Not going to watch this just like you never watched Daredevil? Case in point. You judge this material based upon subjective interpretation of what you *thought* DD was. How does you TB ho0ld any water... except for yourself? And, therefore, ...why write it?

Ben Affleck rose above such material and his acting gave weight to the character, unexpectedly. Yes, he did better than I gave him credit for. Sue me for thinking so.

Fans were clamoring for Guy Pearce, yet I was begging for Thomas Jane. You make due with what you have. Ben didn't suck. Didn't prevail, yet didn't suck.

Michael Regina
Editor in Chief/Segment Producer
PH: 514.947.5221
http://www.TheOneRing.net
http://www.KongisKing.net
http://www.TheOneLion.net
http://www.gallifreyone.com

Am I not talking about GR? It comes down to needing a strawman for purpose of contrast and comparison. FF, DD, and (looks to be) GR are all way more faithful to the source than were X1/2. Yet those films are incessantly bashed while X1/2 continue to be praised. This is why I brought it up. I don't have to stomach it just about as much as you have to read my TB posts.

As far as TB folks liking X2 and "meh-ing" DD doing nothing to make my case, well, to quote Clooney, I'm thankful for being a little out of touch.

For these reasons, Lundgren's Punisher was superior. If you look beyond the unnecessary chick cop and rhyming bum, you can see the spot-on characterization taken directly from the source material. I submit to you the scene where he struggles with the decision to free the children. That was pieces of Castle trying to emerge and I found it quite satisfying as a fanboy. Gosset hollering at him when he was under custody was also a great scene.

Back to DD, Affleck and Damon, while capable, are too pretty. DD should be dirty and stubbly, not pretty, yet he should be someone that cleans up nicely. I wanted Jane, but had no trouble seeing Pearce in the role. That said, I was amazed when I saw a bruised, sweaty Affleck spitting out teeth and chomping on vicodin. Too bad he didn't have the 5 o'clock shadow.

I find it curious you see Peter David in Lee's presentation of the Hulk. I see equal parts Herb Trimpe and Sal Buscema, only sans-speech (which was sorely needed). I write this considering how David's run, the first one that is, mostly consisted of him reimagining Hulk in his grey form. The Trimpe and Buscema years nailed the misunderstood monster angle perfectly, which the film nobly attempted to convey. It had its problems, such as the angrier he gets, the... larger(?) he gets. But it was damn close. Too close. Nolte was a way waicked rip of the Sterns character that would eventually change back into the Leader. Talk about a missed opportunity.

I find it funny how some of the biggest complaints about Hulk is that it was a psychodrama, considering how that's what the comics were all about. The old Tales to Astonish covers were so bold as to refer to itself as a soap opera. And hell, Doc Samson IS a psychologist! Then there was the crap about hulk dogs, which was done in the comics. I'll provide a link to a cover if someone asks. Again.

I got the same Creepshow vibe from Hulk. Personally, I got a kick out of seeing different angles of the actors' reactions during dialog. It didn't tear me out of the movie at all. There is a knee-jerk reaction that compels folks to oppose seeing something new and different. I think history will eventually shine favorably on it. This doesn't mean I'd like to see it done all the time; only when it suits the material. Here, it did. And it was used in spare, sufficient amounts.

Dude, Connelly as Betty Ross? It had me at hello.

The one thing that I had a big problem with (besides the kinda-Creel daddy) was the Talbot character. Ross's most trusted second in command reduced to a program manager of a government contractor. Blecch. Then again, it did channel my natural hatred of Josh Lucas in a satisfying way. Hulk blasted that bastage through a wall, leaving a human shaped hole behind. Back to that whole Asian humor again.

http://tinyurl.com/y 67rtz

Were hulk dogs fair game? Way! Would I have preferred Emil Blonsky? Way! Would I have preferred Nolte as Sterns? Way! Was what we got unfaithful to the source material? Nay! Closer to the source than were Raimi's Spider-Man flicks, that much is certain.

Remember that Hulk had to bear the weight of being faithful to both the comic AND the TV show, which itself wasn't very faithful to the comic in the first place. Given that, I think it did a bang up job.

If Wyle is Rayner, then you forget Jordan's roots. He didn't always have everything figured out. But then again, I know absolutely nothing about comics. Or film for that matter.

Gosh, I guess we simply harbor opposing views of Paul Newman. Nothing wrong with that. However, I'm alarmed at how you interpret his clam, cool, fatherly approach to mirror anything Lucas has tried to do. Again, the only time he has shined was when he played a baddie. When he was on the straight and narrow (Stealth, Poseidon) those films flopped. Even when he was an unlikeable mentor (Glory Road) he still flopped.

I grant you that history has room for him similar to Jack Nicholson as a favored antihero, but he hasn't quite reached that yet. And even then, he certainly isn't deserving of a true blue Americana hero as Hal Jordan. Could be worse. We could have Jack Black!

And now that I think of it, Lucas could very well have portrayed a spot-on Murdock, given the chance. Steely eyed lawyer by day, Star Chamberesque vigilante by night. Or, unlikeable lawyer by day, and abrasive foil by night. Kinda digging that the more I think of it. And beside disposition, he has the look/build down already.