Not looking forward to the Watchmen movie then?

Found here.

My son brought me to the Incredible Hulk yesterday for Fathers’ Day. I paid for the tickets and he paid for his cola and popcorn. I’m just adding it to the running total I’m going to hit him with when he gets his first job.
Anyway the ‘requel’. Any film that demanded a neologism was going to be in trouble. I’m still in the dark about why they couldn’t just make a straight sequel to the Ang Lee version with the same cast. If what I saw yesterday was supposed to address the criticisms of the Lee version (ropey CGI, unbelievable bad guy/poodles, too much backstory) they missed the goal by turning up at the wrong pitch on the wrong day for the wrong sport. The Incredible Hulk foregoes backstory in favour of montage, avoids characterisation as if it were something requiring an embarrassing visit to the doctor, and has a bad guy that goes on a rampage of destruction for no apparent reason than he wants a fight. How motivating.
It’s no spoiler to say Hulk beats the Abomination but stops short of killing him at Betty’s whimpering behest. Alrighty then, there’s a fragment of the man that can be reached when Bruce is transformed. So let’s conveniently forget that Abomination has incredible regenerative powers as well as strength and can just return to the rampage as soon as he gets his breath back because the time is up, the three acts are done and it’s time for Tony Stark’s pointless cameo. So where were you when New York was getting destroyed, Iron Man?
Hulk smashes a car in half to wear as steel gloves. Nice of them to include gratuitous special moves from the game. This isn’t a standalone film. It’s the film of the game.
Also good review in the Guardian. Via Unarocks.

There’s a nice post on Screen Rant about the upcoming Hulk movie, including the above comparison of the new design with the Ang Lee version (left). I have to say, first impressions of the new design aren’t good. There’s something very odd going on with the skin texture, it looks like plastic, and the musculature makes him look like he’s bound in old rope. All in all it looks like the quintessential rubber costume from low budget monster movies. The smaller head and simian features of the newer version (compare the jawlines and noses) look odd. As for the Abomination, well, I think that’s going to live up to its name.
Still I know I’m going to end up going to see it, and I’ll probably enjoy scenes. It can’t be as bad as Spiderman 3 (can it?). And let’s face it, the real quandary these conflicting versions is putting me in is choosing between Jennifer Connelly and Liv Tyler. Would that I ever had that choice to make…
UPDATE: I’ve reviewed it here.
I went to see the new Coen Brothers film on Saturday. It’s a relentless study of time, chance, morality, landscape and murder set in Texas in 1980. It won’t be to everyone’s taste (they seemed to be staying away in droves at the Galway Omniplex) but if you appreciate expertly shot films that are given enough time to unfold rather than rushing to some effects-laden ending you’ll appreciate this. Javier Bardem will make you require a clean set of underwear (best bring ‘em with you) and you’ll never see such a sadistic use of compressed air anywhere else.

Took the kids to see it last night in Galway’s best cinema, the Eye. I’m not a fan of the franchise anyway but Shrek the Third was boring beyond belief. It wasn’t about anything, it was laboured, it lacked humour. The youngest was bored silly and at times I found myself cringing so hard I nearly pooped myself. By comparison that would have been hilarious.
If you’re hassled into taking the youngsters to see it, put it on your “things I did for the kids which they now owe me for as adults” list that all parents keep. Admit it, you have one.