The New

Well after the last big disappointment, I'm weary of being dissappointed again. The big change of a well known Hollywood actor, and an apparent plot change, that is supposed to impress us. The last one had a lot of hype, so three friends and myself had a guys night out, with a big steak dinner, and and a bottle of rye snuck into the theatre to enjoy the last Hulk. Sadly, not even the bottle of rye helped our situation, we more drowned our sorrows in the stench comming off the big screen! So this new "HULK" has me thinking already that I should wait for the DVD/Blu-Ray release, just like I did the Fantastic Four. Do any of you have plans to see it, or would you rather wait for the DVD/BR release.

---

[Post edited by ReaggieP on Jun 13, 2008 - CDT 8:56 AM]

Not bad at all it would seem. The Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 79%, and the RT Community (That's us regular people) gives it a 81%. I'll be seeing it tonight along with The Happening which unfortunately is not enjoying such high marks. Only a 20% from the top critics section and a 45% from the RT community. But I will see it anyway as I don't let others decide for me why a movie is good or bad, and from the trailers I have seen, this looks like a movie I would enjoy.

Moved.

---

[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Jun 13, 2008 - CDT 1:07 PM]

As written by Ebert's Incredible Hulk review:

Quote:
"The Incredible Hulk" is no doubt an ideal version of the Hulk saga for those who found Ang Lee's "Hulk" (2003) too talky, or dare I say, too thoughtful.

This is just a revamped sequel with a simlar plot/outline as the TV series now that the Hulk has been established, that we know how he got his powers and why, we can continue with action (as we wish to see with the Superman Returns sequels slated for 2010? ), and supposedly this movie delivers the action...and nothing else. I still have doubts which movie to watch, Kung Fu Panda, or Incredible Hulk?...oh, and two more weeks for Wall-e!!!

Well, to answer the questions posed in the thread title...

It certainly can't be as bad as Elektra. It takes a great deal of effort to suck that badly.
It certainly can't be as bad as X-Men: The Last Stand. That was a black hole in which the considerable talent couldn't extricate itself.
It certainly can't be as bad as Spider-Man 3, a mish mash of special effects suck-i-tude if I ever saw one.
Nor is it going to be as good as Batman Begins, X2 or Spider-Man 2. I'm pegging it on par with Daredevil, a film I genuinely like in its original theatrical cut. Not great, but not horrible. (Probably a step up from Ghost Rider, another film I liked).

Jason, waiting for a Power Pack movie

ang lee's "hulk" shouldn't be seen as a comic-book superhero movie. rather, it's another father-son clash that fits into the director's career-long theme.

Hi Guys,

Just joined today....

Have been visiting the site for a fair while though and wanted to comment on the new HULK.

I watched an advance screening yesterday and i have to say i was impressed.

In my opinion this movie is an example of when a studio gets it right with what fans are hoping for.
Obviously i cant speak for everyone but judging by audience reaction all the way through it seems the movie kicked ass in the right areas.

For ME, this movie and for instance the recent IRON Man flick are what going to the cinema is all about.

Just enjoying a damn good movie........


Anyone who still has nightmares about the Ang Lee version, please give this one your time and you might just be suprised.

---

[Post edited by Jimmyfingers on Jun 13, 2008 - CDT 2:51 PM]

I'll be damned, but Marvel has two pleasant surprises in the same year.

Hulk is not nearly as good as Iron Man, but it's a lot better than I expected (feared) it would be.

The three big drawbacks:

1) Thanks to 300, we are now cursed to see ridiculous slow-motion CGI poses/movements for the foreseeable future. Yes, the aesthetic started with The Matrix, but 300 was the first movie made almost entirely out of slow-motion CGI close-ups. Hulk isn't nearly as bad in that respect, but some of the slow-mo is really ridiculous and interferes with otherwise exciting action scenes.

2) Tim Roth is a decent actor, but completely miscast here. His entire performances consists of gritting his teeth in ponderous close-ups while grunting "Let me 'at em!" or "Is that all you got?"

3) Liv Tyler can't act.

4) The "King Kong" scene with Betty and Hulk in the cave.

The strengths:

1) Ed Norton is surprisingly good as Banner.

2) William Hurt is very good, making Thunderbolt Ross the total prick that he was in the comic book.

3) Good action scenes all around (save for the irritating slow-mo previously mentioned). I thought the CGI in the first Hulk was actually better, particular in terms of texture, but there's enough action here to satisfy. Nothing as good as Hulk's fight in the desert in the Ang Lee version, but still.

4) A better script than I expected, considering that Zak Penn now has sole credit.

It's a 7/10.

I haven't seen it yet but I will. Edward Norton is one of my favorite actors and I love the Hulk. I've been watching Hulk all week on Scifi.

It was nice to see Lou Ferrigno get his props here. And damn is he buff. He's looking like he could go back to the 70s and kick his own ass.

Another very good Stan Lee cameo.

I never though I'd say this, but I'm bummed that there won't be another Marvel movie for a while (Punisher doesn't count).