Battle Of The Hulks

Lykos wrote:

TheCinemaJack wrote:

Lykos wrote:

Nolte's performance is excellent. He's a somewhat "eccentric", crazed person. That's already established. I mean the fact that he was going to kill his own son and ended up killing his wife shows that he's not gonna be mentally sound.

Bana shaking his head? Mate he's trying to not turn into Hulk. On top of that he's attempting to bottle up his anger he holds for his father who has killed his mother, turned him into a beast, used him as a guinea pig then abandoned him as a child, tried to kill Betty and put him in this predicament to start with.
You've never learnt this much had to deal with such resentment while right in the eyes of the man who does it all. How can you criticize his acting when that is probably what anyone in the same position would be like. I praise Bana for being so capable at truly focusing his talent into performing in such a way.

"Eccentric" is an understatement. He's acting like a flat-out psycho and it's funny to watch because he does such a piss-poor job with making the character seem real. And I know what Bana was doing, I get the severity of the situation, but Bana just looks so fake doing it.

I used the wrong term but you got the idea, he is a psycho in a sense. I mean what kind of guy sends some modified mutant dogs to kill his son's friend?
Piss-poor job? Mate you need to play less games and see more real people. Real people act exactly the way these two actors did in that sequence, when in the same situations.
They are over-the-top to a certain extent but that is because they are pushed over the edge.

What about it looked fake? Do you see that kind of thing happening a lot?

Play less games? Lol, everyone here tells me I need to see more. People don't behave that way. Their performances were cartoonish.

I don't mean to ride on the Mark Ruffalo bandwagon but...

Mark Ruffalo > Edward Norton > Eric Bana

^
Making a statement is a lot better when you at least give reasons

Well... Mark Ruffalo's Hulk was just more sympathetic, funny, and bad ass all at the same time. I know anyone can jusy say that, but for those who seen the movie should know what I'm talking about. It's probably the first I seen the audience really connected to the character than ever before. I still think Edward Norton was a better Bruce Banner, but Mark Ruffalo really tweaked the character the same way Robert Downey Jr. did with Iron Man.

^
Aha, I mean this is all your opinion and that's cool brah.

But I just want to bring my perspective.

You say

Quote :

sympathetic

. Bana was hated by his father, his mother was murdered at his fathers hand, he was used as a guinea pig by his father, he broke up with Betty, shit really goes down. It's all there in front of your eyes, this sad life of his. In Avengers Ruffalo literally just joins and there's none of his past shown.

Rufallo works well though. But it's always gonna be Bana for me, party because of the film itself was so good, but he was really pushed as an actor for that role.

Banana didn't do much to make me actually care about the character though. Mark Ruffalo however was at least more likeable and had more personality. Also we already know what happen to the Hulk before The Avengers. There was no need to recap his origins or anything. That's what the individual movies are for.

Lets agree to disagree
but if you haven't watched Hulk recently, I'd recommend watching it again. I think a serious revision is important

lol I've seen that movie way too many times at the theater, DVD, and TV. Hell, I remember even seeing the teaser trailer back when it was included with the first Spider-Man movie in the theater. The movie just got boring to me. I admit that it is not as bad as a lot of people say it is, but I can not deny it's flaws.

Mecha wrote:

lol I've seen that movie way too many times at the theater, DVD, and TV. Hell, I remember even seeing the teaser trailer back when it was included with the first Spider-Man movie in the theater. The movie just got boring to me. I admit that it is not as bad as a lot of people say it is, but I can not deny it's flaws.

What flaws?

Hulk's #1 flaw is that it sucks balls.

So put the dvd down your trousers and you might get some action for once.

It'd be more action than Hulk has. Booooooooooooring.

TheCinemaJack wrote:

It'd be more action than Hulk has. Booooooooooooring.

Last I looked it had more action than

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles | 1941)
Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder | 1950)
Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock | 1958)
Annie Hall (Woody Allen | 1977)
Casablanca (Michael Curtiz | 1943)

which are your favourite films.

Yes but those movies have good scripts and they don't have giant green monsters in them that do nothing but brood and sulk.

The Battle of the big green fags

Don't worry guys, most of Franko's posts consist of criticizing threads.

I like Red Hulk better than the OG. Why? I don't know. I like red more than green.

I also like how he hates the Hulk, but he became a Hulk.

Spoiler:

Pah. Red Hulk is cool but he's not nearly as interesting as Brucey. Though ol' Thunderbolt is a pretty interesting and emotionally complex character.

Mecha wrote:

The Avengers hasn't been released here in the US yet, so I can't really judge on Mark Rufflo's Hulk. But I heard lots of good things about his Hulk. What will say is that Edward Norton was a perfect banner. But from the look of Ruffalo, he plays a better Hulk though. As for Eric Bana, he was OKAY, but I didn't like how his Hulk kept growing.

He grows in the comics though. You're the one that is all for sticking to the comics man