The Incredible Hulk

From that brilliant poster of Ed Norton dressed all in denim walking away from the huge frame of his alter ego the Hulk to the superb end fight that shows the makers of Spiderman 3 how it should be done this is a great film. Not by any means a brilliant film but a truly enjoyable superhero romp none the less. Gone is the emotion that Ang Lee tried to inject into Hulk (2003) and back is the smashing and shouting and smashing. Plagued by his demons and his uncontrollable green counterpart, Norton plays Dr. Bruce Banner a scientist with a secret, desperate to find a cure. Hot on his heels are the army lead by Emil Blonsky (Roth) under the command of General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross, who just so happens to be the dad of Banners girlfriend Betty (Tyler), who wants to know how he gets all angry and use the technology to create 'super soldiers'. Plus Iron Man Tony Stark is in it. That then is about it, what you get is a chase movie with some great characters, some great effects and a couple of amazing set pieces including the end fight between the Hulk and the Abomination. All in all it's smashing stuff that should leave other superhero films green with envy.

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!

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!"

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 movie was the second film to release that would set up the 2012 Avengers film. In retrospect, it was a bit of a mistake as it did underwhelming business at the box office; especially when you compare the box office take of this film and the first film to release, Iron Man. Why is it a mistake, well there was already a Hulk movie released only five years prior to this one and it too was a disappointment. That being said, this is the better film than the 2003 Ang Lee film, I just feel it released too soon after it. I think if that film had not existed, this one would have performed considerably better. Not the 300 plus Iron Man did, but perhaps a 200 million dollar film rather than making about the same amount as Ang Lee's film did. I also believe they tried to do a bit too much with the story, not that it is complex, just that they almost blend the comics, with the television show and the 2003 film. At the end of the 2003 film, Bruce is in South America, at the beginning of this one he is in Brazil...so it's a sequel? No, not at all. The origin that is shown during the credits alludes to the television show, but Hulk looks like the comics. Just too much and trying to appease too many people all at the same time. I also think Norton was poorly cast in this one, as I did not get a Banner vibe from him at all. He just does not seem like he is into the role and considering he did not opt into doing the Avengers film and beyond suggests that he was not into it.

The story has Bruce in Brazil working at some strange soda plant or something. Looks like Mt. Dew, but has some funky name. Well, a slight accident leads to some of his blood getting into a bottle and this is how the military and General Ross track him down. Bruce is in chats with a man dubbed Mr. Blue in the hopes of finding a cure; however, he must find more data for Mr. Blue to create a cure. A crack team of soldiers try to track down Banner and he avoids them for a while, but soon turns into the Hulk, leading one of the soldiers, Emil Blonsky, wanted another crack at the beast. He is soon infused with super soldier serum and does quite admiral in dodging the Hulk, but it is still not enough. He craves the power the Hulk haves and soon this desire will create an abomination!

The film is pretty good, but could have been better. The scenes with the Hulk are by far the highlights and better than any of the Hulk scenes in the 2003 film with the incredible expanding Hulk. That being said, I did not like the fact they tied Banner turning into Hulk with his heart rate as it is solely tied to his anger. The film also did not portray the Hulk becoming stronger the angrier he got and the fight with Abomination should have showcased this. In the comics, Hulk is stronger than Abomination because of the increase as he gets angry. Abomination though is a better fighter as he is more agile and that is why he gives the Hulk a good fight, not because he is stronger. The reason the Hulk wins is because he keeps getting stronger, not because he is a better tactical fighter.

So, in the end, this film was more enjoyable than the Ang Lee film. That film was just strange in many ways as it played out in comic panels which suggests a fun film, but was so serious with virtually not humor that it was just a strange concoction. This one had some good action, but was not a perfect film. Hurt is the only actor from this film to be seen in a later Marvel universe film as he appeared in Captain America: Civil War. Most things from this film were pretty much scrapped though as the Leader looked to be coming, Abomination was still alive and various other things. Abomination was supposedly going to be in the second Avengers film and that would have been great as I felt Ultron was not enough, but they decided against it which sucked as something other than the exact same robot would have been cool. In the end, this film is kind of part of the Marvel universe and kind of not.