It sidesteps the intriguing aspects of Hulkdom and spends way too much time in, dare I say, noisy and mindless action sequences
Funny thing is he likes the Ang Lee's vision more than this one. Wow...bad taste in movies, really bad.
Jun 13 - 05:43 AM
"the Hulk, who is one of the lesser creatures in the Marvel Comics stable."
I'm sorry, did Roger Ebert not grow up in the same country with the same Marvel Comics as the rest of us? The Hulk (along with Spider-Man) is one of the two most popular and recognizable characters in the Marvel universe. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
Jun 13 - 05:44 AM
I always trusted Siskel over Ebert. I don't always agree with Roeper, but I find his opinion to be more in line with mine. Ebert is one of those guys who thinks he's smarten than everyone else, but anyone who liked Ang Lee's version of the Hulk is automatically cast out from having a reasonable opinion of this movie. Peter Travers liked it. Now there's a real movie reviewer.
Jun 13 - 07:54 AM
I disagree with Ebert, but this is one of his best reviews to date. He actually explains why he prefers Ang Lee's version. And I liked the psychological aspects of that film, but it was very boring at the same time. It didn't have enough "Hulk smash." And the chemistry between Erica Bana and Jennifer Connelly was terrible. And Bana did a good job as Bruce Banner, he just didn't have any chemistry with anybody else. And he was kinda emotionally cold throughout the entire film. The father/son theme was also played out very well. But Nick Nolte's phoned in performance ruined that whole concept. My rating for Ang Lee's version if a 5/10. "The Incredible Hulk" gets an 8/10 from me. :)
Jun 13 - 09:37 AM
And This Guy Think's Ang Lee's Version is better? Most of the time Ebert gets it right but not this time and not with the original Hulk Movie if you ask me.
Jun 13 - 10:32 AM
this terd liked rugrats and that stupid ang lee hulk
Jun 13 - 12:13 PM
Ebert should add an asterisk to his reviews. May contain predisposition to hate on Ultra-cool action films!
Jun 13 - 04:06 PM
Since when does Ebert know about comic book history? Oh that's right, he doesn't. It's hard for me to take him seriously when he tries to add knowledge to things he knows nothing about.
Jun 13 - 09:26 PM
I have always liked Ebert and his reviews - but he is off on this one. This film is far superior to Ang Lee's version (gamma poodles anyone?). The fight sequences were good I thought - much better than the fights in other films like Transformers. Ebert missed the point and the mark on this review.
Jun 14 - 04:24 AM
I like Ebert. He is pretty reliable. Not sure where he gets Hulk as a lesser Marvel hero....??????
I liked the Ang Lee version. Liked this one more. True to the comic. "HULK SMASH!" Yea...I'm a fanboy, so take this with a large grain of salt. In the comic world, the best written Hulk story arch in years, "Planet Hulk" was simply, "HULK SMASH!". Does anyone walk into the theater expecting anything other than action? It provides mountains of it.
Jun 14 - 04:45 AM
Hulkaphiles are too quick to jump on Ebert, claiming he knows nothing about comics. When he wrote the Hulk was "one of the lesser creatures in the Marvel Comics stable," he meant the Hulk as a character. As he puts it later in the review, "if the Hulk were never Banner, he would be like Godzilla, who tears things up real good but is otherwise, dare I say, one-dimensional." Hulk smashes. That's about all he does. And he never wrote that he preferred the Ang Lee version, so you guys should stop trying to put words in his mouth. What he wrote was that the Lee movie had one psychological aspect that he found brilliant, but he didn't write that that made that movie better than this or even good. Geez. Calm down and stop being such defensive fanboys.
Jun 14 - 03:45 PM
whatever happened to Norton he used to do thoughtful movies like 25th hr & American History X, i have yet to watch this movie, but the unfair criticism of Ang Lee version is totaly undue, Eric Bana may not have been a good fit, but that movie was not as bad as most ppl on this forum are making it out to be!!
Jun 14 - 09:03 PM
Typically if you give a much more positive review on the other version which means you like that one, whereas he gave this one a negative review. Trust me I am not a fanboy by any means of the hulk. Ebert just likes boring movies to tell ya the truth, then again he likes a lot of shyt movies. Ang Lee's version was much boring about how Bruce Banner came to be the Hulk. This version was able to knock it out within the opening credits with tid bits of footage that all added up. It's the show don't tell rule. It was simple, easy, quick and got to the point. Yes the characters were less developed but the chemistry between Betty and Bruce was much MORE convincing. The angst between them was wonderful, cameos were better and how everything unfolded was great for a summer flick. When I think of the Hulk, action/fighting comes to mind. I know it seems mindless but that is his character. He is in conflict with himself throughout the movie and realizes that he has to learn to take control. Bana's version of Banner actually enjoyed it. He even said that he kind of liked it. Which means I like getting out of control and causing destruction. Yeah, Norton's take on the character was better. He was in a way a pacifist because if his heart rate went above normal and kept escalating then he would turn into the Hulk. If you want to read a review read entertainment weekly or variety. Those guys are picky and they know a good film when they see one. Well Todd McCarthy gave Batman Begins a bad review. Personally to me that is the best Batman movie ever. It's just well told.
Jun 15 - 12:19 PM
I knew he would give this movie a bad rating. The reason I knew was, he gave the movie Spawn a good rating. Anyone saying Spawn was a good movie has no idea about good comic book movies.
Jun 16 - 07:31 AM
I agree with alot of his points and most would say it wasnt character driven which was my problem with it, but I still thought it was pretty good and fun. Now I didnt like Ang Lee's version but he was going for a character driven movie, which that time didnt work, but here they shouldnt have done the complete opposite by throwing character development out the window. All you guys bashing him for not liking this say I always disagree with him. Then I guess you didnt like Batman Begins, X2, and Spiderman 2 which are movies he loved, and too me are the best superhero movies. So I do disagree with him here because I had a really fun time, but he makes good points that it is not very character driven, and has some plot holes which really it does. Like I was mad they cut out that scene with Gen. Ross getting yelled at by a commanding officer for what he did to Blonsky, which makes perfect sense I mean do you guys think a general would get atleast a slap on the wrist for what he did. Why didnt they show Blonsky transform into Ambomination. They should have had more scenes in Brazil which were great. Why did they never adress why Betty is dating someone, they could fixed that with one line "I had to move on". Now that stuff was definately in Edward Nortons cut which Im sure will be great and will inevitably be released on DVD. I would give this movie a B ... I just dont get why you guys are bashing Ebert its an opinion, also the Incredible Hulk didnt really get that much better reviews the Ang Lee's the HULK, even though yes the Incredible Hulk really is just a way better movie.
Jun 16 - 02:08 PM
And thats why you are still the Alpha and Omega of Movie Critics! Well done!
Jun 17 - 05:12 PM
Hulk is one of the most famous characters in Marvel Comics. I liked Siskel better. Don't agree with Roeper on a lot of movies,but at least he doesn't think he knows more than everybody else. Stupid review. You should talk more about Incrediable Hulk, not Ang's Hulk (Which I didn't like)
Jun 18 - 11:57 AM
He hasn't the slightest clue as to why Ang Lee's Hulk was such a bomb. While it was an interesting attempt at trying to wrestle the emotional complexities of Banner/Hulk, it deviated far from the source material. For one, the Absorbing Man is not Bruce Banner's father. Two, the Hulk doesn't grow to 15 feet, etc. There were just far too many deviations. Marvel wanted to bring it back to why people love the Hulk in the first place, and that is the 'Hulk Smash' em up type of action, which this movie delivers. In the comics, the Hulk is not so one-dimensional as one might think, but you would have to be a comic fan to know this. Still, we love that most human of qualities in him as best described in the quote, "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." Even Ebert might like to think he has some cajones when it comes to this. Either that or he is the type that would rather just bend over and take it. I'm inclined to think the latter.
Jun 25 - 02:56 AM
What a dumb comment: "spends way too much time in, dare I say, noisy and mindless action sequences"
That is what Hulk is about! The brutal action sequences is what you would expect when going to an Incredible Hulk movie. I guess he also complained about "too many monsters" in Hellboy??
I also liked Ang Lee's version, it was entertaining IMO. But it wasn't as true to the comic book theme as this one.
But Ebert just doesn't seem to understand this type of movie, the 2008 version delivered exactly what it promised and that pretty damn well, if you don't like brutal action flicks then why the hell did you even bother to watch the "incredible hulk" anyway?
Jul 10 - 03:23 PM
No wonder Siskel was always the better critic.
Sep 22 - 06:28 PM