tomb Raider 2. There was even word around town after the first trailer for this movie hit that it was going to be lucky to hit 100 domestic. The interest just wasn't there.

Things have started to turn around recently with a more aggressive and effective ad campaign and the film turned out to be a huge crowd pleaser, something the original film, whether you dug it or not, certainly wasn't. If this film sticks the landing and gets 175 or more then it's a big hit. It means they can turn the Hulk into a franchise without worrying about whether there's an audience for it, and it only furthers the theory that an Avengers movie could have the biggest opening weekend ever.

The casting of Iron Man is going to pay off even more with that film because he'll be such an unorthodox and fun leader of a superhero team. I don't think people realize how much the connection between all the new Marvel movies is going to boost their box office and general appeal. Just seeing these characters pop up in each movie is the easiest way to create great word of mouth and conversation among fans and viewers.

comment #8

quitstaringatme says ...

So true Rothchild. The theater I saw Hulk in ate it up, and the energy when RDJr. showed up at the end was palpable. Word of mouth is going to carry this one to 200 mil, and I couldn't be more excited about the "shared universe" aspect of these Marvel Comics movies, which has always been the key draw to these characters.

I can't wait for the Avengers movie.

comment #9

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

In a world where somebody just made a two-part, subtitled Che movie, making another goddam Hulk movie is hardly a "big risk."

I can't wait till all those Marvel characters are in one movie so I can miss them all at once....

comment #10

Cory says ...

This film is not going to carry to 200 million with Get Smart, WALL E, Wanted, and Hancock coming up soon.

It'll barely get to 160 million, if that.

comment #11

Josh Massey says ...

And they'll be thrilled with $160 million domestic.

comment #12

romeoisbleeding says ...

The audience in the theater where I saw Hulk cheered when RDJ made his appearane at the end. The Avengers will be huge. I just hope they get Favreau to direct.

comment #13

Bocephus says ...

I loved The Fall. That little girl was delightful. After Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Video Game Cutscenes, I really admire a movie with no computer-assisted special effects whatsoever.

comment #14

Bocephus says ...

And also, I've been a huge fan of Leterrier ever since the Transporter movies. He had me at Jason Statham shirtless, greased up, and bare-knuckle fighting a warehouse full of cheesy European tough guys.

And The Hulk is not a killer. If the army would stop throwing missiles and tanks at him, he would just leap off into the jungle and fall asleep. He's just really stupid, and doesn't think of collateral damage when he is fighting.

comment #15

Rich S. says ...

Stephen King once described The Hulk (TV version) as a force of nature always fated to do good. That's as good a description as any.

comment #16

bents75 says ...

I concur that the Hulk is not an intentional killer, but I think an exception should have been made at the end.

Am I the only one who cringed when Liv Tyler yelled "stop!" at the end when he has the chain wrapped around Abomination's neck? All I could think was, 'damn, why the hell should he? why would she even ask him to?"

I wanted to see him rip his head clean off. It was kind of a pussy way for the Hulk to end a fight.

comment #17

CinemaPhreek says ...

Bocephus - that would be Cory Yuen's work in TRANSPORTER. Fights are his area of expertise.

comment #18

CinemaPhreek says ...

Well, if you want to talk about people dying in HULK, lets talk about how many died in their beds when they were wildly firing a 50 cal all over the city. Or all those who died from having the Hulk toss they around.

It's one of the key differences between comics for kids and a graphic novels for adults - people die. There are consequences.

Yet, none of this bothered me half as much as how incredibly fake Hulk looked. And if you want to resort to "Yeah, well, how exactly do you make a green man who is 12 feet tall look real?" then I would suggest you rent the last two Pirates movies and check out Davey Jones.

If a man with an octopus for a face can look realistic, then they could have gotten Hulk to look realistic.

comment #19

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"I really admire a movie with no computer-assisted special effects whatsoever."

The Fall with no CGI? No way. For one, how about the guy who falls back and lays on a bunch of arrows pointing up? Or the tattoo map as it's drawn on the mystic? There's plenty of CGI (by the French effects house Duboi) in The Fall-- what there isn't is 1) obvious, cliched CGI effects you've seen in ten other previews this summer, and 2) CGI buildings/cities. What's great about The Fall is that the settings you marvel at are real, and CGI is used just to accomplish a few extra effects.

comment #20

Chicago48 says ...

SATC passed the $100Mil line and do you think anybody is writing about that? A chick flick made $100Mil folks!

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

Chicago: That's not really new. The non-genre Julia Roberts movies have been doing that for a while now.

comment #22

BurmaShave says ...

So this is going to do the same numbers as the first HULK, at the same budget? Yet this time they're greenlighting a franchise? Or was this a one time thing before Hulk is included in THE AVENGERS, and good luck getting Norton back for that.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

Actually, this one costs about $15 million more, and it opened at a third of the budget. The other one opened at about half of it.

comment #24

Rich S. says ...

I'm with BurmaShave on this one. This Hulk actually opened to about $7.5 million less than Lee's version, which made $62 million in 2003 dollars. And yet this one is seen as a pleasant surprise while Lee's was seen as underperforming.

I know the expectations were different in both cases, but seriously, I don't get it. I liked this Hulk a lot more than Lee's Hulk, but I don't see it making a whole lot more money (unless it has the legs of a gazelle).

Sometimes I don't get the Hollywood perception machine at all.

comment #25

Bocephus says ...

Tarsem himself said there were no computer assisted effects. He might be full of it, but there are ways to do those shots with more classic techniques. The tattoo could have been traditional animation layered onto the film like Mary Poppins. The rest of the stuff could be doable with old fashioned green screen editing.

I'm sure it's just the Director blowing smoke, but I bought it as part of the magic of the film.

comment #26

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability clustering