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

(1-60 of 60 posts) | Reply

Gimy writes:
on Mar 17 2008 06:13 AM

ok...i stopped reading, thanks for the spoiler dude. i'd rather not know that much of anything before i see a movie, especially not what the opening scene is about. in any case, admit you made a horrible trailer...and move onto a better one, or else you won't sell the general public. hearing the guy say its not a drama fest is sort of reassuring, though i don't expect him to NOT sell us on his concept though. guess we'll see...

(Reply to this)

largely writes:
on Mar 17 2008 06:28 AM

They need to tweak that CG some more so it won't look like that cartoon/video game that Ang Lee made. Maybe a visit down to New Zeland to WETA is in order. Well hey at least someone who resembles Bruce Banner in appearance and personality is actually playing him in this movie.

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Mar 17 2008 06:57 AM

I personally think the HULK character is doomed for Hollywood.

Unless someone comes along and makes a HULK Begins, i think he's too one dimensional of a superhero, kinda like Superman. This is coming from a man who's never read a HULK comic book so there's a big chance i could be wrong.

(Reply to this)

thistimeitwillbedifferent writes:
on Mar 17 2008 07:05 AM

I completely agree with the fact that Hulk is doomed. I still don't really understand why they went back to it; I think the problem is with the character rather than the first film. This also seems to be the overwhelming feeling across the net as well (article on my journal) 40% of Empire readers would rather eat their own feet than watch it!!!

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 17 2008 07:07 AM

Time to open myself up to ridicule..

I kind of dug the trailer. I'm looking forward to this. And that's DESPITE the fact that I've been railing against Letterier since he made such a mess of Transporter 2.

Ed Norton is among my favorite actors, and whatever else is going on in this film, it's kind of like the shot of street cred that Christian Bale is giving to the new Terminator movie for Norton to be in this thing.

This is not my top-anticipated movie of the summer, but I'm pretty sure I'll see it.

(Reply to this)

Shadowflare writes:
on Mar 17 2008 07:08 AM

Did we really need two sucky Hulk movies? Or is this an experiment to see how many different ways we can make a single movie franchise suck?

(Reply to this)

crystalwhiteeyes writes:
on Mar 17 2008 07:21 AM

Action-Packed?? The trailer begs to differ...

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 17 2008 07:28 AM

spelling correction (since I piss on everbody else about it)

it's 'Leterrier'

(Reply to this)

LordAlexx996 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 07:54 AM

I agree that the Hulk is kinda like Superman in the fact that they are pretty much invincible. But at least in this movie we see the Hulk fight someone close to his own strength and can possibly kill him, unlike the first one where all he had was Dogs on Roids.

(Reply to this)

jacog writes:
on Mar 17 2008 08:16 AM

Action packed, eh? Aliens vs. Predator 2 was action packed also... but was it any good? Noooooo.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 17 2008 08:28 AM

Come on now, crystalwhiteeyes. Obviously the trailer isn't action-packed because it's designed to build up to the suggestion of action. Must every trailer show 25 explosions to put asses in seats?

I think this movie looks like it's worth a shot. I don't particularly find the Hulk to be a very interesting character, but perhaps this movie will change my mind.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 08:38 AM

Agree w/ TombstoneLawDog and Arendr, the trailer gave me a taste of excitement. The Hulk portrayal looks a lot better than Ang Lee's Jolly Green Giant (I like the way his dark hair looks especially). The trailer was too short to judge the movie's plot, but I loved seeing Ed Norton open his eyes and have them green (just like the TV show, awesome!) A lot of people remember the television show, so Letterier has to please two masters, comic book fans and people who remember the television show. From what I see here, w/ the reluctant Bruce Banner and the running from the military, and a super villian from the actual comics (though he doesn't look like it), this movie has everything it needs to be a success. If it doesn't please the people who like Lee's Hulk, that's too bad, there wouldn't need to be a reboot if that film was generally seen as a success.

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on Mar 17 2008 08:53 AM

Still not the tiniest bit interested.

Any word on what the budget is this time around? The last action-lite version was about $135M.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 08:54 AM

????????????

ok.. can we get some clarification here. Is this a REBOOT or a SEQUEL??? ...because first you say reboot, then you infur the story continues where the last film left off - in Brazil.

(Reply to this)

Weston B writes:
on Mar 17 2008 09:18 AM

I thought the trailer wasn't bad. I'm exctited about this movie (of course I was also excited about the first one and left the theater pissed). The main problem this movie will face is the fact that its getting released the same summer as Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and Indiana Jones. If it came out sooner during this season of crappy movies it would probably do much better.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Mar 17 2008 09:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638186)
I'm with you guys on this one. The trailer looks good. And everything I've seen and read so far suggests this film has the right touch. Of course, we have to actually see it before a final analysis. But so far so good. I'm baffled by all the negativity on these boards. But whatever.

(Reply to this)

Yjeizz writes:
on Mar 17 2008 09:46 AM

Even though Ed Norton has no control when the Hulk is on the screen, I hope they don't abuse the CGI Monster VS CGI Monster in CGI World privalage.

Unless they decided to bring back Lou Ferrigno from the original show, which would be an amazing feat in cinema...the animators can do whatever they want.

I just hope Ed can pull through and keep the talking scenes up to par...since I believe that the only two different scene changes are:

1. People talking.
2. CGI fighting.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Mar 17 2008 10:29 AM

As long as action packed doesn't equal devoid of plot and character arc they should be fine. You'd have to make a pretty serious effort to screw up a movie liek this with that kind of acting talent.

(Reply to this)

AlbertBrodsky writes:
on Mar 17 2008 10:33 AM

I'm a little surprised at all the negativity myself. I wasn't a fan of the first one. I felt like Hulk's size got way out of proportion (he used to be the same size as the "Thing" in the comics) and the father/son storyline seemed unnecessary to me. Honestly, I only watched it once and that seemed like enough, but this new one has some potential.

I have faith in Ed Norton. He's one of Hollywood's guys who seems to get it (minus Keeping the Faith and Death to Smoochy). Hopefully he recognizes the appeal of the tv show and the comics and tries to stay faithful to both (mainly comics please).

I think it would have been interesting if they would have used a bodybuilder for the part of Hulk. 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. I can tell everytime spiderman goes from a real actor to CGI in those movies and it annoys me.

BTW, I liked Sam Elliot as General Ross in the first one, he's a great actor who nailed the part, but it's not like William Hurt is a step down and anyone who says Liv Tyler isn't hot can meet me at the bike rack after school.

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Mar 17 2008 10:43 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638233)
I'm in the camp of looking forward to this movie. I thought the trailer was fine (just OK), the action sounds like it's going to be there, and the Hulk looks great!

Look, between this movie and the last one, the CGI has looked awesome. The hair, the skin, the eyes, all look great to me. The guy is green, obviously that's not going to not look realistic, but what's with all the complaining? Just because everything isn't fast and blurry to hide the CGI, like in the Spiderman movies, or the Matrix movies, doesn't mean it's lower quality.

We'll see how the movie turns out in the end.

(Reply to this)

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)

arendr writes:
on Mar 17 2008 01:51 PM

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

And since when do we ever agree on anything???

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Mar 17 2008 02:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#1638746)
What are you talking about? We always agree. Shut up with your senseless non-agreement argument!!!

"Here at tolerance camp, intolerance...will not be tolerated." :)

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 17 2008 02:19 PM

In reply to this comment (#1638838)
The Death Proof/Planet Terror superiority argument is the one I was really thinking about. Hey, I love our disagreements. The best part about Ebert & Roeper are the arguments.

(Reply to this)

twinsfan2715 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 02:23 PM

i was definitely not a fan of the first hulk movie. actually, i'm not even a fan of the character, the only reason i saw the first one was because i am just a fan of comic book movies in general. i also like Eric Bana, even though most people on here hate on him. i will agree though that he probably wasn't the best choice for bruce banner. that being said, seeing Edward Norton cast was the first thing that got me excited for this new movie. when i heard about Leterrier, my first thought was "meh, transporter was alright." but when i saw Norton attached i got really excited. Norton is probably one of my favorite actors (with fight club being my favorite movie he has been in) and he brings a lot of credibility to the role. the trailer was just what i needed make up my mind on whether or not to see the movie now. i think it looks great. i read somewhere too that the final fight between hulk and abomination is like 26 minutes. 26 f*****g minutes! this movie looks pretty sweet actually.

(Reply to this)

Pumpkinking14 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 02:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#1638701)
It all goes back to the Multiple Personality Disorders of Bruce Banner: Gray Hulk = smaller, weaker, but more intelligent Hulk that represents Banner's adolescent lust/angst/rage against authority. Green/Savage Hulk = stronger, childlike, loss-of-innocence Banner who witnessed his father kill his mother when he was a small child (they got that much right in the first film!) and suppressed the memory and feelings which later bubbled up when he was exposed to Gamma Rays.

(Reply to this)

damvbat writes:
on Mar 17 2008 03:58 PM

whatever its still going to suck

(Reply to this)

max314 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 04:45 PM

The Norton factor may just make this something worthwhile. His redrafting the script and other creative controls are a source of hope.

I personally really liked Ang Lee's 2003 interpretation - it was a very sensitive emotional story about something that could have become nothing more than a brainless "Hulk SMASH!" romp - but I'm open to what Leterrier could do with this.

(Reply to this)

quytennis3 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 04:49 PM

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on Mar 17 2008 05:37 PM

RE: Action-Deficient trailer.

This is only a teaser. The actual release is a long time away, and since all the action in a movie like this is going to be heavily CGI - and therefore post-production - most of the action scenes haven't even been completed yet.

And possibly none of them. Sometimes these movies (Spiderman) create shots specifically for the teasers that won't be in the actual film. And sometimes even those shots that are in the movie aren't finalized (Ironman).

Which I hope is the case. Because, considering the advances in character animation over the last few years, I have to say that Greenie looked pretty bad. And why does he have to yell like a Tyrannosaurus?

(Reply to this)

duckmanx88 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 05:43 PM

I didn't even bother to see the first movie. watched finding nemo that weekend instead. but i've seen clips of it and was really glad i didn't pay to watch the ang lee version. the hulk just isn't that interesting a character. i'm more excited for iron man. i just hope it doesn't turn out like daredevil/fantastic four/ghost rider/hulk/spiderman 3/X3/Elektra/superman returns/punisher. man they really gotta sotp making crappy superhero films.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Mar 17 2008 07:47 PM

"We pick him up in the movie when he's in Brazil"........?

Anyone? Doesn't this make the movie a sequel, not a reboot?

(Reply to this)

simpsons-movie-ruled writes:
on Mar 17 2008 08:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#1639322)
YES JEREMYd4, I was wondering the same thing.
I just had to join this site to reply to you. So thank you for making me join this site.
Like I said, I agree with him and i'm actually really curious now to know if this is a reboot or a crappy sequel. If its a sequel, then count my money OUT.

(Reply to this)

rt_hire_me writes:
on Mar 17 2008 09:19 PM

Time to jump out of my safe and comfy trench: I liked the first Hulk. Ang Lee didn't just slap this thing together. From the opening credits, he established a great comic book vibe. The Roid dogs were a funny and unexpected twist. The fear of commitment theme was cliched but not overdone. Nick Nolte's intense and hilarious performance alone makes this movie worthy of repeat viewings, and I almost NEVER see anything more than once. Jennifer Connoly is the best female lead there is. 'More action' would have made a better movie? The guy took on the army! The music was great - I thought it was John Adams or Steve Reich. No, not a top-ten flick, but I just don't understand the negative response, especially on a site like this where so many seem to favor action movies.

(Reply to this)

plainview writes:
on Mar 18 2008 01:46 AM

seriously people. my roommate tried to argue with me, saying that this was a *****ty trailer and that for a teaser it didn't show enough. my god, what about the dark knight teaser that showed nothing? hardly anyone complained, and for good reason. this is a teaser trailer that is over two minutes long and shows us both monsters. what the hell more do you want? they couldn't release anything sooner, because the cgi wasn't close enough yet and they did not want to follow in the dark knight's footsteps, or release a trailer similar to ang lee's hulk teaser. hell, the cgi in this trailer still isn't finished and it's especially impressive. how come no one is complaining about how fake the cgi in iron man looks (specifically the scenes featuring the mark 3 suit)?

(Reply to this)

JimiDacosta writes:
on Mar 18 2008 10:47 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638342)
I have watched the trailer and I am less than impressed. Action it may have, Edward Norton it may have too, but the decisive factor in my opinion is whether it has a great story line. Making a film about the Hulk is always going to be a Colossal undertaking. Ang Lee failed miserably. CGI will always look like CGI. SO I am not in favour of having the green giant on screen for such inspection.
If trailers are anyting to go by then the Ironman Flick is such to entertain. But here's hoping agains all hope.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Mar 18 2008 01:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#1639686)
You lost me at "King Kong sucked." ;-) A little overlong, yes. But sucked? Gotta strongly disagree with ya there, buddy. And getting a body builder to play Hulk, in 2008, would just be an altogether bad idea. I can imagine if they did that how many of the same people would be filling these boards with the flip-side of the same complaint. Talk about a catch 22.

(Reply to this)

dwarf_griffon writes:
on Mar 18 2008 11:42 PM

All you guys really need to quit whining, and do your homework. The teaser trailer is just that a trailer that teases you makes you want to see more. The Hulk isnt just about smashing stuff he has a personality. Also Leterrier has said before that the CGI isnt finished yet. Another few incentives besides a 3 min Hulk-out: Robert Downey Jr. will reprise his role as Iron Man in THIS movie for at the very least a cameo and there will be a 26 min fight scene between Abom and Hulk! Maybe its just me but this movie is shaping up to be awesome.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 19 2008 07:02 AM

In reply to this comment (#1638535)
I saw 'League' and while I thought it was a functional monster suit, It looked kind of hokey. Even from this teaser trailer, it is pretty clear that they could not do the type of hardcore acrobatics with Ed Norton in a suit that they can do with CG.

I agree with most here that CG should not be a crutch or an excuse to be lazy with the other elements of a film, but I suppose I've acclimated to the reality that it's the way to go for knock-down, literally larger-than-life action sequences.

(Reply to this)

-apocolyptic- writes:
on Mar 21 2008 12:17 PM

The Ang Lee version actually made me a fan of the Hulk. He brought, I thought, a lot of characterization to, ummm, the character.
The ending was lame, but up to that point it was a pretty darn good movie.
The trailer for the new one looks like they just went for brainless action.
While violence does have its place, this one seems misplaced. But it is only a trailer and all these misgivings we have could be just put in the wrong spot.
Tim Roth is a hell of an actor and the angle they gave Abomination seems more realistic, so it could turn out to be a good movie.

(Reply to this)

SionnachOghma writes:
on May 25 2008 06:29 AM

RE: The Sequel/Reboot Question

It's both. They're picking up where Ang Lee's movie left off, but they've tossed away some elements of the Hulk himself. For example, he can no longer jump across the entire North American continent in a dozen or so leaps, and they toned down his strength and size some. It seems that as far as strength goes, he's more like the grey Hulk, though from what I've seen he's just as dim as Jolly Green has ever been.

I, for one, am really looking forward to this movie. Lee's vision of the Hulk was interesting, but his bad guy was stupid, as was the way Hulk beat him. As for the poodles, I'm not touching that one. Too easy.

Everything I've seen here points to an all-out smash-fest, but I think we can count on Norton's involvement in the screenplay to still keep a very strong character aspect throughout. Hopefully.

(Reply to this)