IMDb user comments for
Hulk (2003)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 140:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

1396 comments in total

---

204 out of 294 people found the following comment useful :-
Terrible Marketing, Great Film, 3 June 2005

Author: s-kubrick from Hamburg, Germany

"Hulk" is a film which is widely considered a failure, both financially and artistically. Yet in the latter category this movie has a lot on offer: masterful editing, good acting and the direction of a true master.

What Ang Lee has tried to achieve, namely merging the pulp-story of the Hulk with the scale and drama of a Greek tragedy has been well achieved. The scope of the story and its effects on the characters are only to be taken seriously on a truly grand scale, and by supplying the protagonists with interwoven back-stories Lee and his screenwriters are making it clear that this is not to be seen as a realistic story, but an epic metaphor.

Special kudos goes to Timothy Squyres, who does one marvelous job of creating an editing similar to a comic's design. This pays tribute to the source material's pulp origins as well making an impressive visual statement. "Hulk" looks and feels like no other film, which makes it one of the most interesting, if not one of the best comic- adaptations of all time.

The crux is that this movie does not know who it's aimed at. The intellectual Ang Lee- connoisseur picks his nose when it comes to the Hulk, simply due to its humble roots, while the average popcorn-cinema-goer is slightly irritated when confronted with the films "odd" approach to comic-movies. This means that only viewers which are a bit of both can truly appreciate this masterpiece.

All the other elements for a good piece of entertainment are there and present: Eric Bana is, as usual, fine as the tormented soul which manifests itself in green rage, Jennifer Connelly is as solid as ever and Nick Nolte steals the show with what is a truly weird turn as Bruce Banner's/the Hulk's dad. The visual effects are beautifully executed as well. There is not much left to be desired.

It's a pity such an interesting and brave film gets a rating of slightly above 6 at IMDb.

---

175 out of 259 people found the following comment useful :-
The most introspective of the Marvel superhero movies that have come out so far, 24 June 2003

Author: flipcritic from Manila, Philippines

Of all the big name superheroes Marvel has to offer, HULK is one of the easiest to gravitate to. It's not hard to find what makes him appealing. Superficially, he is an unstoppable raging behemoth whose strength is rarely matched. This alone would be an obvious foundation for a film franchise. What is surprising (and ultimately refreshing) about this one is its willingness to explore the depth of the Hulk's dilemma. If the film's jade giant were absent from this movie, its story could still be the frame for another.

The movie starts with an army scientist named David Banner who performs genetic experiments for the government. He carries one out on himself before fathering his son Bruce. After a few years into Bruce's childhood, a tragic event occurs, which results in David's incarceration for 30 years and separation from his son.

Upon maturing, Bruce also becomes a scientist. Instead of his father's obsession with genetics, he develops a fascination for gamma rays and nano-med (almost subatomic medicinal) technology. He becomes victim of a lab accident that unleashes the Hulk; partly due to genetic mutation he inherited from his father, who just happens to work on the base as janitor, recently released from his sentence. To make things more interesting, Banner's co-scientist, Betty Ross is his former flame. And she just happens to be the daughter of General Ross, the man who jailed David Banner during his family's tragedy. It is this terrible event that holds the key to why Bruce transforms to his monstrous side, and to how their reunion will end.

The movie starts slow, with admirable character development. By the time the Hulk appears, everyone's motivations are known with each personality sharply distinguished. Ang Lee loves showing humanity and human frailty in his stories as he has done exceptionally in EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN, THE WEDDING BANQUET, SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, and THE ICE STORM. We discover the hidden storylines, the human aspects that can be just as interesting as the action. We discover that Bruce and Betty have both had fathers that they could never count on (that's probably what brought them together). We see David Banner and General Ross not primarily as power hungry males, but as caring fathers as well. We experience Bruce Banner's awkwardness and inability to express himself adequately, which makes us understand all the more why he begins to `enjoy' transforming into his raging alter-id.

Though it's true that the Hulk doesn't appear until 45 minute into the movie, once he does, the action hardly stops. Sure there are scenes of destruction, but they are calculated, punctuating turning points in the movie, instead of bombarding the audience as mayhem in others. The backdrops upon which these action sequences are set upon are breathtaking. The battles rage from an underground base, to the vast majestic Monument Valley landscape, all the way to the Golden Gate Bridge and even to the very stratosphere. I can still vividly recall Images of the Hulk clashing with `hulk-dogs' in the California Redwood forests and him being chased by helicopter gunships in a concave rock formation in the Arizona desert.

People remember Ang Lee for CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, which many consider (present company included) to be the greatest martial arts picture ever made. It left such big shoes to fill, even for Lee (At one point TIME Magazine labeled him, `America's Best Director'). Those who recall CROUCHING TIGER remember its sublime images of combat, but what set it apart in its genre was its poetic character involvement. We cared deeply for Li Mu Bai and Yu Shu Lien, for their values, and for their quest for the green destiny. Lee does the same for HULK. In exposing its characters to danger, he wishes to reveal the gravity of their situations. Hardly ever does anyone utter a mutter a snappy line, emote a mushy sentiment, or deliver a cliché expression.

Compare Bruce Banner's discovery of his newfound abilities with Peter Parker's (of SPIDER-MAN). He reacts with deep fear and confusion, whereas Parker reacts with excitement and exhilaration. The latter may be more amiable for audiences, but if I found out that I was growing microscopic claws on my fingertips and spewing webbing from my wrists, I'd be freaking out. Spider-Man has the comfort of shooting off a few quips along with his webs as he confronts his foes. Banner, along with other characters in HULK have no such luxury. The movie is not without joy though. It has several humorous moments, none of them in a light-hearted sense though.

It should be said that this picture was blessed with a great cast. Eric Bana (BLACK HAWK DOWN & CHOPPER), who has star written all over him, conveys inner turmoil-slash-solidity very effectively as Bruce Banner. The ever-beautiful Jennifer Connelly reprises her wife-of-a-brilliant-but-mentally-unstable-scientist role from A BEAUTIFUL MIND as Betty Ross. I thought her main purpose was to appear as a captivating yet unreachable beauty for both Banner and the Hulk, and she serves her role perfectly. Nick Nolte has to my mind never given a bad performance, and he appears valuably scruffy and deceivingly two-faced as David Banner (he could be confused for one of the hulk-dogs). But of all of the main players, Sam Elliot (THE CONTENDER, WE WERE SOLDIERS, & THE BIG LEBOWSKI) impressed me the most with his controlled and palpable intensity as General Ross. At one point, with his glistening complexion and bulging neck veins, he looked more intimidating than the Hulk.

The movie has a lot of other assets. It has a memorable score by Danny Elfman (who also did BATMAN and SPIDER-MAN). It has beautiful cinematography by Frederick Elmes (THE ICE STORM). It has wondrous visualization by using split-screens like window panes in comic books, such as several angles in one shot, or one window opening up into another (this is the most inventive use of the technique since Brian De Palma's FEMME FATALE). It also has buried moments of lyrical dueling between different characters. When Betty Ross says, `You weren't that hard to find.' and Banner retorts `Yes I was.' that instant carried a greater emotional weight. You'll understand it once you see it.

Fans of the Hulk (like me) will be familiar with the several storylines that have been amalgamated into the screenplay, one of them being David Banner, who is Bruce's character in THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series (speaking of which, Lou Ferrigno, who portrayed the TV Hulk, appears in a cameo with Stan Lee). The rest I leave up to the `Hulksters'. But for all the pluses that HULK has, the ones that I will take home with me are its ideas. That the Hulk is not just rage, he is pure innocence. He only smashes when provoked. He is a near mindless brute, but when calm, he is a child. He smites tanks that fire at him as a toddler would kick a toy after tripping over it.

As a character, the Hulk is the ultimate childlike id, the source of all instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of primitive needs. As a film, THE HULK is the most introspective of the Marvel superhero movies that have come out so far. The X-MEN films have had the disadvantage of having too many characters, resulting in too many protagonists to follow. SPIDER-MAN and the BLADE movies were all about entertainment. Many comic book films barely touch on their themes, but HULK actually wants to deal with the issues it raises. No wonder I gravitate to it.

---

136 out of 218 people found the following comment useful :-
Very impressive!, 22 November 2004
Author: CGA_Soupdragon from Stockholm

I finally caught up with the film on DVD, after missing its cinema release and just not having the urge to see it until now. It has had some rather bad press, so I wasn't actually expecting very much.

One of the reasons I have waited so long was to let my son, (who is now eight) grow up a bit before seeing it. He was interested in the tie-in products filling the shelves in all the stores on release. A blanket-marketing ploy that is becoming more and more hysterical, I fear.

Another was that I was wary of renting it as the Hulk character has been rather mal-treated in live-action form.

Until Ang Lee's film.

Firstly, this isn't by any stretch of the imagination, a kids' film. Though my younger children watched it, it gave them serious food for thought about what scientists do to animals and people in the name of science. My oldest was enthralled. She appreciated Lee's magnificent use of the film medium.

This is a very dark movie. The origin-story has been manipulated and updated linking the two lead characters (Bana and Connelly) in a sorrowful, fearful event that happened to them both in their childhood. Nice touch.

"Banner's" (Eric Bana's) father (played by Nick Nolte) shuffles back into his life after 30 years incarceration for causing the events that had traumatized the young Banner. Banner later finds that his father had "experimented" on him when they were still a whole family. This creepy device effectively modernizes the story and it's ultimate revelation is a clever way of releasing the pent-up rage that Banner jr has locked within his mind. This rage feeds the Hulk. Banner finally becomes the Hulk after some incredible bravery in the lab.

The film's effects are superb. I am a very happy viewer. This is great cinema. A wonderful adaptation of a tortured, misunderstood human being.

Highly recommended, by me, for true Hulk fans.

---

141 out of 250 people found the following comment useful :-
"Hulk" & the state of criticism of it, 29 June 2005

Author: jriddle73 from United States

Ang Lee's "Hulk", at two years after.

Perusing the negative reviews of the film collected at the Rotten Tomatoes site, I'm stricken by the degree to which the negativity directed at it by allegedly professional film critics is based upon the fact that it dashed (rather than living up to) their rather low expectations for it. The assumptions underlying so many of the criticisms are that the film is supposed to be a brainless "summer blockbuster," but isn't. Another variation: that it's a film based upon a comic book, and that all such projects are supposed to be mindless rubbish for dazzling bumpkins (To those of us with some genuine knowledge of the field, this variant is particularly entertaining in that it's inevitably accompanied by a string of authoritative assertions regarding comics which demonstrate only the offended critics' abysmal ignorance of the medium). "Hulk," it seems, doesn't know its place; it commits the sin of aiming for something more than mediocrity. In a sense, this is a testament to the film's quality. It clearly doesn't cater to such low expectations.

Criticism of the film's CGI--a more common one at places like IMDb where there's far less pretense that a poster actually has anything of value to say--can be set aside as the superficial whining it is. In spite of what so many "summer blockbuster" fans seem to think, special effects aren't a story; they're just a means of telling one. The CGI in "Hulk" is competent. Beyond that, it doesn't matter.

Likewise the vacuous "it's boring" complaint. Modern viewers with no attention span be advised up front that you will find "Hulk" challenging, and would be better served by spending your "entertainment" budget on trash like "The Phantom Menace" and "The Day After Tomorrow," and leaving the real movies to the adults.

I don't insist that a fan of typical Hollywood summer fare actually offer some rational critique of the picture--I'm not a cruel man. I do, however, insist that, for anyone who expects to be taken seriously, "Hulk" must be accepted or rejected for what it really is. For my part, I think it's a misunderstood minor masterpiece, a film in the vein of "Blade Runner", "Excalibur," and "Once Upon A Time In The West"--all generally snubbed in their day, all now just as generally hailed as classics. I'd like to think I live in a society where this is the fate that one day awaits "Hulk"; it certainly deserves it. Time will tell, I suppose.

---

57 out of 86 people found the following comment useful :-
almost got me teary, and frustrated me at the same time, 22 June 2003
Author: MorganStable from United States

It's late, so I'll just bullet point my thoughts.

1. Hulk as CGI - works most of the time, some of the time it doesn't. Nobody can argue with that. But, like Gollum, the expressions of the face and the fantastic body language made you WANT to believe. Unlike Gollum, some of the shots just don't work at all. The big CG breakthrough for this movie - the manipulation of real settings was just SPECTACULAR. I fully belived that San Fran was getting torn apart.

2. Too long. Cut a half hour.

3. The comic book style - hit and miss.

4. Most of my friends hated the movie, yet.....

5. ..... I found many of the scenes to be incredibly moving, which took me by surprise. Though I secretly hoped that the Hulk would just be ICE Storm with Hulk in the Joan Allen role, I have to admit that Lee pulled off one helluva feat. I sympathized more for the hulk than the entire MATRIX cast (of both movies) combined. And I'll take a faulted movie with emotion over almost any big budget vehicle any day.

The L Man

---

66 out of 109 people found the following comment useful :-
So underrated it hurts, 16 November 2006

Author: mutty_mcflea from Bristol, UK

'Hulk' is an astonishing film, a work of art. Once the monster is unleashed it's never not mindblowing. The visuals are stunning, imaginative, weird, dream-like, and sad. The Hulk scenes are a rush, they're emotional; this thing is a troubled beast, the personification of rage and frustration, a powerhouse that bombs it along canyons, smashes helicopters into the ground, crashes through pavements and leaps miles at a time. These scenes are up there with my favourite movie moments of all time. They're realised so beautifully, with the same surreal flavour and, at times, odd peaceful quality that Ang Lee brought to 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'.

The much-criticised CG Hulk? It's great. He's a living, breathing thing. He has mass, and a personality. I LOVE the moment with his dad touching his face. The dog fight was just incredible, and what about the transformation in the street when he shrinks back into Bruce? What about the scene in the trees? What about the AMAZING shots where he appears at the top of the stairs, or rolls down the sand dunes, or grows in size again, or comes out of the trees to meet Betty, or bursts out of the glass tube AND ROARS!? It's all so lump-in-your-throat cathartic, and gives me the same feeling as the scenes in the 'Spider-Man' films where Spidey swings through the city – it's tapping directly into the visuals of my childhood imagination. It's a FORCE. The film is a moving comic, the screen breaking up into panels and even pulling back from one shot to move across the 'page' and dive into the next. The use of split screen effects is audacious, and while I can live with the lack of Oscar recognition for the effects, the non-attention given to the editing is a crime.

Eric Bana is fantastic. His character is basically a place holder for his alter ego, but he makes an impression. I love his anger, how he puffs out his cheeks like he can barely control himself. Great shot where the camera shakes and rolls around when he transforms in front of Talbot. Jennifer Connelly is so adorable I think I might have fallen in love with her. When she lands in a helicopter in the street, just look at that expression on her face. Wow. Nick Nolte is just excellent here; hammy, yeah, and so f*cking brilliant at it. The cast is fighting for attention against the Hulk and the frankly bafflingly stylish look of the movie and they do come off second best, but still – there are some class performances here. And they're working from a screenplay that does anything but pander to the brainless blockbuster mentality and ensures that even when the Hulk isn't on screen there's plenty to chew on. It's just wonderful, comic booky in the best way. What a thoughtful, intricate film this is.

---

68 out of 113 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting and different superhero adaptation, 25 June 2005

Author: Pi72 from Spain

Hulk is an excellent action/drama and science-fiction film based on the classic superhero (or antihero) The Incredible Hulk. Following the trend on the last years about recycling comic superheroes, Hulk's turn became a very interesting alternative to other formulas used in several of these adaptations.

Knowing that many people consider this movie as dull and boring, please let me state that it's far from being dull. After the critics towards Spiderman just scratching the surface of character development, and where other movies simply failed miserably (e.g. Daredevil), we should be grateful that we can finally see some depth in the main character as we're used in the good comics.

Ang Lee's direction shows his usual way of telling stories, in a sensitive and personal way. Instead of letting the movie drown in its limitless action possibilities, he conducted the story through a sensible path. The editing work, which remarkably resembles comic frames in many scenes, and contains some awesome transitions, is simply wonderful.

And all this not forgetting Hulk's main point: a green, angry mass of power and destruction. The movie has some of the best action scenes I've seen lately, which makes me wonder what is expecting some people who blame this movie for its lack of massive fights against entire armies. My opinion is that the action scenes of Hulk are perfectly balanced; more than showing Hulk's sheer strength but never going completely overboard. And also showing some of Hulk's main weaknesses, keeping the character real and not entering the area of fantasy.

One side of this movie that people also seems to throw tantrums about, is the refurbishing of Hulk's origins. The story of Bruce Banner's transformation has been updated with including today's technology, and making it in my humble opinion much more interesting and 'believable' than the original. Not being a huge fan of Hulk's comics, I didn't feel personally attached to the original story, so I actually liked it more. But I can understand that the purists or the die-hard fans will be disappointed by these changes.

Along with Hulk's origins, the plot includes good science-fiction elements. Don't misunderstand me; the stuff is in general barely believable. A scientist conducting advanced genetic experiments in 1965 (all by himself!) is not a good start... But in the end, it doesn't matter. This superhero adaptation is as good science-fiction as other excellent adaptations like X-Men (including its sequel X2), where others will just remain as good or bad action films with just some sci-fi scattered around. Where others lost their opportunity, Hulk didn't.

What other things are good in this movie? Well, the main actors all do a good work, specially Jennifer Conelly and Nick Nolte. The special effects are great, and while there are entire scenes made just of CGI, they're still not the strong point of the movie. The plot and dialogues aren't just bridges between computer generated action scenes, which I'm thankful for. Furthermore, the plot is also rich in references to the comic, Hulk's enemies and other subtle things. The movie is full of small details (has anyone noticed the frog over the hat in the final scene?) which reward you when watching it a second or third time.

The main down of the movie might be that followers aren't used to see Hulk in this way, a deep and sensitive character, and probably expected more action and enemy-smashing and less deep dialogues running after child traumas... Which could explain its relatively low rating and some bad critics. Maybe I just connected very well with this movie and that's why I put it so well, but I can also see that the elements of this film, taken independently, also have their merits and all together form a solid production. In my opinion, of all the comic superhero adaptations, Hulk is the most interesting and best quality one which I've watched to date. I just wish people would concentrate more on enjoying this different view of a superhero's life. But oh well, each one has different tastes.

And one final note. The soundtrack is absolutely wonderful!

---

58 out of 101 people found the following comment useful :-
Surprisingly good, 2 November 2003
Author: Borko Baric from Zagreb, Croatia

I had rather low expectations before seeing Hulk, since the early criticism was pretty harsh and basically the whole mojo around this movie didn't sound very good. However, I was very pleasantly surprised. As many previous reviewers pointed out, Ang Lee has created a marvelous movie/comic book amalgam, which may be too cerebral to most of the viewers, but Hulk has always been pretty complicated character anyway. If the movie had been made as a "Hulk Smash!" bruhaha it would most certainly...well, suck! This way we got excellent Sam Elliot and Jennifer Connely, and very good Nick Nolte and Eric Bana, all capped with absolutely brilliant directing by Ang Lee. If only all the other comic book movies were directed in this way...

---

42 out of 75 people found the following comment useful :-
Call it Angry Shrek..., 8 July 2003

Author: RockytheBear (RockytheBear@aol.com) from Chicago

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

ALL MY REVIEWS CONTAIN SPOILERS. EVERY ONE OF THEM.

First, they made Coleco-Vision. Then they made Turbo Grafix. But now the makers of PlayStation 2 bring you The Hulk, or as I like to call it, "Angry Shrek." Of course, this is sarcasm, I don't know what animation team created The Hulk, but whoever they are, they should be fired. I don't mean fired from their jobs, I mean fired by a firing squad. They were right to drop the "Incredible" from the title, because this Hulk is anything but. This big green guy was about as menacing as Sprout from the Green Giant ads. Drop Dead Fred was scarier than this animated feature passing as good CGI.

Good CGI is Starship Troopers. Bad CGI is The Hulk. Good action is Speed. Bad action is The Hulk. Challenging foes are the dinosaurs King Kong faced. Bad foes are the gamma ray infected dogs The Hulk faced. Dogs? Dogs?? This scene wasn't even funny accidentally. I couldn't believe what I was witnessing. That movie Congo must now pass its torch-- we finally have animals that look more fake and are even less scary. And that "puny human" scene...let's talk about that. No wait, we'll get to that later.

I should have known the movie was in trouble when I realized the star was some guy nobody ever heard of named Eric Bana. But I gave the film the benefit of the doubt because after all, Christopher Reeve and Mark Hamill were both unknowns when their blockbusters came out (and ironically, they both still are.) But this movie started bad and got worse. The first 10 minutes move at a crappy lightning pace, and the comic book directing style gets old and annoying very quickly. Watching the movie was like sliding down a razor blade nude...and to cool off, landing in an alcohol river.

Nick Nolte plays a (mad) scientist and father of Bruce Banner. Nolte has experimented with his DNA against lab policy, and he is banished. He then goes nuts and does something to his wife that isn't shown, and we don't care. Jennifer Connelly plays Betty Ross, a fellow scientist and colleague of Bruce's. Take a guess if a love affair between them ensues.

To make a long story short, which this movie is firmly against, Bruce gets infected with gamma rays and that causes him to become a big Hulk whenever he gets mad. But that's hardly the problem with this movie. The problem is the fact that Kangaroo Jack looks more real than The Hulk. And how about that "puny human" scene? Oh, God. Bruce has a dream that the Hulk grabs him by the throat and says "PUNY HUMAN." It is easily the worst scene of the film. Even worse than the scene where The Hulk, or as I like to say, Angry Shrek, fights off more animated dogs in a never ending scene.

Another never ending scene is the climax, or as I like to say, Bouncing Banner. The Hulk bounces like a Superball for the last 45 minutes of the movie and it isn't even in a city. It's in a desert. At least a city would make it more exciting, but The Hulk bounces for 45 minutes throughout a non-scenic desert and it wears thin very quickly. Then the military comes and tries to destroy the Hulk, Nick Nolte is captured as well and becomes some strange electro-super monster that isn't even explained. He then fights The Hulk in a final duel and of course, the Hulk wins. After all, we need a sequel. Bruce then ends up in Columbia somewhere speaking Spanish and then says in espanol the famous Bill Bixby quote, "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." And if you don't wish to know the ending of the movie, don't read anything I just wrote.

Sam Elliot is also in the movie, as a General and father of Betty Ross. But he trimmed down his push-broom, so you hardly recognize him. Ang Lee, helloooo. I only like my Sam Elliot in hillbilly mode, thank you very much. And Lou Ferrigno has a "don't blink or you'll miss him" cameo and in that small scene alone, he is ten times more frightening than the actual Hulk. Sure, they gave him a security uniform 4 sizes too small, but he looks like if he punched you, you'd be seeing pink hearts, yellow moons, orange clovers, and green diamonds. At just the sight of him, I felt like such a puny human. God in heaven, what a bad movie.

Zero out of 5.

---

13 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
If you see one movie this summer, see something else **SPOILERS**, 25 June 2003

Author: gavynhelfyre from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This is the second movie I have seen in a row that had potential.

This is also the second movie I have seen in a row that despite decent work by the actors and director could not over come a script that had no focus and could have been cut down by at least 15 pages.

Like another other movie I have seen recently (Hollywood Hommocide), this movie started off promisingly. Though I'm not a big fan of Eric Bana's work in this film, the entire cast seemed reasonably comfortable and the story pushed forward as a reasonable rate, then Nic Nolte comes into the mix.

Don't get me wrong, I think Nolte put forth a comendable performance (though it was easily over shadowed by Sam Elliot), but his character was almost completely unnecessary. David Banner served no purpose in this film after the opening credits initial set up. Each time the movie brought him into the mix, the plot seemed to simply stall until his character had left and the other elements of the film were allowed to push onward.

This dilemma grows worse as the film goes on. There seems to be no comprehensible reason for Nolte to send his mutated dogs after Betty. And even less of a reason for Nolte to suddenly gain the power to absorb the properties of whatever he touches. Why, when you have gone through an hour and twenty minutes of a film without giving the Hulk a super villain, would it be necessary to throw one into the mix in the last act?

Having done this, the writers then feel the need to extend the movie well past its most climatic point just so that the Hulk can now do in his, now supervillain, father. Why?

Why, why why?

Do yourself a favor. If you haven't seen this movie... DON'T. I feel like I wasted 2 hours and 8 dollars on this piece of garbage. If you want to see a movie that has action or explosions, find a theater still showing Matrix Reloaded, or wait for T3. Either way, avoid this one.

---

---

Page 1 of 140:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history