You know, it is actually a pretty good flick.
If you grade Iron Man as an 'A' flick then the Hulk is an easy 'B'.
What wasn't so great:
whenever there was no action was kind of forgettable.
What was great:
The action was a hell of a ride.
There is this moment in the very beginning of the film where a bunch of guys are shooting the Hulk with machine guns. The bullets are just bouncing around, looks like they are shooting him with squirt guns.
The Hulk spins around, the camera moves in for a close up of the Hulks face. The Hulk just grimmace's and growls.
Would have been a hell of a teaser for the movie. I thought that movie looked just great.
You know, Marvel taking control of there movies from the big studios seems to be paying off. They are having a hell of a year. The Hulk is gonna pay off for them.
All this leaves me with 2 thoughts:
1. Will the Hulk 2 suffer without Ed Norton? He only signed a contract for this one movie, and if the pain he is making of himself is any indication he probably wouldn't sign on for a second movie - of course he might not be asked.
2. We all know that Marvel is putting together an Avengers movie. With the sucess of Iron Man and the Hulk it is a no brainer that we will see some pretty big stars in super hero roles in the next few years.
Casting an 'Ed Norton' for Hulk, or Robert Downey for Iron Man is affordable and doable.
But when you are doing an Avengers movie you are putting all these people on the screen at once. Is this affordable? Is it even possible to get Samuel L Jackson, Downey, Norton and God knows who else to agree to be in the same flick like this?
My gut says we are gonna get either a bunch of cameos (digitized Hulk is on screen for 20 minutes, but Bruce makes an appearance as a 20 second spot and a voice only) or we are going to get generic likenesses to the famous actors.
~shrug~ I think the Avengers Movie is a bad, bad idea.
If you grade Iron Man as an 'A' flick then the Hulk is an easy 'B'.
What wasn't so great:
whenever there was no action was kind of forgettable.
What was great:
The action was a hell of a ride.
There is this moment in the very beginning of the film where a bunch of guys are shooting the Hulk with machine guns. The bullets are just bouncing around, looks like they are shooting him with squirt guns.
The Hulk spins around, the camera moves in for a close up of the Hulks face. The Hulk just grimmace's and growls.
Would have been a hell of a teaser for the movie. I thought that movie looked just great.
You know, Marvel taking control of there movies from the big studios seems to be paying off. They are having a hell of a year. The Hulk is gonna pay off for them.
All this leaves me with 2 thoughts:
1. Will the Hulk 2 suffer without Ed Norton? He only signed a contract for this one movie, and if the pain he is making of himself is any indication he probably wouldn't sign on for a second movie - of course he might not be asked.
2. We all know that Marvel is putting together an Avengers movie. With the sucess of Iron Man and the Hulk it is a no brainer that we will see some pretty big stars in super hero roles in the next few years.
Casting an 'Ed Norton' for Hulk, or Robert Downey for Iron Man is affordable and doable.
But when you are doing an Avengers movie you are putting all these people on the screen at once. Is this affordable? Is it even possible to get Samuel L Jackson, Downey, Norton and God knows who else to agree to be in the same flick like this?
My gut says we are gonna get either a bunch of cameos (digitized Hulk is on screen for 20 minutes, but Bruce makes an appearance as a 20 second spot and a voice only) or we are going to get generic likenesses to the famous actors.
~shrug~ I think the Avengers Movie is a bad, bad idea.