Bruce Banner, a scientist on the run from the U.S. Government, must find a cure for the monster he turns into whenever he loses his temper.Bruce Banner, a scientist on the run from the U.S. Government, must find a cure for the monster he turns into whenever he loses his temper.Bruce Banner, a scientist on the run from the U.S. Government, must find a cure for the monster he turns into whenever he loses his temper.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 10 nominations total
Al Vrkljan
- Commando
- (as Alan Vrkljan)
Summary
Reviewers say 'The Incredible Hulk' is lauded for its action and Edward Norton's performance, yet criticized for over-reliance on CGI and uneven pacing. Supporting characters, especially Liv Tyler's Betty Ross, are seen as underdeveloped. The film's tone fluctuates, though it is appreciated for its nods to the original series and comics, and its place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Featured reviews
First off, let's get one thing straight - - - this movie is NOT a sequel to the 2003 Hulk which had attempts to portray many things from the Hulk comics (father-son conflict, father-daughter strained relationship, a love triangle of sorts) that resulted in a confusing, sometimes scary (remember that scene where The Hulk was fighting off killer dogs?) movie.
This Incredible Hulk version is a simpler story; however, with strong performances by Edward Norton, William Hurt and Liv Tyler, it entertains (yes the key word is that it ENTERTAINS) better than its predecessor.
While it retains a more serious tone generally than, say Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk is definitely not a pushover when it comes to getting fans to enjoy a good movie. The action sequences, though not that many, were pretty good. Whatever lacking in action you think it has in the beginning, the climax between the Hulk and Abomination (you've seen that in the trailer so no spoiler there) should more than make up for it. It doesn't have many light moments (I only count about 3, really, cause they were quite few so I remembered them), but it wasn't as totally dark as the Ang Lee version.
And to some extent, at least this Hulk is less CGI/cartoony-looking than the last one. While he does have those weird ridges/lines stretching across his body, making the muscles seem different than what you'd see on a big body builder, this Hulk is more realistic (but really, how realistic can you get with a CGI-made anti-hero?), so you at least have an improvement there.
Edward Norton is more believable as the "tragic-story-of-my-life" protagonist Bruce Banner (no offense to Eric Bana, but he was just too muscular and less flawed-looking that Norton). The one actor I miss here, though, is Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross. While Liv Tyler's portrayal was credible enough, I don't think anyone can beat Jennifer's take on Ms. Ross.
Overall, I give it a 7 out of 10. Good enough to watch, entertaining and enjoyable without the complexities that the 2003 movie brought to the table, and a worthy addition to cinematic adaptation library that Marvel's adding every year. Hopefully, it will pick up steam after people realize that it's not the complicated, semi-psychological thriller (?) movie that the 2003 Hulk attempted to be. Rather an enjoyable cinematic achievement that's good enough to watch on the big screen.
This Incredible Hulk version is a simpler story; however, with strong performances by Edward Norton, William Hurt and Liv Tyler, it entertains (yes the key word is that it ENTERTAINS) better than its predecessor.
While it retains a more serious tone generally than, say Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk is definitely not a pushover when it comes to getting fans to enjoy a good movie. The action sequences, though not that many, were pretty good. Whatever lacking in action you think it has in the beginning, the climax between the Hulk and Abomination (you've seen that in the trailer so no spoiler there) should more than make up for it. It doesn't have many light moments (I only count about 3, really, cause they were quite few so I remembered them), but it wasn't as totally dark as the Ang Lee version.
And to some extent, at least this Hulk is less CGI/cartoony-looking than the last one. While he does have those weird ridges/lines stretching across his body, making the muscles seem different than what you'd see on a big body builder, this Hulk is more realistic (but really, how realistic can you get with a CGI-made anti-hero?), so you at least have an improvement there.
Edward Norton is more believable as the "tragic-story-of-my-life" protagonist Bruce Banner (no offense to Eric Bana, but he was just too muscular and less flawed-looking that Norton). The one actor I miss here, though, is Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross. While Liv Tyler's portrayal was credible enough, I don't think anyone can beat Jennifer's take on Ms. Ross.
Overall, I give it a 7 out of 10. Good enough to watch, entertaining and enjoyable without the complexities that the 2003 movie brought to the table, and a worthy addition to cinematic adaptation library that Marvel's adding every year. Hopefully, it will pick up steam after people realize that it's not the complicated, semi-psychological thriller (?) movie that the 2003 Hulk attempted to be. Rather an enjoyable cinematic achievement that's good enough to watch on the big screen.
Three cheers for Marvel for finally realizing that no one knows their material better then themselves. May they never sell another beloved superhero to a lesser being again.
For the second time this summer Marvel has given us a superhero movie that just plain rocks. With the exact right amount of humour, character development and great action sequences, the Incredible Hulk is up there with Iron Man as one of my favourite films to be released so far in the summer movie season. While I didn't like it quite as much as Iron Man (Robert Downey WAS Tony Stark. Whereas something still doesn't sit right about Edward Norton as Bruce...) it was nevertheless a great, faithful adaptation of the comic books. Plus the cameo appearances by both Stan Lee and Robert Downey Jr where terrific! Possibly my favourite Stan Lee cameo yet.
There isn't really much else to say besides, go see it for yourselves. If you're a fan of the comics, or just of fun popcorn films you'll definitely enjoy this one.
8/10
For the second time this summer Marvel has given us a superhero movie that just plain rocks. With the exact right amount of humour, character development and great action sequences, the Incredible Hulk is up there with Iron Man as one of my favourite films to be released so far in the summer movie season. While I didn't like it quite as much as Iron Man (Robert Downey WAS Tony Stark. Whereas something still doesn't sit right about Edward Norton as Bruce...) it was nevertheless a great, faithful adaptation of the comic books. Plus the cameo appearances by both Stan Lee and Robert Downey Jr where terrific! Possibly my favourite Stan Lee cameo yet.
There isn't really much else to say besides, go see it for yourselves. If you're a fan of the comics, or just of fun popcorn films you'll definitely enjoy this one.
8/10
OK, I didn't think the 2003 Ang Lee version was THAT bad, but you ever figure out the faults of a movie when seeing the sequel/reboot to it? Now I do with Ang's version and after seeing the new improved Hulk I must say this is 100 times better! We see more of Bruce "Hulking" out and less of the drama the first showed to us. No more of Bruce blaming his father for what happened to him.
Also this presents to us something else the first lacked: humor. OK, don't want the movie to be a total laugh fest, but nothing wrong with a little moments of laughter, such as some nods to the comic and TV show (the purple pants, and of course Lou's cameo, dang he's huge!). A little humor made Bruce seem like a real human rather than Eric Bana's deadpan performance.
Speaking of, the cast, like the story, is redone and redone well. As I mentioned, Norton makes Bruce Banner more human. Nothing against Sam Elliot, but Hurt gives off a better presence as Thunderbolt Ross. Liv Tyler is easy on the eyes (she does have daddy's lips, but still hot), and easy on the performance as well. Tim Roth just owns as the villain here.
The villain of course is the Abomination and what a sweet villain he is (better than the CG dogs and the Absorb Man). And believe me, the fight scene between him and our green friend will bring out the inner nerd in you. Oh, and hearing "HULK SMASH!" will too!
Overall, more action than the 2003 "drama" and more humor leads to what we WANT a Hulk movie to be like. Oh, and don't forget to watch for a surprise cameo (hint: not Stan Lee or Lou) which hints at a possible cool movie event in the future!
Also this presents to us something else the first lacked: humor. OK, don't want the movie to be a total laugh fest, but nothing wrong with a little moments of laughter, such as some nods to the comic and TV show (the purple pants, and of course Lou's cameo, dang he's huge!). A little humor made Bruce seem like a real human rather than Eric Bana's deadpan performance.
Speaking of, the cast, like the story, is redone and redone well. As I mentioned, Norton makes Bruce Banner more human. Nothing against Sam Elliot, but Hurt gives off a better presence as Thunderbolt Ross. Liv Tyler is easy on the eyes (she does have daddy's lips, but still hot), and easy on the performance as well. Tim Roth just owns as the villain here.
The villain of course is the Abomination and what a sweet villain he is (better than the CG dogs and the Absorb Man). And believe me, the fight scene between him and our green friend will bring out the inner nerd in you. Oh, and hearing "HULK SMASH!" will too!
Overall, more action than the 2003 "drama" and more humor leads to what we WANT a Hulk movie to be like. Oh, and don't forget to watch for a surprise cameo (hint: not Stan Lee or Lou) which hints at a possible cool movie event in the future!
Out of the five original Avengers, I always thought that the Incredible Hulk was the least interesting and therefore least likely character to be adapted to film (except Ant-Man, although he'll be arriving in 2010...look forward to that.) However, here we sit in 2008 with not just one, but TWO different portrayals of the less-than-jolly green giant. The main problem that the new film faces is that some people will believe it to be a sequel to Ang Lee's 2003 effort, which upon release was blindfolded, made to stand against a wall and executed by public firing squad. The fact is that it is not a sequel at all. Instead, director Louis Leterrier has pulled a 'Batman Begins' and rebooted the franchise, and not just in name only. Everything about the 'Hulk is excellent. From the special effects to the characters to the reticent nods to other superheroes within the Marvel universe, the 'Hulk succeeds on every level.
The film sidesteps the curse of the tedious 'origin story' by showing it to the audience in the opening credits. That should really be a law within superhero movies. It works so well: Bruce Banner works on a radioactive serum with love interest/scientist Betty Ross (played by Liv Tyler's lips), he injects himself to see if it works, it transforms him into the Hulk. There, that didn't need to take one hundred minutes of screen time did it? This means that director Leterrier has free reign to explore how Bruce Banner lives as the Hulk and the attempts by the United States army to track him down and neutralise him, which leads to several action set pieces involving vehicles being thrown into walls and soldiers firing a nimiety of bullets at the Hulk, even when they can clearly see them bouncing off his body. Really, what is the best they are hoping for in a situation like that? "Keep firing, he might develop a vague sense of moral ill-being and stop!" Ultimately, the film boils down to a brawl in New York City between the Hulk and his evil counterpart, a special-ops soldier (Tim Roth being exemplary as usual) willingly injected with the Hulk genes, much like the climax to 'Iron Man.' The difference here is that the build up to this fight doesn't seem rushed like in 'Iron Man' because Leterrier has been able to utilise the whole of the film's running time to arrive at this natural conclusion, instead of being preoccupied with the origin story and tagging on an antagonist at the end.
Whoever cast Edward Norton as Dr Bruce Banner is almost as much of a genius as the person who asked Robert Downey Jr. To play Tony Stark in 'Iron Man' (who makes an appearance in the film inducing fan-boy erections everywhere.) Norton plays his role with understated finesse, never resorting to overly pained facial expressions, intense eye contact or shouting to display the anguish which is consuming him for the majority of the film. He simply shows that the Hulk sized burden on his back is destroying him, crushing his will to live. He looks haunted and tired, but possesses a steely resolve not to succumb to the beast within, although it would temporarily end his struggle if he did so. He's so good that Christian Bale will have to turn water into wine in The Dark Knight to retain his title as King of the Superheroes (Tobey Maguire? Hahaha, you're kidding...wait, you aren't?) There are many minor elements in 'The Incredible Hulk' that elevates it above most movies in this genre. For example, for nearly half of the film the audience are only provided with fleeting glimpses of the Hulk, much like Batman in 'Begins. His presence is not overused, though it easily could be with the bravura CGI shown at the end. Indeed, the first chase scene does not involve Banner turning into the Hulk at all, it is just an exciting pursuit across rooftops in Rio De Janeiro. Also, the orchestral score lends an air of intelligence to the film and enhances the scenes much more than an overdriven guitar track (hello, Iron Man) would have done.
The Incredible Hulk is one of those minority superhero films; it's good. In fact, with regard to any competition it faces, you (if you were looking to conclude a film review with a dialogue related pun) might be inclined to say "Hulk smash!"
The film sidesteps the curse of the tedious 'origin story' by showing it to the audience in the opening credits. That should really be a law within superhero movies. It works so well: Bruce Banner works on a radioactive serum with love interest/scientist Betty Ross (played by Liv Tyler's lips), he injects himself to see if it works, it transforms him into the Hulk. There, that didn't need to take one hundred minutes of screen time did it? This means that director Leterrier has free reign to explore how Bruce Banner lives as the Hulk and the attempts by the United States army to track him down and neutralise him, which leads to several action set pieces involving vehicles being thrown into walls and soldiers firing a nimiety of bullets at the Hulk, even when they can clearly see them bouncing off his body. Really, what is the best they are hoping for in a situation like that? "Keep firing, he might develop a vague sense of moral ill-being and stop!" Ultimately, the film boils down to a brawl in New York City between the Hulk and his evil counterpart, a special-ops soldier (Tim Roth being exemplary as usual) willingly injected with the Hulk genes, much like the climax to 'Iron Man.' The difference here is that the build up to this fight doesn't seem rushed like in 'Iron Man' because Leterrier has been able to utilise the whole of the film's running time to arrive at this natural conclusion, instead of being preoccupied with the origin story and tagging on an antagonist at the end.
Whoever cast Edward Norton as Dr Bruce Banner is almost as much of a genius as the person who asked Robert Downey Jr. To play Tony Stark in 'Iron Man' (who makes an appearance in the film inducing fan-boy erections everywhere.) Norton plays his role with understated finesse, never resorting to overly pained facial expressions, intense eye contact or shouting to display the anguish which is consuming him for the majority of the film. He simply shows that the Hulk sized burden on his back is destroying him, crushing his will to live. He looks haunted and tired, but possesses a steely resolve not to succumb to the beast within, although it would temporarily end his struggle if he did so. He's so good that Christian Bale will have to turn water into wine in The Dark Knight to retain his title as King of the Superheroes (Tobey Maguire? Hahaha, you're kidding...wait, you aren't?) There are many minor elements in 'The Incredible Hulk' that elevates it above most movies in this genre. For example, for nearly half of the film the audience are only provided with fleeting glimpses of the Hulk, much like Batman in 'Begins. His presence is not overused, though it easily could be with the bravura CGI shown at the end. Indeed, the first chase scene does not involve Banner turning into the Hulk at all, it is just an exciting pursuit across rooftops in Rio De Janeiro. Also, the orchestral score lends an air of intelligence to the film and enhances the scenes much more than an overdriven guitar track (hello, Iron Man) would have done.
The Incredible Hulk is one of those minority superhero films; it's good. In fact, with regard to any competition it faces, you (if you were looking to conclude a film review with a dialogue related pun) might be inclined to say "Hulk smash!"
As I am writing this review, Avengers: Endgame is breaking box-office records as the culmination of 11 years of the MCU. Marvel Studios has become a juggernaut that seemingly nothing can ever stop. When The Incredible Hulk came out in 2008, the second movie of the so-called « Phase 1 » after Iron Man, such a success was merely a hope, if it was envisaged at all.
However, this movie is an oddity in the MCU. It isn't considered an essential watch, a lot of people just forget about it, or simply have never seen it. And this isn't very suprising, as The Incredible Hulk has a completely different feel as any other MCU movie. There are no vibrant colors, jokes are few and far between, and, supreme heresy, it doesn't even feature the beloved Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner / the Hulk. Despite that, I think this movie should be more recognized by Marvel enthusiasts.
For one, I was surprised at the number of foreshadowing in it. Despite its reputation, it is very clear, watching now, that it was definitely intended as the beginning of a cinematic universe. There are references to Stark Industries, to super soldiers, to S.H.I.E.L.D., and the movie clearly lays the ground for a sequel (that never happened and probably never will).
The performances were strong, and I will single out Edward Norton, who left the Marvel boat after this, for reasons still a bit unclear. Watching this movie made me regret that he didn't stay in the role for more movies (no disrespect to Mr. Ruffalo whom I like a lot, as does everyone). I am a big fan of Edward Norton in general, from whom I have never seen an unenjoyable performance. That stays true for this movie. To me, his casting as Bruce Banner was an inspired one. He portrayed the tortured soul of the character exactly as I envision it, and with a lot of nuances.
The story itself isn't very remarkable. It's fairly conventional, although maybe not totally conventional for a superhero movie. I would say it's more of a thriller, about a man on the run from the military who are after his secrets and his life. We've seen this story before, but here the man also happens to turn into a big, green monster when his pulse gets too high. It isn't just a thriller, though, bu also very much a love story, which may be one of the reasons of its unpopularity (?). If that's the case, then it's a shame, because I found the love story actually well done. There was a real chemistry between Edward Norton and Liv Tyler, who portrayed a sweet, but capable Betty Ross, and there wasn't a moment where I didn't believe that these two characters were completely in love.
What this movie might be criticized for, is a lack of the titular Hulk. It's true that it's mainly Banner's story. However, the scenes in which the Hulk appears are very satisfying. I must say I was impressed by the CGI. It isn't as modern as what we're used to see nowadays, but still very good. In a movie with such a realistic feel, it's even more difficult to make a huge CGI monster look like it's really there in the scene, but I though that it worked perfectly.
This movie definitely is the odd one out in regards to the whole MCU, but I think it deserves not to be forgotten or dismissed. Not only is its quality on par with other, more popular Marvel movies, it is also our only Hulk solo movie, and it will stay so for the foreseeable future, due to the distribution deal between Marvel and Universal. So, if you're taking a nostalgia trip through the history of the MCU, or if you're only just now starting to delve into this cinematic universe, don't skip the Incredible Hulk.
However, this movie is an oddity in the MCU. It isn't considered an essential watch, a lot of people just forget about it, or simply have never seen it. And this isn't very suprising, as The Incredible Hulk has a completely different feel as any other MCU movie. There are no vibrant colors, jokes are few and far between, and, supreme heresy, it doesn't even feature the beloved Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner / the Hulk. Despite that, I think this movie should be more recognized by Marvel enthusiasts.
For one, I was surprised at the number of foreshadowing in it. Despite its reputation, it is very clear, watching now, that it was definitely intended as the beginning of a cinematic universe. There are references to Stark Industries, to super soldiers, to S.H.I.E.L.D., and the movie clearly lays the ground for a sequel (that never happened and probably never will).
The performances were strong, and I will single out Edward Norton, who left the Marvel boat after this, for reasons still a bit unclear. Watching this movie made me regret that he didn't stay in the role for more movies (no disrespect to Mr. Ruffalo whom I like a lot, as does everyone). I am a big fan of Edward Norton in general, from whom I have never seen an unenjoyable performance. That stays true for this movie. To me, his casting as Bruce Banner was an inspired one. He portrayed the tortured soul of the character exactly as I envision it, and with a lot of nuances.
The story itself isn't very remarkable. It's fairly conventional, although maybe not totally conventional for a superhero movie. I would say it's more of a thriller, about a man on the run from the military who are after his secrets and his life. We've seen this story before, but here the man also happens to turn into a big, green monster when his pulse gets too high. It isn't just a thriller, though, bu also very much a love story, which may be one of the reasons of its unpopularity (?). If that's the case, then it's a shame, because I found the love story actually well done. There was a real chemistry between Edward Norton and Liv Tyler, who portrayed a sweet, but capable Betty Ross, and there wasn't a moment where I didn't believe that these two characters were completely in love.
What this movie might be criticized for, is a lack of the titular Hulk. It's true that it's mainly Banner's story. However, the scenes in which the Hulk appears are very satisfying. I must say I was impressed by the CGI. It isn't as modern as what we're used to see nowadays, but still very good. In a movie with such a realistic feel, it's even more difficult to make a huge CGI monster look like it's really there in the scene, but I though that it worked perfectly.
This movie definitely is the odd one out in regards to the whole MCU, but I think it deserves not to be forgotten or dismissed. Not only is its quality on par with other, more popular Marvel movies, it is also our only Hulk solo movie, and it will stay so for the foreseeable future, due to the distribution deal between Marvel and Universal. So, if you're taking a nostalgia trip through the history of the MCU, or if you're only just now starting to delve into this cinematic universe, don't skip the Incredible Hulk.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaAccording to Tim Roth, Edward Norton re-wrote scenes every day. Norton and Liv Tyler also spent hours discussing their characters' lives (especially before the Hulk appeared).
- Goofs(at around 39 mins) When Bruce is searching the computer database from the University computer lab, his search for "B* BANNER" fails to find anything. This is not surprising, since the check box titled "Allow Wildcards" is not checked just above the search field, so the search is only looking for a B followed by a literal asterisk.
- Quotes
Betty Ross: [yells at taxi driver] Asshole!
Bruce Banner: You know, I know a few techniques that could help you manage that anger effectively.
Betty Ross: You zip it. We're walking.
Bruce Banner: Ok.
- Crazy creditsSPOILER: In the opening credits, a blueprint of the sonic cannon at Culver University can be seen bearing the title "Stark Industries," indicating that it was Tony Stark (of Iron Man (2008)) who built the cannons for General Ross to use against the Hulk. Stark himself appears in the film's closing scene.
- Alternate versionsTwo versions were released theatrically in Germany: the uncut version, rated "Not under 16", and a (very clumsily) edited version which was rated "Not under 12".
- ConnectionsEdited into Marvel One-Shot: The Consultant (2011)
- SoundtracksOver Under Around And Through
Written by Joe Raposo
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Hulk, el hombre increible
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $150,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $134,806,913
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $55,414,050
- Jun 15, 2008
- Gross worldwide
- $264,770,996
- Runtime1 hour 52 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content