1. Get a Favorite Local Band
2. Get a Project
Many of you are emailing yelling, "Get on the stick, Hilliard, and write these two out!!!" (note the three(!) exclamation points. Relax. In due time.
Here's #3 though. These are initial thoughts with a more refining pass to come in the near future. (I hear you now: "Yeah Yeah Yeah...action, not words, please.")
#3 is thus:
Demand Excellence.
Two words with amazing power. Corpus Christi--and again this may be indicative of any communtity--is a remarkably passive city. Read the caller.com blogs--any article will prove the point--for proof. Everything is everyone else's fault and all anyone can think to do is complain.
Too often we say that this organization or that council member or this ethnic group or that part of town or this large company or that restaurant or this bad driver or that red tape or this school district that graffiti gang or this downtown landowner--pick your favorite villain--is responsible for this apathy or that inaction or the this reason why the city doesn't grow or that reason that our youth are leaving and not coming back or keeping my favorite band from coming to town or these types of movies don't come to CC or those types of jobs don't exist here or that city park's grass is too high or this school doesn't meet my child's needs or that ferris wheel is not worth millions dollars on our tax rolls..blah...blah....blah.
What are you DOING?!!
Demand EXCELLENCE. Note, I didn't say complain about the lack of excellence. This step moves you from complaining to demanding. It may sound like a subtle difference, but it couldn't be more different. This requires you to become a face...a voice...a real player.
When you are dissatisfied with your meal at a restaurant do you complain to your tablemates, but eat it anyway? Or do you ask for the manager? What happens when you ask for the manager? Typically you get results, no? You get your entree cooked the way you want it? Maybe a free dessert? Gone should be the days when anyone eats their crappy food in silence, complaining only to their family.
Your family wants to see you act. They are tired of hearing you complain. And the beauty of Corpus Christi is that there is room at the table for your activism. Don't like what city council is doing? DON'T COMPLAIN! Go to a meeting and talk. Learn the process. Demand Excellence. Didn't work? Go to every meeting. Get everyone you know to go every meeting. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and you should squeak the loudest.
Don't like...what? let's pick a gripe...the state of our downtown? Learn the issue. Who is really at blame? Find them. Demand excellence. Go to their offices with 100 of your closest friends.
Our city needs to quit complaining and start demanding.
More soon.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
I grew up in CC. I've always been a 'movie person'. I was here for Billie Jean. I can tell you a VERY thorough history of our local movie theaters. Every weekend my friends and I would have a parent drop us off at either Cine 6 or the mall to see a movie....usually 2 (we snuck in to the second one). My first job was at National Video which was the first stand alone video rental place in town at the corner of Everhart and SPID. A small group of friends would take a long lunch every friday during high school and go to the dollar cinema. I wrote movie reviews for the Carroll High School newspaper. I was never introduced to film events (like a CC7D) or film culture outside of the normal movie theater experience because it simply did not exist here for me to meet it.
I left for college in 1990 with no intention of coming back. My biggest regret: not going to film school. Should have. Was chicken.
I was introduced to the concept of film culture in two different key experiences. 1) I dated a girl from Tampa who, when visiting there, took me to a place called The Pitcher Show where you could eat an actual meal and drink an actual beer while you watched a movie. Watching movies can be more than 'going to the movies' 2) In 1996 a friend of mine began renting out a room in Austin from a guy who was about to open a small theater called The Alamo Drafthouse. He invited me down and introduced me to Tim League. The Alamo took off and shortly thereafter I began driving down to go to film experiences there.
After grad school, I lived in two larger TX cities (the largest two, actually) with vibrant film cultures and would, in addition, drive to Austin at a moment's notice if a film event came up that I wanted to go to. I've been to Q&A screenings with Kevin Smith, John Carpenter, Mel Gibson and more. I've watched horror movies all night at a dilapidated house for the criminally insane, watched movies for 24 hours straight with Harry Knowles from Aint it Cool, seen Friday the 13th in the theater on Friday the 13th and seen Halloween in the theater on Halloween. Not bragging; just saying. I did these things because they were available where or close to where I lived and because this is the kind of 'stuff' I like to do. When I came back to CC in 2001, I immediately missed the ability to do these things. I discovered quickly that film culture in our city was largely tied to Will Smith releases at Century.
I believe that if you don't like the status quo you can do one of three things: complain, wish, or produce. It's much more fulfilling for me to produce because complaining and wishing never help you get where you want to be.
I started CCFS in attempt to duplicate or at least use as a template the Austin Film Society.
We do this for one reason only: to change CC into the city we want it to be. We just happen to want CC to be a city with a vibrant film culture. Unless something weird happens I will live here for the rest of my life. And if we can do a little work to get this kind of stuff down here or create it from scratch, won't CC be a fantastic place to live? These events and this work won't make me rich. This work won't make us famous. This work won't bring us power.
Some things have succeeded and others have failed. A large group that goes to movies together on a regular basis simply does not work in this city. Many have tried and it has never worked out. Free screenings of cult films didn't work too well either. We did 80s films and horror films and the turnout was not great. Some filmmakers asked for ongoing mixers where people can get together and then didn't come to them. The mixers were a mixed bag, but they're fun and don't cost anything so those will continue in the near future. CC7D works (so far). The Expo in May 2008 worked very well and will continue in the near future.
In fact, ideally, we will watch others get rich and famous and powerful as the films they make get them noticed on a larger level. I was talking to a regional filmmaker recently who screened some work at a festival north of here. He was pleased with the reception, has some more screenings now set up around the state and we hope great things for him. Don't forget us when you get to Hollywood.
We have NO IDEA if Coastalthon will work or not because one thing we've learned is that there is no recipe for success in CC.
If it does, great. If it doesn't, great for trying. The beauty of this for us, though, is that the success of this event rests firmly on the shoulders of local filmmakers. All we are doing is operating the projector. When Coastalthon is over, there will be no judges, screening order placement, award winners or protocols to complain about. Just make a movie and let people see it. Will you? If not, why not?
Today can be the day where you ask yourself, what do I want the film culture of CC to be? If the answer is positive, then what will you produce to get it there? No more complaining about what CC isn't. No more wishing that CC had more. Now we produce.
As solid Coastalthon information trickles out, will local filmmakers decide to make a new film simply because they know it will be seen? Will local filmmakers make a film when there is no cash or competition or awards to win?
If they do, we're on our way to whatever their vision is about CC's film culture! If they don't, then.....what?
I left for college in 1990 with no intention of coming back. My biggest regret: not going to film school. Should have. Was chicken.
I was introduced to the concept of film culture in two different key experiences. 1) I dated a girl from Tampa who, when visiting there, took me to a place called The Pitcher Show where you could eat an actual meal and drink an actual beer while you watched a movie. Watching movies can be more than 'going to the movies' 2) In 1996 a friend of mine began renting out a room in Austin from a guy who was about to open a small theater called The Alamo Drafthouse. He invited me down and introduced me to Tim League. The Alamo took off and shortly thereafter I began driving down to go to film experiences there.
After grad school, I lived in two larger TX cities (the largest two, actually) with vibrant film cultures and would, in addition, drive to Austin at a moment's notice if a film event came up that I wanted to go to. I've been to Q&A screenings with Kevin Smith, John Carpenter, Mel Gibson and more. I've watched horror movies all night at a dilapidated house for the criminally insane, watched movies for 24 hours straight with Harry Knowles from Aint it Cool, seen Friday the 13th in the theater on Friday the 13th and seen Halloween in the theater on Halloween. Not bragging; just saying. I did these things because they were available where or close to where I lived and because this is the kind of 'stuff' I like to do. When I came back to CC in 2001, I immediately missed the ability to do these things. I discovered quickly that film culture in our city was largely tied to Will Smith releases at Century.
I believe that if you don't like the status quo you can do one of three things: complain, wish, or produce. It's much more fulfilling for me to produce because complaining and wishing never help you get where you want to be.
I started CCFS in attempt to duplicate or at least use as a template the Austin Film Society.
We do this for one reason only: to change CC into the city we want it to be. We just happen to want CC to be a city with a vibrant film culture. Unless something weird happens I will live here for the rest of my life. And if we can do a little work to get this kind of stuff down here or create it from scratch, won't CC be a fantastic place to live? These events and this work won't make me rich. This work won't make us famous. This work won't bring us power.
Some things have succeeded and others have failed. A large group that goes to movies together on a regular basis simply does not work in this city. Many have tried and it has never worked out. Free screenings of cult films didn't work too well either. We did 80s films and horror films and the turnout was not great. Some filmmakers asked for ongoing mixers where people can get together and then didn't come to them. The mixers were a mixed bag, but they're fun and don't cost anything so those will continue in the near future. CC7D works (so far). The Expo in May 2008 worked very well and will continue in the near future.
In fact, ideally, we will watch others get rich and famous and powerful as the films they make get them noticed on a larger level. I was talking to a regional filmmaker recently who screened some work at a festival north of here. He was pleased with the reception, has some more screenings now set up around the state and we hope great things for him. Don't forget us when you get to Hollywood.
We have NO IDEA if Coastalthon will work or not because one thing we've learned is that there is no recipe for success in CC.
If it does, great. If it doesn't, great for trying. The beauty of this for us, though, is that the success of this event rests firmly on the shoulders of local filmmakers. All we are doing is operating the projector. When Coastalthon is over, there will be no judges, screening order placement, award winners or protocols to complain about. Just make a movie and let people see it. Will you? If not, why not?
Today can be the day where you ask yourself, what do I want the film culture of CC to be? If the answer is positive, then what will you produce to get it there? No more complaining about what CC isn't. No more wishing that CC had more. Now we produce.
As solid Coastalthon information trickles out, will local filmmakers decide to make a new film simply because they know it will be seen? Will local filmmakers make a film when there is no cash or competition or awards to win?
If they do, we're on our way to whatever their vision is about CC's film culture! If they don't, then.....what?
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Things I Hate
The pleasures of life are the small things....the details that make life rich and robust.
On the flipside, there are things...more small things....that just drive you nuts. They're small and subjective. What drives me nuts may not drive you nuts. But in a subjective world, my nuts are much more important than yours.
In no particular order:
1) People that buy lotto tickets with the same speed of planning an investment portfolio. There are people behind you in line! Just hand the clerk the wasted money and leave
2) Yappy dogs. Owners: Can you NOT hear what hear? Get a shock collar.
3) Pious Hypocrites.
X) Ringtones...see my other blog
On the flipside, there are things...more small things....that just drive you nuts. They're small and subjective. What drives me nuts may not drive you nuts. But in a subjective world, my nuts are much more important than yours.
In no particular order:
1) People that buy lotto tickets with the same speed of planning an investment portfolio. There are people behind you in line! Just hand the clerk the wasted money and leave
2) Yappy dogs. Owners: Can you NOT hear what hear? Get a shock collar.
3) Pious Hypocrites.
X) Ringtones...see my other blog
Friday, June 27, 2008
WALL-E review
800 years from now, according to the new Pixar film Wall-e, humans will grow into fat blobs whizzed around on automatic scooters through a huge spaceship owned by a single conglomerate while drinking all of their meals on-demand and constantly watching traveling, hologram televisions. In a how-true-could-this-be moment I find myself in Wal-Mart immediately after viewing the movie where, at the entrance, three different fat people are climbing into three different Wal-Mart-provided scooters. I began laughing in the store.
Obese rights organizations (they have to exist, I assume) will most likely be up in arms about Wall-e as will many other PC-sensitive-environment-picket-anything-we-remotely-don’t-agree-with groups. (I’m thinking here about the anti-greenhouse gas folks--I'm imaging the phrase 'liberal agenda' bandied around).
As interesting as Pixar’s vision of the future is, this film isn’t even about the humans in the film. It’s about a robot. A robot whose two greatest desires are to remain an individual in a clone-like society and to find companionship after years of isolation. The film succeeds in showing us that these two desires—retaining individualism and living among a society—are not mutually exclusive.
At the beginning of the summer I said the two films I was most looking forward to were the new Indiana Jones and Wall-e. Both of those picks were based on past performance: a nostalgic love for Indiana Jones and the .1000 batting average of Pixar. Sure, I can rank the Pixar movies from my least to most favorite (That would be Cars and The Incredibles, respectively), but even the worst Pixar movie is better than that best animated film from any other studio. Prior to Wall-e, I’d considered Indiana Jones a failing disappointment with Iron Man the summer film to beat. After Wall-e, it’s a tough call which will require a little thought as to which film is better.
Prior to seeing the movie I was a little concerned because the marketing of the film was not strong. It relied on slapstick gags (of which there are tons), but thankfully the trailer only revealed 'get to know Wall-e' moments from the first act.
Mild spoilers:
In the future we are forced to leave earth because we’ve overrun the planet with our garbage. The corporation that now runs the planet leaves behind robots whose job is to manage the garbage while humans are aboard a mega spaceship drifting around space. IN due time the other robots either break or quit leaving only Wall-e who has grown a personality to cope with the solitude. A probe ship sends EVE, a newer model robot to search for any sign of new, growing life on earth. Wall-e and EVE create a relationship and when EVE is recalled from earth into space Wall-e follows.
Wall-e is a phenomenal film. Thank goodness for Pixar who teaches us once again, that the foundation for any film, even for children who clamor to see anything, is story. The humans in Pixar make brief appearances leaving the bulk of the story told in limited one-word dialogue between robots. Pixar reminds us again and again that we don’t need a sequel, we don’t need characters we’re comfortable with, we don’t need ironic pop culture references, we don’t need fart jokes…we don’t even need dialogue. We need richly textured characters and a story to engage us. Once again Pixar nails it.
At this date in the summer, I'm torn between which of the two films (Iron Man and Wall-e) is better...so as of now we'll call it a tie, and, after some thought, I'll let you know. Until then there's nothing wrong with declaring that there are two great films out there right now. Go see them.
Obese rights organizations (they have to exist, I assume) will most likely be up in arms about Wall-e as will many other PC-sensitive-environment-picket-anything-we-remotely-don’t-agree-with groups. (I’m thinking here about the anti-greenhouse gas folks--I'm imaging the phrase 'liberal agenda' bandied around).
As interesting as Pixar’s vision of the future is, this film isn’t even about the humans in the film. It’s about a robot. A robot whose two greatest desires are to remain an individual in a clone-like society and to find companionship after years of isolation. The film succeeds in showing us that these two desires—retaining individualism and living among a society—are not mutually exclusive.
At the beginning of the summer I said the two films I was most looking forward to were the new Indiana Jones and Wall-e. Both of those picks were based on past performance: a nostalgic love for Indiana Jones and the .1000 batting average of Pixar. Sure, I can rank the Pixar movies from my least to most favorite (That would be Cars and The Incredibles, respectively), but even the worst Pixar movie is better than that best animated film from any other studio. Prior to Wall-e, I’d considered Indiana Jones a failing disappointment with Iron Man the summer film to beat. After Wall-e, it’s a tough call which will require a little thought as to which film is better.
Prior to seeing the movie I was a little concerned because the marketing of the film was not strong. It relied on slapstick gags (of which there are tons), but thankfully the trailer only revealed 'get to know Wall-e' moments from the first act.
Mild spoilers:
In the future we are forced to leave earth because we’ve overrun the planet with our garbage. The corporation that now runs the planet leaves behind robots whose job is to manage the garbage while humans are aboard a mega spaceship drifting around space. IN due time the other robots either break or quit leaving only Wall-e who has grown a personality to cope with the solitude. A probe ship sends EVE, a newer model robot to search for any sign of new, growing life on earth. Wall-e and EVE create a relationship and when EVE is recalled from earth into space Wall-e follows.
Wall-e is a phenomenal film. Thank goodness for Pixar who teaches us once again, that the foundation for any film, even for children who clamor to see anything, is story. The humans in Pixar make brief appearances leaving the bulk of the story told in limited one-word dialogue between robots. Pixar reminds us again and again that we don’t need a sequel, we don’t need characters we’re comfortable with, we don’t need ironic pop culture references, we don’t need fart jokes…we don’t even need dialogue. We need richly textured characters and a story to engage us. Once again Pixar nails it.
At this date in the summer, I'm torn between which of the two films (Iron Man and Wall-e) is better...so as of now we'll call it a tie, and, after some thought, I'll let you know. Until then there's nothing wrong with declaring that there are two great films out there right now. Go see them.
Friday, June 20, 2008
THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY review
You know by now that I keep a detailed database of all the movies I've seen and that are coming out.
The spreadsheets are by year.
Column #1: The movies I've seen this year in rank of my preference of them (from best to worst of the year; my top ten list is all ways complete; currently at #1: Iron Man)
Column #2: Movies currently in release in the order I wish to see them.
Column #3: Upcoming releases in chronological order
Column #4: Movies I didn't see in theater that I hope to see on DVD in order I wish to see them (currently at #1: Son of Rambow -- didn't come to CC)
and finally Colum #5: Movies I didn't see and never want to (a few on the list: Mad Money, How She Move, Meet the Spartans)
Sitting at the top of Column #4 for 2007 for 1/2 a year (bc it didn't come to CC) was The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
from imdb.com:
It had been so high up on the list bc critics that I trust said it was amazing. The word was that it was a 'life changer', a film so sweeping in his emotional scope that it would rattle around in your life forever: a Shine, a Garden State.
It is always interesting when I competely disagree with critical consensus. My initial impression is that I didn't 'see it correctly.' Back when Pulp Fictioncompletely blew the world away, I remember getting indignant with friends who were ambivalent or dismissive. "You just don't 'get' it," I'd bristle.
Someone said that to me recently on air about Sex in the City (review forthcoming). Who was right then and who is right now? I'm still not sure. Diving Bell simply didn't work for me on the level that, for 1/2 a year or more that I'd been waiting to see it (nestled there at the top of column #4), I'd hoped it would. On the level 'they' say it should. Knowing it is a true story, you're quick to admire Jean-Do's tenacity. Cinematically though it relies on gags like the blurred vision poin-of-view shots. Jean-Do's back story is never fleshed out so that you care about his plight on a personal level.
This film will appeal to many; it just didn't work for me.
The spreadsheets are by year.
Column #1: The movies I've seen this year in rank of my preference of them (from best to worst of the year; my top ten list is all ways complete; currently at #1: Iron Man)
Column #2: Movies currently in release in the order I wish to see them.
Column #3: Upcoming releases in chronological order
Column #4: Movies I didn't see in theater that I hope to see on DVD in order I wish to see them (currently at #1: Son of Rambow -- didn't come to CC)
and finally Colum #5: Movies I didn't see and never want to (a few on the list: Mad Money, How She Move, Meet the Spartans)
Sitting at the top of Column #4 for 2007 for 1/2 a year (bc it didn't come to CC) was The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
from imdb.com:
On December 8, 1995, Jean-Dominique Bauby - age forty-three and editor-in-chief of the world-famous fashion magazine Elle - was living the "good life" to the extreme when he became the victim of a devastating cerebro-vascular accident that left him in a state of total paralysis, incapable of any verbal communication, in what is known in the medical community as "locked-in syndrome." His mental faculties totally intact as he laid motionless in his bed at the Marine Hospital of Berck-sur-Mer in northern France, Bauby learned to communicate with the outside world using his left eyelid, the only part of his body over which he still had any control. During the next fourteen months, using a communication code developed by his therapist and his publisher's assistant, who transcribed this code, Bauby was able to compose, letter by letter, a lyrical and heartbreaking memoir of his life struggle. Bauby died in 1997, two days after its publication.
It had been so high up on the list bc critics that I trust said it was amazing. The word was that it was a 'life changer', a film so sweeping in his emotional scope that it would rattle around in your life forever: a Shine, a Garden State.
It is always interesting when I competely disagree with critical consensus. My initial impression is that I didn't 'see it correctly.' Back when Pulp Fictioncompletely blew the world away, I remember getting indignant with friends who were ambivalent or dismissive. "You just don't 'get' it," I'd bristle.
Someone said that to me recently on air about Sex in the City (review forthcoming). Who was right then and who is right now? I'm still not sure. Diving Bell simply didn't work for me on the level that, for 1/2 a year or more that I'd been waiting to see it (nestled there at the top of column #4), I'd hoped it would. On the level 'they' say it should. Knowing it is a true story, you're quick to admire Jean-Do's tenacity. Cinematically though it relies on gags like the blurred vision poin-of-view shots. Jean-Do's back story is never fleshed out so that you care about his plight on a personal level.
This film will appeal to many; it just didn't work for me.
THE HAPPENING review
The Happening is M. Night's worst movie.
The Happening is the worst movie I've seen this year.
The Happening is the worst movie I've seen in two years.
I had to back to 2005 to find a worse movie: Cursed.
SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT
Plants are releasing toxins into the atmosphere that cause humans to commit suicide. It's a full blown assault from nature since the plants and the wind are in cahoots. You know you're about to be poisoned because there's a gust of wind before it happens. There are things you can do to prevent from being poisoned. In one scene the 'toxin-filled wind' blows over our players and they're fine bc they do something specific. Then, in the cheapest ever way to produce tension, the thing they do to keep from being toxified doesn't work anymore--no explanation why it did and now doesn't is deemed necessary. Characters make decisions that no human ever would in order to simply propel the story. For no reason, The plants suddenly stop releasing their toxins. Movie over. Insert predictable 'It's happening again' 'twist'. Credits.
The acting is horrible. The screenplay is hilariously bad. M.'s new card for this film is the 'R-rated let's see some gruesome suicides', but the context within which we view them (someone running, freezing midstep, staring blankly, slowly walking to the gun to shoot themselves, or slowly jabbing the knitting needle into their throat, or slowly turning your car wheel into path of a tree, etc) is executed so poorly that you can't help but chuckle into your popcorn.
If Lady in the Water was M.'s career getting into the coffin, The Happening is the first nail.
The Happening is the worst movie I've seen this year.
The Happening is the worst movie I've seen in two years.
I had to back to 2005 to find a worse movie: Cursed.
SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT
Plants are releasing toxins into the atmosphere that cause humans to commit suicide. It's a full blown assault from nature since the plants and the wind are in cahoots. You know you're about to be poisoned because there's a gust of wind before it happens. There are things you can do to prevent from being poisoned. In one scene the 'toxin-filled wind' blows over our players and they're fine bc they do something specific. Then, in the cheapest ever way to produce tension, the thing they do to keep from being toxified doesn't work anymore--no explanation why it did and now doesn't is deemed necessary. Characters make decisions that no human ever would in order to simply propel the story. For no reason, The plants suddenly stop releasing their toxins. Movie over. Insert predictable 'It's happening again' 'twist'. Credits.
The acting is horrible. The screenplay is hilariously bad. M.'s new card for this film is the 'R-rated let's see some gruesome suicides', but the context within which we view them (someone running, freezing midstep, staring blankly, slowly walking to the gun to shoot themselves, or slowly jabbing the knitting needle into their throat, or slowly turning your car wheel into path of a tree, etc) is executed so poorly that you can't help but chuckle into your popcorn.
If Lady in the Water was M.'s career getting into the coffin, The Happening is the first nail.
INCREDIBLE HULK Review
Fathers' Day. My 7-year-old son and I go to The Incredible Hulk.
I'm not a Father's Day guy. It's a fake made up holiday built to sell cards and ties and knick knack crap with green felt on it. I demand no money be spent on me outside of a few homemade cards that I'll keep forever. BUT I will take advantage to spend a little 'guy time' with the little dude at the movies. Now, I get some criticism for taking they 7-year-old to the non-horror, big budget summer films as long as they're PG-13 and I've done some due diligence. It makes me happy to know that we'll do that together for years to come (until he's 15 or so and I'm no longer cool). He loves movies, he loves movie hype and typically likes everything he sees--to me he is the typical American moviegoer: give me enough explosions, car chases and special effects and I'll believe I've been entertained. After the movie, I always ask the same question:
"Did you like it?"
Here's how it went down this time:
"Did you like it?"
"Yes."
"Which did you like better? Iron Man or Hulk?"
"Iron Man."
"Why?"
He thought for a moment. I waited for it. Different fathers get the 'dad rush' from different things. Will this at bat yield a home run? Will this report card deliver all A's? Will this kick produce the winning soccer goal? (By the way, he's 2 out of those three). For me, this could be one of those moments. Will he get the criticism correct? Would he accurately see the main flaw in The Incredible Hulk at such a young age?
I waited with baited breath as we fastened our seat belts.
He drew a breath:
"In Iron Man, Iron Man was a real person. The Hulk was a cartoon and looked cartoony."
He nailed it. And on Father's Day, no less.
I don't need to go into much detail about Ang Lee's previous Hulk or how this film relates to that one, etc. Bruce Banner (Ed Norton) is already the Hulk here. A quick montage during the opening credits catches us up to where we need to be. The action quickly begins in Brazil where a reclusive Bruce Banner has taken a job in a soda pop factory while, after hours, he learns Brazilian (?!) anger management techniques to keep from Hulking out.
From imdb.com:
The Hulk as a chase movie (Ross chasing Bruce to regain him as a military possession) and a 'human' story is actually very compelling, well written and well-executed. The first two thirds of the movie were great and on par with any high-caliber Summer-type blockbuster. But then comes act III and with it the two main problems with the film:
1. Too many conflicts. There are too many story lines for this type of film. The same issue occurred with Spider-Man 3. Was that movie about Sandman, Venom, Son of Green Goblin, the relationship with Betty Brandt, the relationship with Mary Jane or good Peter vs. bad, dancing Peter? By trying to cram that much in, while keeping an acceptable running time you edit each component down to a point where they're rushed and potentially removable. Doc Ock gets his own movie but Venom gets 15 minutes of screen time? Ridiculous. Since when do we require so much to be satisfied as an audience?
Here, Tim Roth is introduced as a military zealot who admires the Hulk's size and strength and wants to be like him, taking a modified Gamma injection that goes horribly wrong. There's no motivation given for him doing this. The screenwriting team believing the Hulk needs one more adversary (which he didn't) and a Good Hulk vs. Bad Hulk climax (more on that below). Will the love between Bruce and Betty survive? The relationship between Ross and Bruce? Ross and Betty (his daughter)? And then the tacked on introduction to the next Hulk's villian, a nebbish scientist played (annoyingly) by Tim Blake Nelson that conducts an experiment on Bruce which leads absolutely nowhere. Why cram so much in and edit it all down to being insignficant?
2. The largest issue, getting back to my son's comment: The CGI absolutely sucks. The Hulk looks like a cartoon character in a 'real world'. The Hulk, essentially, is Roger Rabbit. In Jurassic Park you know there aren't really dinosaurs, but the CGI is flawless enough to believe the universe they've created. The dinosaurs, onscreen, are real. Same with T2. The Hulk (and Tim Roth's 'Bad Hulk') looks so fake and misplaced within an otherwise tangible universe that it takes you completely out of the movie. You can't care about cartoon characters so you don't care about The Hulk which is fatal for a character that requires the audience's empathy. Why CGI realism and technology seems to be going backward is a very strange question given the budget of these films.
But that it makes The Hulk forgetable is so simple a 7-year old can see it.
One interesting aside:
An accidently cut Bruce's blood drips into a full pre-capped soda bottle on the bottling assembly line. The blood dissolves into the soda, is shipped to the US and is consumed by cameo-ed Stan Lee who we learn in a later conversation (but don't see or get any follow up) gets 'Gamma Poisoning.' It's a lazy plot device wherein Ross can quickly find the origin of the soda and the location of Bruce.
This is the one thing that stuck with me from my Hulk experience. We are to assume that the relaxed quality control standards since this occurs in Brazil, that would permit this to occur. Could this happen in the US (bleeding assembly line workers dripping into my Diet Coke)? You hear urban legends of mice in the chili and a fingertip in the chicken nuggets. You hear about people bringing appropriately gross items into restaurants to pull a scam. Blood in the Brazilian soda. The one thing Hulk left me with: no more Joya for me.
I'm not a Father's Day guy. It's a fake made up holiday built to sell cards and ties and knick knack crap with green felt on it. I demand no money be spent on me outside of a few homemade cards that I'll keep forever. BUT I will take advantage to spend a little 'guy time' with the little dude at the movies. Now, I get some criticism for taking they 7-year-old to the non-horror, big budget summer films as long as they're PG-13 and I've done some due diligence. It makes me happy to know that we'll do that together for years to come (until he's 15 or so and I'm no longer cool). He loves movies, he loves movie hype and typically likes everything he sees--to me he is the typical American moviegoer: give me enough explosions, car chases and special effects and I'll believe I've been entertained. After the movie, I always ask the same question:
"Did you like it?"
Here's how it went down this time:
"Did you like it?"
"Yes."
"Which did you like better? Iron Man or Hulk?"
"Iron Man."
"Why?"
He thought for a moment. I waited for it. Different fathers get the 'dad rush' from different things. Will this at bat yield a home run? Will this report card deliver all A's? Will this kick produce the winning soccer goal? (By the way, he's 2 out of those three). For me, this could be one of those moments. Will he get the criticism correct? Would he accurately see the main flaw in The Incredible Hulk at such a young age?
I waited with baited breath as we fastened our seat belts.
He drew a breath:
"In Iron Man, Iron Man was a real person. The Hulk was a cartoon and looked cartoony."
He nailed it. And on Father's Day, no less.
I don't need to go into much detail about Ang Lee's previous Hulk or how this film relates to that one, etc. Bruce Banner (Ed Norton) is already the Hulk here. A quick montage during the opening credits catches us up to where we need to be. The action quickly begins in Brazil where a reclusive Bruce Banner has taken a job in a soda pop factory while, after hours, he learns Brazilian (?!) anger management techniques to keep from Hulking out.
From imdb.com:
[Bruce Banner] desperately hunts for a cure to the gamma radiation that poisoned his cells and unleashes the unbridled force of rage within him. Cut off from a life he knew and the woman he loves, Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), Banner struggles to avoid the obsessive pursuit of his nemesis, General Thunderbolt Ross (William Hurt), and the military machinery that seeks to exploit his power. But all are soon confronted with a monstrous new adversary known as The Abomination (Tim Roth), whose destructive strength exceeds even that of The Hulk.
The Hulk as a chase movie (Ross chasing Bruce to regain him as a military possession) and a 'human' story is actually very compelling, well written and well-executed. The first two thirds of the movie were great and on par with any high-caliber Summer-type blockbuster. But then comes act III and with it the two main problems with the film:
1. Too many conflicts. There are too many story lines for this type of film. The same issue occurred with Spider-Man 3. Was that movie about Sandman, Venom, Son of Green Goblin, the relationship with Betty Brandt, the relationship with Mary Jane or good Peter vs. bad, dancing Peter? By trying to cram that much in, while keeping an acceptable running time you edit each component down to a point where they're rushed and potentially removable. Doc Ock gets his own movie but Venom gets 15 minutes of screen time? Ridiculous. Since when do we require so much to be satisfied as an audience?
Here, Tim Roth is introduced as a military zealot who admires the Hulk's size and strength and wants to be like him, taking a modified Gamma injection that goes horribly wrong. There's no motivation given for him doing this. The screenwriting team believing the Hulk needs one more adversary (which he didn't) and a Good Hulk vs. Bad Hulk climax (more on that below). Will the love between Bruce and Betty survive? The relationship between Ross and Bruce? Ross and Betty (his daughter)? And then the tacked on introduction to the next Hulk's villian, a nebbish scientist played (annoyingly) by Tim Blake Nelson that conducts an experiment on Bruce which leads absolutely nowhere. Why cram so much in and edit it all down to being insignficant?
2. The largest issue, getting back to my son's comment: The CGI absolutely sucks. The Hulk looks like a cartoon character in a 'real world'. The Hulk, essentially, is Roger Rabbit. In Jurassic Park you know there aren't really dinosaurs, but the CGI is flawless enough to believe the universe they've created. The dinosaurs, onscreen, are real. Same with T2. The Hulk (and Tim Roth's 'Bad Hulk') looks so fake and misplaced within an otherwise tangible universe that it takes you completely out of the movie. You can't care about cartoon characters so you don't care about The Hulk which is fatal for a character that requires the audience's empathy. Why CGI realism and technology seems to be going backward is a very strange question given the budget of these films.
But that it makes The Hulk forgetable is so simple a 7-year old can see it.
One interesting aside:
An accidently cut Bruce's blood drips into a full pre-capped soda bottle on the bottling assembly line. The blood dissolves into the soda, is shipped to the US and is consumed by cameo-ed Stan Lee who we learn in a later conversation (but don't see or get any follow up) gets 'Gamma Poisoning.' It's a lazy plot device wherein Ross can quickly find the origin of the soda and the location of Bruce.
This is the one thing that stuck with me from my Hulk experience. We are to assume that the relaxed quality control standards since this occurs in Brazil, that would permit this to occur. Could this happen in the US (bleeding assembly line workers dripping into my Diet Coke)? You hear urban legends of mice in the chili and a fingertip in the chicken nuggets. You hear about people bringing appropriately gross items into restaurants to pull a scam. Blood in the Brazilian soda. The one thing Hulk left me with: no more Joya for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)