June
9
Incredible Hulk Will Play
Universal threw an Incredible Hulk premiere Sunday on the lot (which a week later, still had a tinge of smoke in the air). After all the grief and belly-aching about problems behind-the-scenes, Transporter director Louis Leterrier's movie played great at the Amphitheatre, and got thumbs up not only from me, but from 18-year-old Nora and Variety editor-in-chief Peter Bart. (Here's Variety's Incredible Hulk Movie Page.)
Edward Norton (who does not take a screenwriting credit) manages to make his tortured scientist-on-the-run sympathetic, not just as a man in love with fellow-scientist Liv Tyler, but as the raging-green Hulk, who seems to have learned a few things this time around from Peter Jackson's King Kong. Hulk (animated by Rhythm & Hues) does the chest-pounding dance on a rainy mountain crag routine--as his soaked lady-love looks on appreciatively, the only person who can reduce his heart-rate--and releases his rage in a satisfying lion-like roar. SPOILER ALERT: He also does gratifying big-scale battle with another gamma-tainted uber-being, The Abomination, played in human form by Tim Roth. Bill Hurt chews up the scenery as the villain of the piece. This time, they got it right.
The Incredible Hulk reveals the hazards of taking your movie to Comic-Con--God Forbid your presentation doesn't go over with fans. Bad Internet buzz killed dogged the first Hulk and threatened this one, too. One producer of Michael Bay's Transformers 2, which is currently filming in Pennsylvania, admitted that he'd just as soon not take anything to the July comic-book convention in San Diego until they have something really fab to show.
Here's the trailer:
Here's Todd McCarthy's review of Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk. He sees the 2008 incarnation on Tuesday; we'll post his Thursday print review on Wednesday night.
Finally, though, ultimate fanboy Harry Knowles' enthusiastic response and advance tracking indicates that Marvel (which made Iron Man, too, which has already grossed $289 million) will score another big opener this weekend: The Incredible Hulk is expected to gross in the same range as the last Hulk and last weekend's Kung Fu Panda: $60 million or so. The tracking is strong with men, as you'd think, and weak with women, who might build on word-of-mouth, because of the Norton/Tyler love story.
As the movie was unspooling, though, I was thinking, "wonder how they'll set up the sequel?" and, "when is Robert Downey, Jr. going to show?" Both of those things do make possible Marvel's planned Avengers movie, which could combine the likes of Giant Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Wolverine and Iron Man, to name a few likely suspects we discussed with Kevin Smith on the way out. He responded to my query about Marvel setting up Avengers with, "you have to be retarded not to think that!"
UPDATE: Here's Cinematical on the reveal of Tony Stark's cameo, which is at the very end of the movie. And Film School Rejects has a Hulk Guide.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Just come back from seeing Hulk and I agree. I liked it very much and I'm not a "comic book" fanboy. In fact, this is a minority opinion I'm sure, but I liked it better than Iron Man for which I still don't see what all the fuss is about.
Then again maybe I just desperate for something to clear my head after Sex in the City...
Posted by: Sergio | June 09, 2008 at 08:09 PM
Saw it Monday night at an advanced screening. This film does for Hulk what Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan did for Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It saves the series from a painful demise. Great action, humor, and pathos. Marvel has notched up two winners this summer. Their love for their creations have really shone so far. Hope it has great success at the box office.
Posted by: Paul | June 10, 2008 at 02:22 AM
"Bad Internet buzz killed the first Hulk and threatened this one, too."
"The Incredible Hulk is expected to gross in the same range as the last Hulk"
How do these square up?
The last film made $132mil domestic -- $241.7 worldwide -- as of 9/2003 (with a budget of $137mil plus $35 prints and advertising according to "the numbers"). Hulk also earned over $10mil in the first five days of rental revenue.
I know that the first movie was a disappointment, 50 minutes of character development (never followed up), no real "Hulk Smash" scene, and the Hulk fights a Thor villain. All that said, I liked it. It was long, as Ang Lee films tend to be, and I thought Eric Bana did fine. At least the first movie got the analogy for Nuclear War thing correct. Don't get me started on Emil Blonsky as American Special Forces Guy in the new one.
Back to my point. The first movie made money. Not as much as they would have liked, sure. The second one is tracking to make similar money with a similar budget ($125mil). How is this better?
Are you actually predicting that the film will make more than its predecessor in the long run? Because saying that one film is a disappointment, that the other won't be, but that they'll make the same amount of money is a muddy way of making that point.
Posted by: Christian Lindke | June 10, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Just for conversation...
The "original Avengers" are Thor, Iron Man, Ant-Man, The Wasp, and...The Hulk. Cap joins pretty quickly.
Posted by: Christian Lindke | June 10, 2008 at 10:18 AM
The new Hulk is expected to open in the same range--but it will presumably perform much better if auds like it. If the buzz hadn't been so problematic it might be expected to open better!
Posted by: anne thompson | June 10, 2008 at 01:05 PM
the point is also that Marvel wants to put these characters into circulation and own them so that they can participate in movies with each other...
Posted by: anne thompson | June 10, 2008 at 01:16 PM
I got the second point. That's why I mentioned who the original Avengers were. Given that Iron Man, The Hulk (with IM cameo), Thor, Giant Man, and Cap -- in addition to the Avengers -- are all on the Marvel line up, it seems they are trying to make an "original" Avengers movie. Something that I am excited about.
As for whether HulkII will make more money than its predecessor...I don't know if basing the sequel on Bruce Jones excellent, but really geeky, run on the title is the best market option. http://www.amazon.com/Incredible-Hulk-HC-Bruce-Jones/dp/0785110224/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_k2a_1_img?pf_rd_p=304485601&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-2&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0785112375&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=00V4ZGW3H2PQ3QCF69MT
Posted by: Christian Lindke | June 13, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Cap was not one of the original avengers. And wolverine dint come till recently. Why don't you read before you speak
Posted by: Matt | August 13, 2008 at 07:39 PM