ROTTEN TOMATOES: Tim Roth Promises Fun Incredible Hulk Comments

Tim Roth Promises Fun Incredible Hulk

by Fred Topel | October 14, 2007

Summary

Marvel Studios has promised The Incredible Hulk will restart the Hulk movie franchise with a more fun take on the material. Costar Tim Roth, who plays Abomination in the film, confirmed the fun. Back to Article

(21-40 of 41 posts) | Reply

Disclaimered writes:
on Oct 14 2007 02:12 PM

I am an avid Hulk fan. Love the series, comics, etc.
I, however, agree the last movie was as boring as sin. That was five years ago that it came out. Ang Lee spent too much time on a greek tragedy rather than all out destruction while inner character conflicts was going on.
This one, by far, will be better simply based on the fact that the previous one was a waste of time.
At least the director Louis Leterrier (Transporter 1 & 2, Unleashed) has a good style for action.
Also, Stan Winston is the FX guy. He's worked on Jurassic Park, Predator, Alien, and a crapload of other franchises. I'm giving this movie a good chance to redeem the series.

(Reply to this)

TheAncientEnemy writes:
on Oct 14 2007 02:19 PM

If Winston is doing this then the special effects are in the bag and not to be worried about. I think that perhaps the success of Spider-Man 2 and 3, which got progressively sillier, might be the inspiration for making these new films more "fun."

As long as Batman doesn't get "fun" again, I think we'll be ok.

(Reply to this)

stoober writes:
on Oct 14 2007 02:45 PM

I don't get why everyone hates on the first movie so much. I thought it was an incredibly thought out, interesting character drama with some beautiful camerawork that was excellently directed. I'll admit that the bad guys were a little lame, but other than that, i liked the first one. Whats up?

(Reply to this)

ZeroDigital writes:
on Oct 14 2007 03:30 PM

Yeah. I personally liked The Hulk. The CGI on Hulk was pretty realistic. I hope they keep it on the same line, but with a hell of a lot more action!

(Reply to this)

tabascoman77 writes:
on Oct 14 2007 03:40 PM

I liked the original Hulk also.

It was dramatic, took its time, actually had FLESHED-OUT CHARACTERS (for a change compared to every other ****ty Marvel movie) and I loved the comic book-feel of the editing.

It actually reminded me of Hulk: Grey a little bit. Yeah, the Hulk could have looked a bit better but he still had to have that human side of him, which is probably why his face looked so sad and innocent: to remind us that Banner was in there and that he was just trying to get a grip on his anger.

I'm not predicting good things for this version of Hulk. I'll see it but it has a lot to live up to. Why does everything have to be goofy, fun, and brainless?

Casino Royale ditched all the B.S. and went for Connery-esque seriousness and it turned out to be a great movie...

(Reply to this)

bigpk writes:
on Oct 14 2007 03:48 PM

As long as roth does not look like the juggernaut in X-men III! That was a joke!

(Reply to this)

damvbat writes:
on Oct 14 2007 04:24 PM

I have faith this will be a good movie

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Oct 14 2007 04:45 PM

They want to make a superhero movie that's fun? What a concept!

(Reply to this)

beorntheold writes:
on Oct 14 2007 06:10 PM

what little went wrong with the first part did so exactly because of the effort to make it a summer "fun" movie.

(Reply to this)

pota1967 writes:
on Oct 14 2007 08:13 PM

anyone that would see this movie after The Hulk catastrophe-has got to be lacking in the gray matter!!!!! nuff said

(Reply to this)

kenporules writes:
on Oct 14 2007 09:31 PM

I actually really liked Ang Lee's "serious" Hulk, but the Marvel look of that big goofy green Hulk was at odds with the live action and drama going on, and looked ridiculous - it was a good movie that would have been better with a more appropriate interpretation of him for the material that didn't make him look like a big green springy rubber ball (that would've pissed off a lot of fans but would've made the movie more effective).

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Oct 15 2007 06:38 AM

People like the story of the Hulk and remember the interpretation given from the TV show. The Lee story and feel was too far apart from this communal memory of what the Hulk should be, so we all came out of the theatre thinking "wtf" (or most of us did).

It seems Letterier is going more for the fun smash stuff, w/ a cast and some story elements of the basic sadness of being on the run and an outcast. That is what people want to see. Make it deep enough w/o losing the action and excitement. That is what makes a great comic book film, a little depth and some good action (and no poodles).

(Reply to this)

Kollikodon writes:
on Oct 15 2007 08:29 AM

Y'know... by actually having a villain... its a better movie then Ang Lee's... crap-fest.

(Reply to this)

walkingdead09 writes:
on Oct 15 2007 09:00 AM

In reply to this comment (#1190857)
Buddy, read any of the Hulk Comics, the dude can throw tanks around. That was true to the character, without that character you would have no movie.

(Reply to this)

pinkincide writes:
on Oct 15 2007 11:43 PM

Yeah, you can fault the first movie for many things, but throwing tanks and monster dogs around isn't one of them. He's the Hulk and that's what he does. If anything it needed more of that.

(Reply to this)

jacog writes:
on Oct 16 2007 05:35 AM

Ang Lee took inspiration from the comics, from the animated cartoon, from the old TV show. I enjoyed his Hulk, and I think all the stuff that kiddies found boring were actually necessary to establish the character properly. I think if he had a chance to do a sequel, it would have been everything anyone could have hope for a Hulk movie, since the origin stuff is out of the way.

My only gripe with the film was the battle at the end. It was silly. Didn't even mind the mutant dogs earlier in the film. I think it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek... Hulk bashes the pitbull in the nuts, for Pete's sake - it was funny.

(Reply to this)

deneco4 writes:
on Oct 16 2007 08:29 AM

You arent already ridiculed for planet of the apes??

(Reply to this)

tabascoman77 writes:
on Oct 16 2007 09:48 PM

Ang Lee's version of the Hulk was near-perfect, thought-provoking and was highly intelligent.

You don't need a villain when the villain is yourself. It was Banner trying to come to grips with what he had become.

Read "Hulk: Grey". The movie is pretty much following the plot of that book.

I find it funny that

A) Hulk is already in need of a "re-boot" after one movie (which just goes to show that the Marvel audience is the same pack of idiots who flocked to Ghostrider, Daredevil, and two ****ty F4 pictures to name a few)

and

B) That we're going to convert The Hulk into a mindless moron smashing things just to please an audience who clap with glee when everything explodes and the house comes crashing down around them. (Read: Transformers)

I'm already predicting 30% on the Tomatometer. Ang Lee's version may not be the best to a lot of people but it was one of the better comic book movies I've seen in a long while. Just because people didn't "get it" doesn't make it a bad movie.

Ang Lee is a decent director and he did a great job with Hulk.

The audiences would do well to "get something" before they watch that movie again:

A brain.

(Reply to this)

rgallitan writes:
on Oct 18 2007 11:11 AM

"Pure, on set, all I'm asking is, 'Okay, this has got to be a cool shot for my kids, all right? Am I going to look cool in this shot?' It's truly about that for me, completely about that."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! RUN! HELP! ABANDON SHIP!!!

(Reply to this)

largely writes:
on Oct 19 2007 07:04 PM

Well said Tabascoman,
I think most of what you have said about Ang Lee's film is true with the exception of what I said previously about the CG just not being belivable enough, but with that said I still like the film.
I am also on the same page with you about those other Marvel films you mentioned as well. I'll give you an example of why I think Ang Lee's Hulk is a good film. I have been lifelong fans of both the Hulk and Daredevil, and I probably like Daredevil slighly more. I saw both in the theaters. When Daredevil came out on DVD I can honestly say I have watched it once since I have owned it. Since I have had the Hulk I've watched it numerous times. Now until recently I've never really thought about why I tended to gravitate more to the Hulk then Daredevil even though Daredevil is quite possibly my favorite Marvel character. The bottom line is the quality of the film (acting,character development, dialogue, cinamatography, psychology, even scientific plausability for that mater). There is something deeply human and universal about the misunderstood monster mythology that Ang Lee's film presents. And I think you hit the nail on the head. People (even comic book readers) have a built in dumbed down expectation for superhero movies and when they don't get the typical thrill a minute movie as escape only expectation they feel insecure and confused or in their minds bored so they ask for their money back.

(Reply to this)