Anyone catch the image in which diesel fuel costs $123/gallon? Whoa.
New Trailer for The Incredible Hulk
Here is a new trailer out for Edward Norton’s The Incredible Hulk (that is what it should be officially marketed as) and I do immediately know that enjoy it more than the first trailer. Still, whereas with Iron Man, I’ve known since the first photo of RDJ popped up that it was going to be something special, with this, I’m still on the edge. While I enjoyed this more than the last trailer, I’m not sure whether I like what I see or not. I’m perplexed. Since outside of The Italian Job there is literally not one movie with Edward Norton I don’t like (I’m even a fan of Death to Smoochy and the admittedly weak The Score), I should probably have a little more faith. I think this is just going to have to be one of those wait and see flicks.
Thoughts? Opinions? Concerns?
HULK SMASH!!!
I loved Ang Lee’s version of the film and frankly, I could do without this one but I learned a long time ago not to underestimate Norton and I’ve been on board from the beginning - even with the not so great first trailer. This one….frakin’ Tim Roth rocks. “Is that all you’ve got!!”
It’s not going to be the box office juggernaut some might expect but it looks like smashing fun. HA.
Comment by Marina Antunes — April 30, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Hulk vs M1 Abrams > Hulk vs Humvees
I don’t think the Abomination is a well matched foe either, since it’s essentially the same thing as another Hulk. At least the Absorbing Man was an asymmetrical opponent.
Everyone seems to hate the final showdown with the Absorbing Man in the first movie, but I liked that battle. The mutant dog thing, not so much.
Comment by Necron_99 — April 30, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Ugh. Hulk Fizzle.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — April 30, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
No emotion in this whatsoever. This looks more and more like a waste of time for everybody involved (except of course, Louis Leterrer who’s entire existence is a waste of time). And Iron Man definitely isn’t special in any way, it’s closer to Daredevil than to Spider-Man.
Comment by Henrik — May 1, 2008 @ 3:05 am
Hulk, eh. I’ll be curious to see if they come out with Ed Norton’s cut of the film on DVD. I don’t know why Hollywood still feels the need to end action-type trailers with people jumping at each other. I saw them run and jump at each other in the first trailer. Now I’ve seen them run and jump at each other and hold onto a helicopter. Pretty anticlimactic for me.
Comment by Andy — May 1, 2008 @ 5:41 am
All I know… Iron Man has a 95% with 74 reviews on RT right now. Holy shit.
Comment by Jonathan — May 1, 2008 @ 11:57 am
“Iron Man has a 95% with 74 reviews on RT right now.”
Is this where I go “America…” ? I’m trying real hard not to. Iron Man is completely uninteresting filmmaking, it’s a study in how to spend over 100 million dollars in the name of forgetfulness and indifference. It literally is a waste of time - unless you’re dealing with horrible cancer problems or something of that caliber, I can’t recommend you spend money on it.
Comment by Henrik — May 1, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Okay.
Comment by Jonathan — May 1, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Local critic here in Mpls was really impressed with Iron Man.
I’m sure there are critics in other countries besides America that (will) like the movie Henrik. It was funny for a while, but I really wish you would knock that shit off.
Comment by Andrew James — May 1, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
I know, I’m trying to get past it. I’ll see tomorrow how it fares with critics here, but for me personally, it’s not very good.
Comment by Henrik — May 1, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Colin also liked Transformers Andrew. I nearly banned him from The Edina for that ridiculous take.
Comment by Matt Gamble — May 1, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
When Henrik talks about Americans I just take it to be people in general. There is a reason that blockbusters are blockbusters and make the amount of money that they do. They know how to hit the common denominator. Does that make them good movies… nope but it makes them very accessible.
Comment by John Allison — May 1, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
Henrik, get real. you liked TMNT, and now having seen Iron Man, if you can hate the world for liking what is a very competent, well directed, good looking, well acted action flick, while liking what is honestly a middling but decent looking adaptation of a much more ridiculous concept, all I can do is shake my head. I don’t have it within me to buckle with rage that anyone would dare dislike Iron Man, but seriously, Favreau did a hell of a job with a Marvel character I knew little to nothing about, in what I can already tell is going to be considered among the best superhero movies ever. His big robot fight showed me what Transformers could have been with someone competent in the editing room and behind the camera.
It’s a blockbuster film, and I’ll be impressed if any of the other summer action pics match it.
Comment by Goon — May 2, 2008 @ 1:07 am
by the way Henrik, when did you get to see Iron Man and be in the position of calling it ‘completely unintersting filmmaking’
because I’m actually assuming you haven’t, which makes your “Americans..” comment more ignorant than anything I’ve heard out of any American, even Bush, this week.
Comment by Goon — May 2, 2008 @ 1:09 am
>>Is this where I go “America…” ….Iron Man is completely uninteresting filmmaking, it’s a study in how to spend over 100 million dollars in the name of forgetfulness and indifference. It literally is a waste of time - unless you’re dealing with horrible cancer problems or something of that caliber, I can’t recommend you spend money on it.
The adage about “opinions are like assholes…” comes into play here.
Considering that pretty much all the huge blockbusters end up making as much, or more, money oversees than domestically, what does that say about the rest of the world’s judgement?
What did “Transfomers” do in Germany? 14 million. Oscar Winning “No County for old Men”: 6 Million.
Doesn’t matter what country you live in, people want to see popcorn action/effects movies.
Comment by Necron_99 — May 2, 2008 @ 1:12 am
“what does that say about the rest of the world’s judgement?”
Germans love David Hasselhoff.
Comment by Goon — May 2, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Is Ironman getting a pass simply because it is a halfway decent popcorn flick with a solid central performance and little else? That seems to be the impression I’m getting from reading the reviews (kinda like Pirates of the Caribbean).
I’ll be checking this out Sunday Night, although outside the RDJ factor, my expectations are set to : LOW.
I’m very VERY glad that all of this RDJ love is going to end up in a wider palette of projects for the man, although he’s been doing very well, film-wise for himself lately: A SCANNER DARKLY, FUR, KISS KISS BANG BANG, ZODIAC, etc.
Comment by Kurt — May 2, 2008 @ 6:09 am
@Kurt - Is Fur worth checking out? I’ve seen the DVD in the bargain and I mean really bargain bins at Blockbuster and have almost bought it 3 or 4 times.
Comment by John Allison — May 2, 2008 @ 6:15 am
I’ve not seen it, but seeing how I like both the actors (and the director who made Secretary) in small offbeat projects, I’m surprised I missed it in the cinema. If I saw it anywhere for $10 or less, I’d certainly pick it up.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 2, 2008 @ 6:57 am
“Is Ironman getting a pass simply because it is a halfway decent popcorn flick with a solid central performance and little else?”
My impression is that helps making it a 95% on RottenTomatoes, however at the same time the comic genre fans are embracing it as one of the best comic book movies. I’d say “getting a pass simply” is an unfair though, seems like very political parsing, to explain away the critical success of a blockbuster as nothing to be excited about. being ‘good enough’ can make ANY movie a 95% on RottenTomatoes.
Metacritic has its overall at an 80, with plenty of 100 reviews, and the worst reviews giving it 50/100. If you want to standardize critical acclaim, give credit where credit is due: that doesn’t happen frequently to a blockbuster and you cant explain it away casually with a “getting a pass simply..”
Comment by Goon — May 2, 2008 @ 7:25 am
Comic Book films exhaust me. I am getting to a point where I find the drone of pixelgasms genuinely offensive to my efforts to stay rooted in something meaningful. I pair them with something like Grey’s Anatomy, this army of banality that is swarming around and were it not for how ubiquitous they are I could probably go on without too much complaint but it is becoming very hard to find what Herzog denotes as ‘Adequate Imagery’. I realize for most people there is no such conflict and there is a place for something like Iron Man. Many people can compartmentalize and enjoy differing experiences without the kind of demoralizing effects I am refering to. But I am feeling dumbed down by what is pervasive in our culture, that with every Iron Man some part of inspiration dies in me. Maybe it is just that this year I have I only found one or two bonafide films to watch at the theatre, and this dumbing down does not seem to be letting up. I know this sounds like the rant of a snob but maybe a snob is just another way for saying one has an overt sensitivity to things, neither good nor bad, just different.
Comment by rot — May 2, 2008 @ 7:42 am
Goon. Very solid point. I absolutely agree with it. There is a somewhat famous quote out there (Pauline Kael?), to the effect that the very best movies are rarely perfect, which takes a bit of clout out of bandying about RT or MC scores. The movies I’m often very passionate about often have less than 70% at R.T. and other aggregate sites. I’m pretty well sure that IronMan is a very enjoyable time at the movies, it is what we’ve seen many, many times done quite well. People are likely flocking to the theatre because as a good time at the movies is a sure bet, as a definitive superhero tale or ‘revelatory’ time at the movies (which obviously, I wish every time I go!)? Well, i’ll let you know on Monday.
Cinematical’s James Rocchi may have nailed it with the statement, “Many will knock Iron Man for being a competent, fun but fairly familiar superhero film; considering how many superhero films are neither competent nor fun, that airy dismissal actually seems like high praise.”
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 2, 2008 @ 7:56 am
@ROT But you are wrong about the movies in general. There is a lot of great stuff out there (much of it never showing up at the multiplex) - it’s merely a function that ‘the movies’ are not as fundamentally a part of the culture as they were many years ago, merely another form of entertainment, with a focus on the young ‘uns who are the primary demographic. But 2007 should be an indicator that there are some pretty complex and fascinating movies out there still, there always have been, and hopefully always will be….
Back to the superheroes exhaustion (I’m with you on this, Rot), after Spiderman2 was about the time where I had to admit, the comic book adaptations are becoming exhausting. Part of the reason I was so ho-hum with Batman Begins and never bothered with The Fantastic Four, Spidey3, etc. etc.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 2, 2008 @ 7:57 am
2007 seems like a lifetime ago.
Comment by rot — May 2, 2008 @ 8:07 am
It’s been a the biggest slog in memory this year. As someone who goes to the cinema nearly 100 times a year (admittedly 40-50 of these at festivals), the fact that I’ve only been to the cinema 7 times this year for 2008 movies (Be Kind Rewind, Cloverfield, Funny Games, 1st Bite, Horton Hears a Who, War Inc.) - Note that one of these is a remake, and two of them are films that sat on the shelf for a while.
Any remaining cinema visits have been 2007 movie-catchup or rep-cinema of golden oldies (Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Night of the Hunter, Touch of Evil…and the not so old, but quite golden All The Real Girls)
Things are looking up though. Red Belt, My Blueberry Nights, Standard Operating Procedure are all on their way here soon.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 2, 2008 @ 8:16 am
I agree with Rot. When I saw Iron Man (which I did on Monday morning) I sat there thinking that the only thing separating this from 98% of the other comic book movies is the superpower. The extremely incestous relationship that all superhero comic books have, would inevitably seep into the films, and it has done exactly that. I was thinking about what Kurt said about these movies wasting so many talented people’s time, and I had dismissed this thought because of films like the Spider-Mans and the X-Mens which are elevated by the talent, but in this it literally is a cage of shackled actors, cinematographers and to a lesser extent visual effects artists. Is this really the extent of Terrence Howards talent? Of Gwyneth Paltrows? I liked Jeff Bridges in the film very much, his looks were amazing, and I thought he did elevate his part to a point where I at least remembered who he was, but I couldn’t help but wonder if this cast had been a real film (shot by the amazingly talented Matty LeBatique too!) what might have been.
“Many will knock Iron Man for being a competent, fun but fairly familiar superhero film; considering how many superhero films are neither competent nor fun, that airy dismissal actually seems like high praise.”
I would guess this person loves Steven Spielberg. This is the highlight of incompetence, to always assume the worst going in. The say that something is good because it is mediocre simply because it isn’t horrible, is ridiculous. This will lead to a devaluation of film in general, where anything that doesn’t stand out to annoy you will be a positive experience.
The FilmJunk TMNT review keeps coming back to bite me. I recently rewatched the film for the 4th time, and I will say that I still think the turtles themselves were handled superbly. There was a story there that fit perfectly within a kids film, nobody tried to make it more serious or more gritty. I also love the action scenes, the anime influences etc. As for anything but the turtles themselves, it’s not very awesome, but that was what I was going for, that’s why I had such an overwhelmingly positive experience when I saw it.
Comment by Henrik — May 2, 2008 @ 8:32 am
Fur fucking sucks. Please don’t buy it John.
Comment by Matt Gamble — May 2, 2008 @ 10:21 am
I didn’t mind TMNT, it was fun. Certainly better than anticipated.
As for Iron Man, unlikely with the current scores but it could be trash and I’d still see it. It’s all about the RDJ love.
Comment by Marina Antunes — May 2, 2008 @ 10:38 am
“I would guess this person loves Steven Spielberg. This is the highlight of incompetence, to always assume the worst going in.”
The second sentence describes your views on Speilberg and Pixar films to a T. Are you making an admission of incompetence?
Comment by Goon — May 2, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Fur is a very strange movie. Months and months after watching it, I’m still not sure what I think of it.
Iron Man itself was a GREAT movie for many more reasons than RDJ, although Kurt, if you didn’t like Batman Begins, you might not feel the same way. As for me, I had such an enjoyable time watching this.
And really, some of the droning in here about superhero movies is beginning to sound pompous. Yeah, there is plenty of shit like Fantastic Four and Catwoman being made, but some “superhero movies” - such as with Iron Man - are genuinely great movies. Just like there is a place in Hollywood for the experimental flicks, the little indies that could, and so forth, there is a place for summer popcorn action movies.
Yes, Iron Man is some inspired filmmaking by Jon Favreau.
Whereas, for example, Transformers had nothing more to it than what was right there on the screen, Iron Man - like nearly all great movies - was anything but mindless entertainment. Not all popcorn movies have to be either.
I’ll save the rest for the review. We can debate about it more there.
Comment by Jonathan — May 2, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
So, yeah, about The Incredible Hulk… I’ve watched the trailer a couple times now and every time I watch it I find myself leaning towards the less excited side. The Hulk’s CG looks much better this time around than Ang Lee’s Hulk, who was smoother than a baby’s bottom, but the whole trailer gives me a bad vibe in general.
And I was thinking about how critics constantly are saying that The Hulk and Spider-Man are Marvels two most loved/favorite characters by the fans. Unarguably, Spider-Man, but it seems to me like Hulk’s fanbase is more of the 70’s Lou Ferrigno crowd which would be looking for a completely different way to tell Hulk’s story than either Hulk movie has/is going to.
Comment by Andy — May 2, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Iron Man is better than Transformers. Does that make it worthwhile? No.
“Are you making an admission of incompetence?”
This is probably a language barrier thing, but I genuinely don’t understand what this sentence means. I hope you know me enough (if you don’t, you will be forced to because my purpose in life is to be pompous all over the internet) to think that if I did know, I would respond with honesty. Will you explain what it means?
Comment by Henrik — May 2, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
>> Iron Man is better than Transformers. Does that make it worthwhile? No.
Who gives a crap about “worthwhile?”
Is it enjoyable? entertaining? Do I find the subject matter interesting? Does it respect the source material enough to at least not overtly insult the audience? That’s what matters to me.
The only genre of film that I have no tolerance for is the torture porn stuff. I ranted against that a few weeks back, and everyone defended Funny Games like it was high art. It makes me laugh that film snobs defend that film, yet slam something like Transformers or Iron Man. Tortue porn actively harms society, not just water it down like the mindless summer blockbusters.
IMO, a lot of the films reviewed and dicussed here are not even remotely interesting or worthwhile. But again, that assesment is entirely subjective, as is your view of superhero movies.
Comment by Necron_99 — May 2, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
@Jonathan
about the droning about superhero movies sounding pompous… If I told you the same joke over and over again would you still laugh? Wouldn’t you start to yawn and grow tired of it and even eventually lash out at it because of the repetition? Is it pompous to acknowledge that virtually every superhero film that has been made since Superman has been rigidly dogmatic to a particular formula (not just comic book formula, but more importantly cinematic formula, to the point of xeroxed storyboards) and that the variation of costume leaves much to be desired for those with an overpowering sense of deja-vu? A ‘popcorn film’ to me is Maid to Honour, and I see no difference between that and Iron Man if we are using this same kind of dismissal of intelligence that seems to be implied by Popcorn film. Its okay to say Iron Man is great because it does not aspire to be anything more then mindless fun… but fun, at least to me, is still dependent upon some novelty, again, much as a the delivery of a joke requires some novelty, some unexpected slight-of-hand.
The Superhero film is the equivalent of the knock-knock joke, its just that there is enough pulsating light and sound to make one overlook the obviousness and misconstrue greatness where none should be… unless you ARE thirteen or new to the formula, or an amnesiac.
That said maybe I am pompous, because in general I am bored with straightforward genre films altogether. It seems like such a waste most of the time. Such a waste of time and energy to regurgitate formulas that have come before, and there is a business for this because it is safer profit-wise, and because people generally dislike venturing out of their comfort-zone. There is an order to genre that appeals to people in what I think is a bad way, because it registers like most tv shows, something passively consumed. A genre should not be an end in itself but a starting off point to play off of the expectations of the audience and fuck with them. The Superhero film virtually never fucks with its audience, the genre is entirely the end in itself, and so I am hardest on it then say the romantic comedy because with the romantic comedy there is less rigidity to the rules, more experimentation (compare Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind to Annie Hall).
Comment by rot — May 3, 2008 @ 10:37 am
“That said maybe I am pompous, because in general I am bored with straightforward genre films altogether.”
Whats your ‘genre film’ standard. Would this include war films? I have many friends who see no difference between Saving Private Ryan and Letters From Iwo Jima.
Would this include westerns? I have friends who see no difference between Tombstone and Once Upon A Time In The West.
I’m sorry rot, but I do find it a little pompous :/ - It’s so easy to make an argument like this with something new and relegated to blockbusters like supposed ‘genre’ films, but you’re painting pretty broadly with that term and only bound to piss people off… its a baby/bathwater thing - in order to trash superhero films with an overall comment you’re perhaps unintentionally trashing a lot of other genres who like anything else in the world, have a vast range in quality.
Comment by Goon — May 3, 2008 @ 10:59 am
(and yes, i know you said ’straightforward genre films’ - however your idea of what that means may very well differ from many of ours)
Comment by Goon — May 3, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Henrik, you said it was incompetent to assume the worst of a movie going in, but thats exactly what you did with the last couple Pixar movies, and thats what you always do with Spielberg.
Comment by Goon — May 3, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Not all genre films are created equal, because as I said there is in some more room and more examples of experimentation in say drama, or romantic drama than a superhero story or a biopic. Genre is not something that is usually written down, but understood. When I make a complaint of straightforward genre films I guess I mean in those particular genres that are the most repetitive and conservative, because then the formulas rise to the surface. The superhero story is almost always a case of good versus evil, of extremes vying against each other, and while there certainly was a strand of this in traditional war films, the more interesting war films of late impose ambiguity and interject political questions (and in the case of Saving Private Ryan, strive for a first-person experience of war). You would not, or do not have an equivalent of the kind of variation on the genre that Full Metal Jacket is to war films in any of the superhero films, because of their rigid conservatism, not only to the idea of good versus evil but of the origin story premises, and the hero template that is continually borrowed from other genres (i.e. Star Wars). Superhero films are a known quantity, they are the equivalent of a Big Mac. Likewise biopics, the whole reason that Walk Hard exists is because of how common the storytelling is in this particular genre. Its not a coincidence that a similar satire is coming out pertaining to the Superhero genre.
Westerns tends to be conservative as well, and I will admit that I can generally enjoy these films despite the familiarity of the storytelling. For myself I think it has more to do with a nostalgia for the time period than being comforted by the implicit rules of the storytelling. I’m less inclined to High Noon and more so to something like the Searchers which has a bristling novelty to it. A good western lacks a solid agenda but just sort of saturates in the environment.
I will admit that I absolutely love Seven Samurai and it is one of the most formulaic films I can think of, but I love it for it. I love the universe it exists within, and so I guess I can understand via this affection how someone can still find fun from a familiar joke. But then again I do not watch a lot of samurai films, whereas superheroes I am oversaturated with.
Comment by rot — May 3, 2008 @ 11:34 am
“you said it was incompetent to assume the worst of a movie going in, but thats exactly what you did with the last couple Pixar movies, and thats what you always do with Spielberg.”
If I had assumed the worst with these films, I would have been pleasantly surprised that they didn’t feel like torture. The problem is that for Spielberg and Pixar to receive the amounts of praise they get (to me, praise for simply not being horrible and annoying) I expect something that’s actually interesting, intriguing and thus good.
Comment by Henrik — May 3, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
I always think it’s lame when someone criticizes the genre not the film. And Henrik, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone praise Spielberg for “not being horrible and annoying”
If anything it’s the opposite. He’s praised for his command of cinematic language while criticized for often being pat and sentimental.
Comment by Rusty James — May 3, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Some films are nothing but an assemblage of the genre tropes they belong to, the problem is bigger than an individual film… much the way neo-conservatism is bigger than George Bush, it is kind of foolish to critique Bush like he exists in a vacuum, and with films that are blatantly genre-dependent, it seems foolish to speak of something like Iron Man as if there is not a recipe list it is cribbing from. See my breakdown of the superhero genre manifesting in Iron Man in the M Night thread.
Comment by rot — May 3, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
…now you’re just sounding extremely pretentious. I’m a flaming liberal but even neo-conservatives are more complex than some ‘recipe list’ of dumb ideas. Its in my nature to engage in flame wars, but if I went any further on this thread it would get pretty damn nasty, and I’m in no mood.
Comment by Goon — May 4, 2008 @ 3:45 am
My point being it can be useful to analyze something like a particular film by the reference points it employs, especially when there is virtually no deviations from something like an out and out genre framework. Do I need to direct my frustration solely on Walk the Line or is it not possible to speak of this biopic formula that it is merely cribbing from, and address this as the real problem I have. It would seem pretty stupid to deny my awareness of association and say “nope, there is only this movie, anything of myself or the outside associations that may pop into my head, I must avoid thinking about”. Walk the Line is the complete manifestation of the traditional biopic, but I would love to here an argument otherwise. Perhaps it was accidental, mere coincidence that Ray and Walk the Line follow similar storytelling paths?
for there to be a flame war, Goon, I would have to participate and I do not feel any need to. If I sound extremely pretentious, so be it, I fully embrace the ego, I say what I think and speak from my perspective. I think society is dumbing down, but I can totally see from another perspective there being no problems to consider. I do not assume an omniscient position that can override yours. I plead my case, you plead yours, and everyone else can pick sides according to how they feel.
Comment by rot — May 4, 2008 @ 6:11 am
>> I’m a flaming liberal…
Well admitting you have a problem is the first step…
Comment by Necron_99 — May 4, 2008 @ 1:18 pm