worst CB movie so far

[Majik1387]

^What're you talking about?

 

[X-Maniac]

How can anyone consider Hulk in the same league as Steel, Catwoman, et al?

Whatever problems you have with Hulk, it has superb production and technical values. It has some really spectacular visuals, and ambitious action scenes. This alone raises it above the TV movie quality Steel, and the music video-esque Catwoman.

I agree. Hulk was very good... but its flaws disabling it from major mainstream success were being a little too arty (lingering shots or lichen-encrusted rocks, split screen stuff), making the origin very complex (dad's experiments + nanomeds + gamma radiation), and a mutant poodle.

Catwoman has some nice visuals (the opening about cat folklore, some of the cinematography), good fight scenes... but a silly plot about a killer moisturiser and a very 'small' feel to it. And silly ears on the costume. It was doomed as soon as it wasn't a Selina Kyle character in a more gothic Batman-esque setting.

 

[Cyrusbales]

HULK is much better than catwoman, however it still reamins a terrible film on the whole.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Catwoman has some nice visuals (the opening about cat folklore, some of the cinematography), good fight scenes... but a silly plot about a killer moisturiser and a very 'small' feel to it.

Small, yeah, I agree. It feels inconsequential. The events of Catwoman don't seem of any importance. It's a comicbook movie! Where is the saving of hundreds, or thousands of lives, or a whole city? It's not Superman, but come on. Batman saves Gotham every movie.

I liked the energy of the fight scenes, but there was never any threat to Catwoman. She never felt in danger until the very, very end of the fight with Sharon Stone. Most of the fighting was simply a fast cut acrobatics display, either real or CGI. Pitof took the jumping/flipping spectacle from Spider-Man, which is fine, but he should have also noted that Raimi always puts Spidey throught the ringer, he really has to struggle to win every time. Catwoman merely takes a few slaps from Sharon Stone.

 

[LexCorp]

HULK is much better than catwoman, however it still reamins a terrible film on the whole.

Agreed but I think HULK is not bad.

 

[Cyrusbales]

My thoughts on the hulk in brief:

HULK

Hulk,was the motion picture adaptation of the famous comic book character created by Stan Lee and published by Marvel. Due to the amount of source material and expansive following, there was a need to satisfy the fans most of all. However the end result was much less satisfactory than expected.

The narrative is basically about Bruce Banner(Eric Bana), a scientist, who was experimented on as a child by his father. However an experiment in later life awakens the hidden beast within, which is basically a super strong and durable green giant. This results in both the military and his estranged father trying to harness the power for themselves.

As the screenplay goes, the narrative itself is very underwhelming, there is a distinct lack of content throughout. With the dialogue side of things, there is a tendency for characters to have speeches, which equate to meaningless collections of words, not adding to the characters or plot, throwaway lines which relish in the cliché.

Performances are weak, mainly due to the lack of a worthwhile script to start with, and the characters sticking towards stereotypical concepts, with the occasionally branch into something a little more interesting, but generally there is an absence of poignancy and actual three dimensional characters.

Direction adds nothing to the film, Ang Lee fails to bring anything other than a narrative device to the table. The split screen montage used to enforce the notion of a comic book does not achieve any extra substance or quality, simply masking scenes which are in themselves bland and without merit. The use of camera is rather basic, relying on actors who cannot hold the screen well enough, and special effects that convey little or no emotion. Nothing above or beyond the story is added, in fact it is not even enhances through framing or other cinematic tools, but instead an over reliance on green lighting and saturation of green throughout the mise-en-scene shows marginal skill at best.

In conclusion, this movie was void of emotional impact, both due to the cast, but mainly to the writing. As a piece of cinema, is falls down immediately to any scrutiny or critique. Only one action sequence is handled with any talent, but even that ignores the potential of both the character and medium. There is little here, if anything to appreciate, as the whole film ambiguously meanders it’s way along without laying down anything of substance. Fans of the comics will find themselves watching this out of curiosity, but on the whole, this is a poor piece of cinema however you look at it.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

My thoughts on the hulk in brief:

HULK

Hulk,was the motion picture adaptation of the famous comic book character created by Stan Lee and published by Marvel. Due to the amount of source material and expansive following, there was a need to satisfy the fans most of all. However the end result was much less satisfactory than expected.

The narrative is basically about Bruce Banner(Eric Bana), a scientist, who was experimented on as a child by his father. However an experiment in later life awakens the hidden beast within, which is basically a super strong and durable green giant. This results in both the military and his estranged father trying to harness the power for themselves.

As the screenplay goes, the narrative itself is very underwhelming, there is a distinct lack of content throughout. With the dialogue side of things, there is a tendency for characters to have speeches, which equate to meaningless collections of words, not adding to the characters or plot, throwaway lines which relish in the cliché.

Performances are weak, mainly due to the lack of a worthwhile script to start with, and the characters sticking towards stereotypical concepts, with the occasionally branch into something a little more interesting, but generally there is an absence of poignancy and actual three dimensional characters.

Direction adds nothing to the film, Ang Lee fails to bring anything other than a narrative device to the table. The split screen montage used to enforce the notion of a comic book does not achieve any extra substance or quality, simply masking scenes which are in themselves bland and without merit. The use of camera is rather basic, relying on actors who cannot hold the screen well enough, and special effects that convey little or no emotion. Nothing above or beyond the story is added, in fact it is not even enhances through framing or other cinematic tools, but instead an over reliance on green lighting and saturation of green throughout the mise-en-scene shows marginal skill at best.

In conclusion, this movie was void of emotional impact, both due to the cast, but mainly to the writing. As a piece of cinema, is falls down immediately to any scrutiny or critique. Only one action sequence is handled with any talent, but even that ignores the potential of both the character and medium. There is little here, if anything to appreciate, as the whole film ambiguously meanders it’s way along without laying down anything of substance. Fans of the comics will find themselves watching this out of curiosity, but on the whole, this is a poor piece of cinema however you look at it.

You said 'brief'-!!

 

[Cyrusbales]

You should see my extensive versions!

 

[X-Maniac]

The narrative is basically about Bruce Banner(Eric Bana), a scientist, who was experimented on as a child by his father. However an experiment in later life awakens the hidden beast within, which is basically a super strong and durable green giant. This results in both the military and his estranged father trying to harness the power for themselves.

Bruce Banner was NOT experimented on as a child.

His father experimented on his own tissue (in attempts to create a super-soldier for the army) and passed on his own cellular genetic abnormalities to his son. Nanomeds and gamma radiation were the later triggers for these congenital mutations.

However, it was all too vague and complex.

It did feel very Singer-esque in places though.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Bruce Banner was NOT experimented on as a child.

His father experimented on his own tissue (in attempts to create a super-soldier for the army) and passed on his own cellular genetic abnormalities to his son. Nanomeds and gamma radiation were the later triggers for these congenital mutations.

However, it was all too vague and complex.

It did feel very Singer-esque in places though.

It ffelt very ANG LEE like, not singerish, lol. Bruce was not experimented on per se, however he experimented to a degree after he was born, mostly due to finding a cure, but there was some obvious self interest from the father.

 

[Max J Power]

Batman and Robin.

But I haven't seen Catwoman or Steel.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Batman and Robin.

But I haven't seen Catwoman or Steel.

You lucky man. You lucky, lucky man.

 

[Drizzle]

X3 should not be on that list.

 

[DieSmiling]

Catwoman is the worst. Batman and Robin is so bad it's funny. There's nothing funny about how bad Catwoman is.

 

[irapogi]

the thing about batman and robin is that its so bad, its good.
Think about it, at least i was amused by it, on the other hand, STEEL made me want to get a hammer and pound my brains in.

 

[LexCorp]

the thing about batman and robin is that its so bad, its good.
Think about it, at least i was amused by it, on the other hand, STEEL made me want to get a hammer and pound my brains in.

Yeah B&R never made me angry.

 

[irapogi]

They might as well have called it Steal, cause if you paid to see it, you got robbed! [/Jay Leno]

ba dum tsh!

t:

 

[Cyrusbales]

Catwoman was funny, but also painful, BnR was just funny, reminded me of pure campy batman. lol.

Steel was just.....bad.

 

[Dark Guardian]

Well, just for the hell of it, I went and rented every movie on that list except for X Men 3.

IMO, the ranking goes like this from best of them to worst:
1. Steel
First, you have to remember that this movie was made a good ten, almost fifteen years before the other three, so the very style of plots and superhero movies that we know today was just barely in existence when this was made. At least they tried ok, they actually had a decent enough plotline, they just picked the wrong guy to act in it, or didn't give him enough training, because it was his bad delivery that made the movie bad. The concept wasn't all that bad, a happier, more family like hero, in a suit of armor with awesome gadgets, fighting to keep his neighborhood clean and safe. Shaq pretty much ruined the movie every time he opened his mouth. When he just stood there, in the suit, looking badass, it was fine, but every time he said something...yuck. Still better than the rest, and you'll see why if you watch them all back to back.
2. Batman and Robin
The worst part about this movie is how Schumaker decided to turn everything into a toy commercial. The second worst thing is how he basically pissed on all the good ideas for the villains, turning them from great, to a twisted version of what they were. He ripped off the Dini TAS version of Freeze and turned him into a pshyco austrian doctor who's driven by an insane tendency to steal so he can fund his research. If Joel really wanted to use the TAS version of his back story at least he should have made Arnold look like he was having less fun while robbing people. The point of that story line was that he was only doing it to find a cure, instead, it looked like he really enjoyed himself way too much.
Ivy was...well...she seemed so infatuated with killing off Bats and Robin that she didn't seem to care at all about plants anymore. The Poison Ivy I know was...well...not that dumb, and not that b***hy.
George Clooney sucked in 95% of his lines, and you can tell he really wasn't happy with it. He hated the script, we hated the script, everybody hated the script. As Chris O'Donnell said in the interviews, "In Batman Forever, I felt like I was making a movie, with Batman and Robin I felt like I was making a toy commercial."
At least in Batman Forever they changed to the sonar suit because all the other suits were destroyed. In B&R, they changed suits for no apparent reason...
3. Elektra.
Badass fight scenes, no plot. No really! I could find no trace of an actual plot anywhere in that movie that made any sense or coherence. Its an excuse to put in some cool fighting and a character from Daredevil. Thats about it.
4. Catwoman
First off, this movie has absolutely nothing to do with Catwoman in any comic incarnation we know of. Think of it as Halle Barry in a Catowman suit thats been slashed open to reveal alot more skin that normal, doing bad Keith Richard's impersonations. It had a plot, but it was so convoluted and totally unrelated to Catwoman, that it made pretty much no sense. There is no relation to the comic book, Selina Kyle, Batman, Gotham City or even the DC universe. All in all, its just a silly excuse to watch Halle Barry run around in skin tight leather with a whip. Her acting is ok, but the script is miserable and her lines are delivered without much emotion.

 

[Shon]

Punisher War Zone now takes the cake.

 

[CFE]

"Superman IV: The Quest for Peace"

But of the poll choices..."Steel"