The Incredible Hulk
Movie Review
"The Incredible Hulk"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, June 13, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
"The Incredible Hulk" offers the quantity of action that many people felt was lacking in Ang Lee's more contemplative 2003 treatment of the big green freak, and it does it without skimping on the other necessary elements. I thought "The Hulk" was an intelligent and captivating comic book adaptation -- perhaps the most comic-booky so far, visually speaking -- but I understand that those aren't necessarily the most prized qualities in such a film. Fans want Hulk to smash things. That's fair, and I respect that.
Hulk smashes a good number of things in Louis Leterrier's spiffy new reboot, which basically discards the first film, summarizes its own origin story in the opening credits, then rejoins the action five years later. Everyone knew that Leterrier, who worked on adrenalin-happy jaunts like "The Transporter" and "Unleashed," could bring the energy and mayhem the franchise needed. The nice surprise is that he can deal with Bruce Banner's sadness, isolation, and pain, too.
When we find him, Bruce (Edward Norton) is hiding out in a Brazilian slum, working at a bottling factory for cash and spending his spare time trying to find a cure for the gamma radiation poisoning that makes him turn hulky when he gets angry. He also studies martial arts and Zen techniques, to help him master his emotions. Bruce is the quintessential candidate for an anger management course, and the screenplay (by "Elektra" and "X-Men: The Last Stand" writer Zak Penn) makes a few good jokes along those lines.
Back in the States, Bruce's beloved Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) is working at a university while her father, the steel-hearted warmonger Gen. Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt), actively searches for Bruce. The general doesn't want to cure him, of course -- he wants to harness whatever it is that makes him this way and use it as a weapon. If you could imbue a soldier with such strength and indestructibility, he'd be the greatest boon to the military since the invention of gunpowder. If you could control it, that is. Which you couldn't. Which means Gen. Ross' plan is a huge disaster waiting to happen. But hey, you try reasoning with a warmonger. It never works.
Bruce's Brazilian hideout is eventually discovered, and he flees back to the U.S. to retrieve the scientific data regarding his situation that he needs to research a cure. Meanwhile, Ross and his imported protege Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), eager to sample some of Bruce's superpowers himself, follow a basic pattern of pursuing Bruce, turning him into the Hulk, destroying a lot of public property in the course of battling him, and then losing him again when the Hulk defeats them and lumbers off into the distance.
The fights are appropriately spectacular and furious; no one will complain that this Hulk film falls short in the respect. There is a certain sameness to it all, though, and a certain familiarity to the plot, too: Sooner or later, nearly every superhero franchise pits the hero against a villain who has the same powers he does; I guess it's the only way to keep things interesting when the hero himself is virtually unkillable. On the other hand, these face-offs always result in some bone-crunchingly exciting fights, and the Hulk's match with a creature fittingly called Abomination is no exception.
With crafty homages to the 1970s TV series, a delicious performance by Tim Blake Nelson as a loopy New York university professor, and the best Stan Lee cameo to date, "The Incredible Hulk" hits all the points on the checklist that moviegoers craved in the 2003 edition. My nerd friends assure me it's pretty faithful to the mythology of the comic book, too, tying in with other Marvel heroes such as Iron Man and Captain America. And if you've satisfied the regular movie fans and the comic book devotees, you've pretty much nailed all the demographics for something like this.
Grade: B
Rated PG-13, a lot of action violence and fighting, some of it moderately graphic
1 hr., 54 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 20 comments
June 14, 2008 at 7:34 pm
"..and the best Stan Lee cameo to date."
..meaning none at all? :-P
No but seriously, I always find his cameos more than a little annoying. I know he's the creator of comic book legends we all know and love, but I just always find it distracting (and more than a little overly self-indulgent) that he always has to insert himself in the movie somewhere. I can't remember which Spiderman movie it was that he pulls some kid to safety from falling rubble or something, but I do remember the audible groan from a few people in the theatre.
I really didn't dig the last Hulk film, (which Eric gave a slightly better grade) but hopefully I'll "get" this one.
June 14, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Wow! I've never heard anyone complain about the Stan Lee cameo before, it's always something I've gotten a kick out of in the movies made from Marvel comics. I guess that's a lesson in "to each his own." I liked the new film a lot, I think it hangs together much better as a film than Ang Lee's "Hulk," largely because this one just tells the story. If you think about it, with the exception of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," there's very little in Ang Lee's resume that would suggest he's the guy to make a "Hulk" movie. When he isn't condescending to the material with his comic panels, he's trying to make it more complex than it is with his long, ponderous, brooding sequences where nothing at all appears to happen except for people ruminating about fatherhood. And I never got what it was Nick Nolte turned into at the end, was he some kind of a monster or something too? Now, that said, I didn't hate Ang Lee's film, I just found it very odd. I thought this version really worked the way it should have worked: expose him to gamma rays or whatever you're going to do in the first ten minutes, then have him "Hulk out" and smash things every half hour or so, with him getting away in the end so he can smash again. The only thing about that story that I never quite got is why anyone would want to cure themselves of such an affliction.
June 14, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Does it have a better Stan Lee cameo than Mallrats? That one was great.
I actually find it rather admirable that the man is still involved enough in the movies to put in cameos. It's a more visible way of showing he endorses the movie than just putting his name in the credits, and it show's that he's still got a sense of humor about it.
June 15, 2008 at 12:04 am
...but I just always find [Lee's cameos] distracting...
Try as I might, I just can't sympathize here. I can't recall a Stan Lee appearance that was more than three or four seconds in length, and that assumes I can remember them at all.
Now, speaking parts are a whole different animal (what few he has). Ever see an episode of Who Wants To Be A Superhero? Painful.
June 15, 2008 at 1:59 am
Annoying cameos? I must have clicked on the wrong movie by mistake. I thought this was the comments section for a Marvel comics movie, not an M. Night Shyamalan flick.
Anyways, count me in with those who couldn't stand the first one and thought a B+ was way too generous, but is anyone else chuckling at how they've "rebooted" the franchise so soon? I mean, it's only been five years since the first one. I can see the reboots being justified in the cases of Batman and Superman when it had been well over 10 years since the first ones and the old franchises were run into the ground with silliness, but a "reboot" only five years after a movie that did well theatrically and got decent reviews for a superhero movie? I also find it funny that they cast Liv Tyler in the Jennifer Connelly role, because I can't tell those two apart to save my life. Maybe neither can the filmmakers.
Doubt I'll see this till it comes DVD, but hey, have fun with it if you do.
June 15, 2008 at 7:18 pm
"Doubt I'll see this till it comes DVD, but hey, have fun with it if you do." ~ ClobberGirl
One thing I would have to comment, a reboot, they have done those countless times with the batman movies, in fact, not long after the bombs of batman movies, the pumped another worthless bat flick, Batman Begins, which was irritating, since Batman is pretty much a worthless superhero, now come the Dark Knight, which would probably be the only saving grace for the DC universe since the passing of Heath Ledger.. Superman, havent seen the new one, heard it was really poor, wouldnt waste my time. Revamping the Hulk, couldnt necessarily call it a revamp, new writers, new director, new plot, and well, its the Incredible Hulk, anyone in comic fandom, specially in the Marvel universe would know, you add a minor tweak to the title, redo things from the ground up, then its a completely different adventure.
As for Stan Lee cameos, I agree, its great he has cameos in his films, shows he supports the entire project, specially since holywood has been notorious for butchering the hell out of superhero movies. Sam Raimi made countless cameo appearances in the Evil Dead series, as well as Bruce Campbell made them in Spiderman Movies, which is directed by Sam Raimi. Cameo appearances add to the novelty and fun.
One more, waiting until the DVD? Why critic a movie if you havent seen it? Its like trying to disagree with a stubborn blind man that tells you the sky is pink.
June 15, 2008 at 10:08 pm
"but a "reboot" only five years after a movie that did well theatrically"
Well, if you call dropping 77% at the box office before its first week of release was fully over "doing well"...
June 16, 2008 at 3:58 am
Going all the way back to 2004 for this one, but I think it's still worth a read:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33980
June 16, 2008 at 4:44 pm
That article nails one of the biggest problems with the Ang Lee film: It was very obviously just the first act of a the greater story. There was no real closure, it didn't seem like one got a satisfactory done-in-one film.
While the Norton Hulk film has -tons- of sequel-tastic seeds, it's also done in a way that it can be enjoyed as a self-contained movie, with or without the myriad openings for future films.
June 16, 2008 at 8:18 pm
#6 -- Did you even read my comment? I covered the difference between this and the Batman/Superman reboots, and I didn't "critic" a movie I haven't seen, I only said that I think rebooting the franchise this soon was silly. I said nothing about whether or not this one is actually a good movie; it may very well be, see it if it sounds like something you'd like.
#7 -- "Well, if you call dropping 77% at the box office before its first week of release was fully over "doing well"..."
I didn't read the stats on its box office before posting, but I remember going to see it on its second weekend and having to sit on the floor of the theater because it was sold out and overbooked (the first and last time I ever did so for a movie). It wasn't a Spiderman-style hit like the studios wanted it to be, but it also wasn't a total abortion of the character like Catwoman was--now I could see someone doing a justified reboot of *that* franchise after only 5 years.
#8 -- That article was awesome.
June 16, 2008 at 11:06 pm
"justified reboot"
Odd term.
Avi Arad is on the record as saying the only reason a new Hulk movie was even made is because the merchandise sales were so strong. One thing the Onion article totally ignores is that the Lee movie also had a massive (if not bloated) promotional campaign that added to the hefty cost of the movie. Even looking at its worldwide box office, that makes the money it did bring in seem even less impressive. Something needed to change if they wanted a franchise, so they decided to go with a take closer to the TV show and original comics. They need no more justification for a reboot than that. They're a business, after all. :)
As far as being faithful to the character? The Hulk is a fictional character. Marvel Comics has several alternate versions of him running around (Marvel Adventures, Ultimate, that new Red Hulk thing, the animated versions, the TV show, etc). Revising and revamping the "main" version's character happens regularly, in quiet and not so quiet ways. Usually not more than a few years gap between each new interpretation. Less, if the creative team gets changed.
June 17, 2008 at 3:22 am
"Odd term."
Lots of terms sound odd when you strip them from context. I'll agree with you about this reboot being about making more money; the question is whether or not it's an effective idea (if it's not going to make the franchise more money then what was the point? Hence the silly). So far it's had about the same critical reception, and according to BoxOfficeMojo, the first movie cost $137 million to make and made $62 million opening weekend. This movie cost $150 million to made $55 million opening weekend. Doesn't sound like it's working very well, but I guess only time will tell; it could still have a better run than the other movie when the inflated marketing costs of the first are considered.
I'm not making any complaints about what the writers have done with the characters in either movie, I don't follow the Hulk comic series closely enough to care about that.
Anyways, I feel kind of silly myself being one of the primary commentators on a movie I haven't seen and won't see for months, so please forgive me if my next response doesn't come until the movie is out on DVD. I leave the floor to the people who have actually seen it, enjoy. :)
June 17, 2008 at 3:29 pm
#6 - You didn't think "Batman Begins" was a well-made movie and an honorable addition to the franchise? We cannot be friends anymore.
June 18, 2008 at 12:38 am
Don't wait for DVD on this movie!!!
This is a purpose built, cinematic experience, that's reason I went. The raaaars just won't sound the same on TV! Best action flick you'll see this year on the big screen. Most of the flick is precursor to the smack down in Harlem, which is of mega epic proportions. The Abomination is an awesome bit of CGI... Don't miss out!
June 19, 2008 at 4:00 am
"REALLY ENTERTAINING!" Luved the surprise in the movie. A movie like this must been seen on "THE BIG SCREEN" not on DVD to totally provide pure entertaining escapism. While watching this Hulk (did not like the last one at all), I got the feeling the director was giving his all to make this movie the best he could.
Fun and entertaining as in Ironman, that's what The Incredible Hulk was. I really had a good time.
June 19, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Dammit all to hell ! Too many people are letting the failure of one director hurt what is the success of another. Lets all just forget the '03 HULK and enjoy the current HULK ! I watched the A . L. HULK last night and even my 7yr old daughter said " this is nothing like the new HULK " This movie gave the fans what they wanted to see, my opinion "it was great " I can't wait to see the next one.
It's not getting the recognition it should , it's not getting all the hype and promotion it deserves. Like the first one got .
I haven't even seen previews of it since it opened . And in the next HULK movie they should have LOU FERRIGNO come face to face with the HULK. That would be a real crowd pleaser.
I seen this movie twice now and it's the HULK I been waiting for.
Damn ! give this movie a chance and put the failure of 5yrs ago behind us !
June 19, 2008 at 8:44 pm
You know, I actually liked Lee's Hulk movie. Maybe that's because I was familiar with Lee's directorial style beforehand and therefore expected a lot of dialog and introspection (or I have a greater tolerance for both).
Of course, I also like it when directors try to circumvent expectations, and not focusing on the "HULK SMASH" elements would certainly qualify...
June 20, 2008 at 12:13 am
So I just saw this movie, and I really enjoyed it. I think casting Edward Norton as Bruce was a cool touch, since, (from what I've seen of him), he's a pretty intense actor. I think Liv's not nearly as pretty as Jennifer Connelly, but there was a certain charm to her character as well.
*SPOILER* ..but what the heck was up with her having a boyfriend, and then upon seeing Bruce alive, apparently forgetting said boyfriend's entire existence? I vaguely remember the boyfriend saying something to her war-mongering daddy after Hulk ran off with her, but it just kinda felt like he stopped existing as soon as Bruce came back into the picture. Maybe I just missed the explanation, (quite possible since I was surrounded by my giggly-talkative wife and my two giggly-talkative sisters at the time..)
Anyways, still gotta say I could definitely do without the Stan Lee cameo, though. But hey, if you like spotting his silly old man face in every comic movie you see, to each his own. :-)
June 20, 2008 at 1:41 am
#18: If you watch the trailers to the movie again, you can see that there are many scenes that were cut from this theatrical edition of the movie, some of which feature the boyfriend character. These scenes will likely be integrated back into the inevitable Director's Cut DVD.
June 24, 2008 at 3:13 am
I've not seen the movie more than 23 times and I have all his comics. I didn't think it was the best at coping the comics,although the movie did rock. The animation did impress me as did the sound effects as well did the actors impressed me Edward Norton did very well and impressed me as the hulk.In most movies the original is better but in this case... I change my mind THE INCREDIBLE HULK was much better than THE HULK in everything! to the animation, to the actors,to the camerawork , and mostly to the plot the last movie was the most boring thing ever,even the big fight at the end was boring,THE INCREDIBLE HULK kicked it up, not a notch, but a whole lot! I rest my case.