ROTTEN TOMATOES: More Bixby, Less Bana in Hulk 2 Comments

More Bixby, Less Bana in Hulk 2

by Fred Topel | June 21, 2007

Summary

Marvel Studios is happy to be relaunching the "Hulk" franchise with all new actors and a new vision for the film. They're not even above slamming their own work, as Marvel president Kevin Feige addressed questions about how "The Incredible Hulk" will differ from Hulk. Back to Article

(21-40 of 46 posts) | Reply

iakobos writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:28 PM

Personally, I didn't think the first Hulk movie was all that bad. But I had a friend who was a big fan of the comic who was bitterly disappointed with Hulk's look and other aspects of the movie. For my part I could have done without the hulk poodle.

I was a fan of the TV series when I was a kid and I kind of prefered Lou Ferigno's Hulk to the comic book or CGI movie version. I think having a human Hulk brought more humanity to the part rather than the CGI monster. The movie Hulk was so big it was hard for me to relate to him as a human person who accidently is turned into this monster.

I thought Eric Bana did a great job and I confess to having enjoyed his other work, especially Black Hawk Down. Regardless, I saw the first one on DVD and will do the same with the second.

(Reply to this)

dwaltonk writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#870388)
Actually, in this case too much character development was its drawback. As said by many others, the action was great, but it wasn't enough. I remember the dream scenes thinking "what's behind the door? What's behind the door?" There were so many of those and it just turned out to be the Hulk. I thought it might have been his dad in a memory, but instead it was just build-up for somehting that we already knew. It was just frustrating. It was all build up when the movie already had enough steam. The final battle was a big letdown though. I was in Junior High and I still thought it was ridiculous.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Jun 21 2007 10:08 PM

[b]Eric Bana...[/b]
For some time now, he has been the only real standout in a bunch of mediocre films. Whether people like his films or not, most would agree they've all had flaws and underperformed, however Bana (it would seem) is one of their main redeeming factors. Troy and Hulk being obvious examples. Where other notable actors or plot points failed to impress, he managed to keep his impressive acting streak running. Again, take Munich for example, a much better film than the previous two, but still this movie underperformed in some regard because of the way it was snubbed by the oscars. I'm sure Eric Bana will eventually get a chance to get up on that stage soon though.

Anyone who hasn't seen the Australian film "Chopper" should give it a shot - this is perhaps Bana's best performance ever (one of the best performances by anyone in my opinion).

(Reply to this)

the-russian writes:
on Jun 21 2007 10:09 PM

I gotta say, kudos to you guys for presenting your opinions in well-thought-out manners. You guys have good points, and it's refreshing to read them without all the insults.

(Reply to this)

Elixir writes:
on Jun 21 2007 11:30 PM

i didn't think the first one was all that bad. geesh, i bet this one will suck more.

(Reply to this)

Silverevilchao writes:
on Jun 22 2007 12:35 AM

[b]I HATED the first Hulk.[/b]
Two words: Gamma. Dogs.

That was one of the things that doomed the movie for me. Another was the incredibly slow pacing and lack of action - y'know, the same things that totally ruined Spider-Man 3 for me.

Hopefully, this will be a better incarnation...

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 22 2007 12:58 AM

In reply to this comment (#870392)
Shut up!!!! ;P

(Reply to this)

Young Turk writes:
on Jun 22 2007 02:03 AM

[b]If[/b]
They just have more action sequences it would have been a lot better. There really wasn't anything wrong with the first movie other than it was too slow moving for a movie about a hulking brute that gets bigger and smashes things when he is mad. Give me a break, the CGI was insanely good you can't argue with that.

(Reply to this)

Film Cricket writes:
on Jun 22 2007 05:14 AM

They should use a CGI Bill Bixby and forget casting a flesh-and-blood Bruce Banner. That would be a kick-ass Hulk film. And the new one should definitely open with Hulk smashing. It should be the first shot and keeping going for at least 30 minutes before anyone opens their mouth to say anything.

(Reply to this)

pota1967 writes:
on Jun 22 2007 06:17 AM

Why dont they just release an Incredible Hulk tv show 2 parter and call it a movie??
I didnt care for the first Hulk movie or the CGI.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Jun 22 2007 06:19 AM

I really liked the editing and the characterization on the first one. I hated the CGI. I really hated the poodles. But the acting was great.

(Reply to this)

swisshammer writes:
on Jun 22 2007 09:45 AM

[b]I agree[/b]
...with most people on this board. Eric Bana was excellent as Bruce Banner. Edward Norton? Hmm... could be interesting, but I was really interested in seeing a return of "Hulk" as the grey Hulk. Why rehash what has already been done. Did anyone see Dominion? I mean, COME ON! You can't take us down a story line and then say, "whoops, my bad. It didn't go like that at all. It went like this."

Ok, the end fight scene was lame. I'll give Feige that. But what the f**ck is this guy trying to say? You know, as much crap that Avi Arad put out, I'd much rather have him back at the helm (he did put out Hellboy, X-Men 1 and 2, Spider-man 1 and 2, which were all great IMO). So instead of bashing a film he had little to do with, Feige should give some respect to a guy who tried hard to honor the integrity of the COMIC stories.

And yeah, Hulk smashing tanks is pretty damn cool if you ask me.

(Reply to this)

swisshammer writes:
on Jun 22 2007 09:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#870383)
[b]Yep[/b]
"Kevin Feige is a freakin' idiot
Great. So Marvel's president, Kevin Feige, is shockingly - I'd go so far as to say, embarassingly - out of touch with one of his company's franchise character's to the point that he doesn't realize that Eric Bana's portrayal of Bruce Banner (and that's BRUCE, not David btw) was much more in line with the [original] comic book character than Bill Bixby's TV incarnation."

I could not agree more. Shocking that a money-grubbing guy can't even get the characters each played straight. How disappointing that Marvel put this douche in charge.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jun 22 2007 10:27 AM

I feel like I appreciated the Ang Lee's movie more than I really liked it. I will admit that pacing-wise, it was downright sluggish. And let's not forget those mutant poodles. But as somebody who prizes character as the most important aspect of any story, I was satisfied. However, it was a comic-book story, and it follows that comic-book stories must be supplemented with action. The action in the first film, though balletic, was too spread out.

I don't really think of the first Hulk as a failure. Far from it. It's more of a curiosity for me. Certainly much better than your "Daredevils" and your "Fantistic Fours."

That being said, I hope that this next one will be able to engage me viscerally where the first one didn't. However, I'm skeptical when Mr. Feige mentions Bill Bixby as a point of reference. I was never one to think that Bixby's Banner had much character. Bana's Banner was superior, in my opinion. The flaw of the first film was it's inability to engage the audience with a consistent level of action, not the way the character's were portrayed. Let's hope somebody realizes this before it's too late and they end up making "Batman and Robin."

(Reply to this)

3263827 writes:
on Jun 22 2007 12:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#870388)
[b]More Complaining[/b]
I think you just proved you own point.

(Reply to this)

Ash Talon writes:
on Jun 22 2007 02:03 PM

The Hulk sequences in the first film were great. However, the melodrama about his dad was terrible. Yeah, I know Peter David "revealed" that Bruce Banner had been abused by his dad, so the oppressive father element is comic book canon. However, Nick Nolte was ridiculous in the film and ruined every scene he was in.

Why the love for Eric Bana? He was rather dull and uninteresting. I realize a lot of this is the direction and obviously the writing. There was absolutely no reason to like Bruce in this movie. He can't even seem to emote. As for character development...well, I don't see it. Sure, they spent on time having nightmare flashbacks about his mom (would he really have memories from when he was 2 yrs old?), and his girlfriend thought he was cold (appears that way to me as well) and unemotional. Other than that....where's the character development? What does Bruce Banner feel about...anything in this movie universe? What's his personality? Describe him to someone else without referring to his physical appearance. I just didn't care about Bruce Banner in the first movie. I didn't buy him as a human being.

By contrast, there IS character development in FF2. Sure, they're all rather broad characters. However, there are some good quiet moments between some of the characters that speak volumes. Sue and Reed discussing quiting the superhero business (couldn't believe I actually liked Alba in a movie). Johnny and Ben discussing dying and having someone to love. I know people are slamming it, but I think FF2 managed to fit in quite a bit of character for such a short film with so many characters.

One thing, besides the Hulk himself and his action scenes, that did work in the movie was the atmosphere. It actually did capture the kooky mood from the 60's Hulk comics. Besides the desert, the lab experiments, the military, and the characters themselves. There was almost this intangible vibe in the air that felt right. Too bad the "daddy issues" dragged the movie into quicksand.

(Reply to this)

jrdamwijk writes:
on Jun 22 2007 03:16 PM

[b]Personally[/b]
I think that compared to the first film in the franchise, this one will suck. That is my well thought out and hugely worked on comment. Love it.

(Reply to this)

TheDon1010 writes:
on Jun 22 2007 03:32 PM

[b]Nolte Villian[/b]
I thought Nick Nolte was one of the better marvel villians. He was definitely a strong point for the movie in terms of acting and interest.......However, the screenplay put him in a few unnecessary and dumb situations. (Dogs, supermonster incohernce)

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Jun 23 2007 05:19 AM

[b]Daredevil: The Do-over[/b]
Am I to understand that when Marvel is dissatisfied with a franchise starter, they just reboot it and add its root comic book descriptive to the title? Does this mean [i]Daredevil: The Man Without Fear[/i] is possible?

(Reply to this)

detroit666 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 12:21 PM

[b]They still don't get it............[/b]
The Original BIXBY Hulk was more about "The Fugitive" than about CGI. He didn't fight 'big hulking CGI monsters". He fought for the little guy, he fought his own demons, and he fled from those who would expose him.

I had hopes for this version when it was mentioned that Norton would be taking the lead. Now, I don't know.

(Reply to this)