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

(41-42 of 42 posts) | Reply

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)

naderidk writes:
on Oct 20 2007 03:13 AM

Fun ? what dose it mean ? Hulk is Hulk, what could be fun in a story so much CG-ed that watching Simpson looks like reality TV.

(Reply to this)