ROTTEN TOMATOES: Louis Leterrier Promises Action-Packed Incredible Hulk Comments

Louis Leterrier Promises Action-Packed Incredible Hulk

by Jeff Giles | March 17, 2008

Summary

After sitting through what they felt was a curiously action-deficient Hulk in 2003, some fans of Marvel's ragin' green-skinned behemoth have viewed this summer's Louis Leterrier-directed reboot with skepticism. Back to Article

(21-40 of 60 posts) | Reply

pulpfantrntno writes:
on Mar 17 2008 10:49 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638322)
"I felt like Hulk's size got way out of proportion (he used to be the same size as the "Thing" in the comics"

anyone who has ever read the comics knows that the hulk grows in size proportionally to his anger/rage level. also, though, leterrier is a horrible director who has just happened to turn out entertaining actioners. a master of set-up or character development he is certainly, definitively NOT. this movie looks to be a complete snooze-fest. i like lee's version, and i thought the animation was just fine.

that being said, the animation here looks more fake. here's a tip cgi-rendering a-holes who keep churning out this shi.t, how about taking photos of real people in the environment you're animating for, and notice how their skin doesn't automatically reflect EVERY single light source in the area making them 'glow' or 'pop' or whatever the hell else. quit showboating and make a character that fits in the environment instead of showcasing your 'talents'.

(Reply to this)

AlbertBrodsky writes:
on Mar 17 2008 11:04 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638342)
"anyone who has ever read the comics knows that the hulk grows in size proportionally to his anger/rage level"

I'm thirty-one, and I haven't read the comics since I was like 13, but I don't remember him growing as he got angrier. His strength would grow with his anger, but he didn't literally grow, at least in the comics I read (pre 1990). I'm not saying you're not right, I just don't recall ever seeing that in my days. It didn't happen in the tv show either.

(Reply to this)

agniyo writes:
on Mar 17 2008 11:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638053)
Gimy, I agree!

RT, after months of advertising an acute sensitivity to spoilers, y'all have gotten awfully soft on spoilers the past couple of weeks! That's no small thing for readers who have trusted you, I don't think.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 17 2008 11:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638322)
" They could have done it like Lord of the Rings where you have a giant Gandolf mixed with all the smaller hobbits. Mix in a little latex and some CGI and you might have had something completely original that didn't look like a complete CGI mess."

That's actually a pretty good idea. I hadn't considered that.

I'm still on the fence about the CGI in the movie. We haven't really seen enough of it to make great judgements.

(Reply to this)

pulpfantrntno writes:
on Mar 17 2008 11:16 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638383)
granted, it may be one of the peter david inconsistencies he introduced to the series, as my memory fails me exactly when it happened, but it is ripped directly from the comic. i didn't mean to try and start anything, i was just pointing out that it is from the official 'universe' or whatever marvel has now with that jackass quesada in charge.

(Reply to this)

AFuneralMaker writes:
on Mar 17 2008 11:49 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638342)
Lee's version was a mess. The CGI was weak. It was as if Ang Lee asked them to make the corniest looking characters they could manage.

When making a film that is set in the real world it is crucial that you make such characters look as real as you can get them. This team has already done a much better than that...see the giant poodles before you argue with me. Other films like the upcoming Speed Racer don't focus on realism so that works for them. But Lee tried to make a Beauty and the Beast remake out of a comic book.

Provided this is the director responsible for the Transporter flicks, which lacked much story, I believe it will turn out far better than Ang Lee's misled attempt. The CGI isn't finished editting, as the director has said, and Ed Norton had a very large amount of creative control over this film. He is responsible for a number of his films being great i.e. American History X. Even great director's have their dry spots so hold your tongue in case you end up swallowing your words.

(Reply to this)

rambo- killer #2 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 12:17 PM

I'm hoping the great Edward Norton will not let us down with this project. I, for one, liked the teaser and am planning on seeing this. Letterier does seem like an odd pick to direct thoug. but hey anyone is better than Ang Lee.

(Reply to this)

musiclc writes:
on Mar 17 2008 12:19 PM

For all the talk about Ed Norton, I don't think I've like one of his movies (except American History X). His whole career got publicly moving because of a single twist in that R. Gere movie. Anyway, nothing wrong with him, but maybe over-hyped.

(Reply to this)

AndrewZeppelin writes:
on Mar 17 2008 12:30 PM

I think they could have done the Hulk like how they did Mr.Hyde from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. They just had the guy in this massive muscle suit and made him look kind of like the hulk, just slap on some green and bam! you have the Hulk. That way they could put more Ed Norton into the Hulk scenes.

(Reply to this)

trpsomewhere writes:
on Mar 17 2008 12:31 PM

geez, from what I'm reading, every RT faithful (regular) seems to agree that it's actually looking alright!

Honestly, I couldn't figure out why people were complaining about the trailer! It seemed fine for me, and every person I spoke to who's seen the trailer said they liked it, and think it'll be awesome!

Yes, I watched the previous movie... I liked it (no loved), loathed the dog-fight scene, and in general, it was fine, although a huge departure from the real comic plot.

I am looking forward to this, and I think that Marvel's using the Ultimate universe story-/plot-lines for mixing all these characters into the Avengers movie.

I think that might just be awesome! :-)

Let's see how it goes though, any comments on this comment?!

(Reply to this)

AlbertBrodsky writes:
on Mar 17 2008 12:33 PM

Fight Club was one of my favorites. More recently I enjoyed "the Illusionist" even if "The Prestige" was better. He doesn't always fare well, but he usually makes a pretty watchable film. Hell, I even liked "Down in the Valley". I still think he's better for the character of Bruce Banner than Eric Bana.
This could still be a crap shoot. Tim Roth is normally solid.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Mar 17 2008 12:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#1638530)
Yikes! So you didn't like Fight Club, 25th Hour, Red Dragon, Primal Fear (the Richard Gere flick you mentioned), The Illusionist, The Painted Veil, The Italian Job, The Score?... Look here, musiclc. You are no longer welcome on this site. lol. Just kidding. Still though, your taste is, well, odd. As good as American History X was and is, I don't think it's Norton's best work. At least we agree on that one film. But it's strange that you could like that one and none of his others.

(Reply to this)

Pumpkinking14 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 12:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#1638076)
As a life-long Hulk comic book fan I can tell you that the best of the Hulk comics portray the Hulk/Banner as anything but a one-dimensional character. Case in point: the entire Peter David run on the book, around 12 years I believe, where the the many facets of Banner's MPD are explored and the reasons for his Hulk persona(s) are given mucho gravitas. Norton closer resemblance to the comics/TV series = worth excitement.

(Reply to this)

Pumpkinking14 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 01:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#1638342)
I'll say it: you're completely wrong! The Hulk growing in physical size in response to increased anger is COMPLETELY an addition to Ang Lee's film and the first film only. His strength increasing, yes, but not his actual size. I have boxes full of comics to prove it, not to mention cartoons, graphic novels, and encyclopedias...BIG Hulk nerd here. :)

(Reply to this)

joshfightsmegatron writes:
on Mar 17 2008 01:11 PM

I've noticed a lot of whining about the Abomination character not looking as he does in the comic books. Yet this film is far from the first offender, i.e. Green Goblin in Spiderman or Galactus's portrayal as a giant cloud in FF2. There's still hope.

p.s: The Hulk grows as he gets more and more angry. So his size in the last film wasn't out of proportion.

(Reply to this)

joshfightsmegatron writes:
on Mar 17 2008 01:13 PM

I missed this conversation.
Crap.

(Reply to this)

AlbertBrodsky writes:
on Mar 17 2008 01:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#1638597)
If he can get as big as he needs and his size wasn't out of proportion in the last movie, how do his pants manage to stay on? Magic? Yeah, that just didn't make any sense.

(Reply to this)

pulpfantrntno writes:
on Mar 17 2008 01:44 PM

In reply to this comment (#1638588)
so what's up with the differences in sizes and class levels then for different occasions, including, but not limited to his color at the time of his enragement?

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Mar 17 2008 01:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#1638597)
You only mentioned Green Goblin and Galactus, but you forgot Dr. Doom, Juggernaut, Magneto, and at least half of the X-Men. If anyone grades comic movies on appearances and portrayal of characters, most comic book movies have done a really crappy job. A lot of the time you can't fault them, because it's practically impossible to get the imagery from a lot of the artwork to transition properly to live-action, but they haven't made great efforts either (Unlike Sin City, 300, and Watchmen based on the stills so far).

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 17 2008 01:50 PM

I think people also need to remember that the trailer we saw was being called a "teaser". That showed a ton of stuff for a teaser, but they obviously designed it to not show much action. Remember how many people bitched about the Dark Knight teaser for not showing footage?

(Reply to this)