No fondness for crummy old television can obscure the general faintheartedness of this saga.
Oh, gee. The guys from Slant Magazine didn't like a movie. What a surprise!
Jun 10 - 02:17 PM
Ah this guy misses the mark on all comic movies... he just doesn't get the genre very well. Even Iron man only got 2.5 from him.
Its funny because when you read this review it reads as if it was written by someone who is in the business of reviewing movies.
The good reviewers never seem jaded from the repetition of their trade and find some way to look at movies the way a normal audience might. Not this guy though.
Jun 10 - 03:04 PM
So just to clarify, Brokeback Mountain was bad, but Dukes of Hazzard was "finger-lickin' good"? Sorry, I can't take you seriously. Ever. You're less a critic than a forum troll. I'm sure I've seen some of your handiwork on the IMDb message boards.
Jun 10 - 08:23 PM
oh my god, even larger of a douche bad, go watch dukes of hazzard, douche.
Jun 10 - 10:58 PM
Old television? Geez man, you review movies for a living, you have time to research the actual source material. This is based on a comic book, and not the TV serial, which was about as true to the comic book as the "Running Man" was to Stephen King's novel.
Your review is banal and uninsightful, mostly because you clearly are looking for this film to be more than what it should be, which is a fun comic book adaptation. You miss the subtext (which is implied because everyone already knows the story). To re-hash the origin story for the sake of so called character developement is both condescending and redundant, audiences are more sophisticated than that today, we pick up on visual queues and the opening that reloads the backstory for the audience is more than sufficient, and there are plenty of quiet moments and other visual queues that help given some added dimension to what always should have been, no offense Ang Lee, a fun summer popcorn movie. This movie succeeds in that, and you are an idiotic hack for not seeing it. I'm sick of the "Artistic Elitism" that seems to pervade the "movie critic" circle jerks. Go review a documentary in search of the deeper meaning, and leave my summer movies alone, jerky.
Jun 11 - 08:50 AM
Amen, couldn't have said it better myself. In fact you've articulated the point, exactly!!
Jun 11 - 01:29 PM
slant magazine. ha ha ha talk about sucking. have you ever thought about picking apples for a living, you might be better at that. cause you sure cant write a review. you suck bad. ***
Jun 11 - 06:09 PM
Jun 11 - 06:10 PM
biased critic alert!!!
Jun 11 - 08:39 PM
i do see your point about trying to hard to take ques from the original series - some of which tis generation of movie goers won't even remember , ever knew or care about...certain nuances during commercials and interviews kinda ill that they were doing this ..yet in some little way i didn't mind as it did pay homage to Bill Bixby's roll in the series. Even with all that i was a little torn on the approach cause to be honest i didn't mind Lee's version- i'm a comic reader and i like the intense character development and the flow of Lee's version so the reason for this action filled version will be a great mix a la' icing on the cake if you will I see some of you r points yet i see your trying to hard -it's a comic character everybody knows we know what the Hulk does and expect as much -it follows that perfectly - to give this a 2 was very distastful on your part ! Just being alive to see this hit the big screen finally not only once but twice is a god sent for an comic book fan IMO !
Jun 12 - 07:56 AM
It seems that there are now three things that we can count on in life: death, taxes, and an onslaught of insulting comments for any critic who doesn't like a superhero movie. Nick writes good stuff... so much better than 90% of the critics on here who just summarize the plot and tack on their opinion at the end. Call it "artistic elitism" if you want... I just call it giving a damn.
Jun 12 - 02:31 PM