Directed by:
Louis LeterrierScreenplay:
Zak PennCinematography:
Peter Menzies Jr.Composer:
Craig ArmstrongCast:
Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson, Ty Burrell, Christina Cabot, Peter Mensah, Lou Ferrigno, Greg Bryk, Martin Starr, Chris Ratz (more)Plots(1)
In this new beginning, scientist Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) desperately hunts for a cure to the gamma radiation that poisoned his cells and unleashes the unbridled force of rage within him: The Hulk. Living in the shadows - cut off from a life he knew and the woman he loves, Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) - Banner struggles to avoid the obsessive pursuit of his nemesis, General Thunderbolt Ross (William Hurt), and the military machinery that seeks to capture him and brutally exploit his power. (Universal Pictures US)
(more)Videos (6)
Reviews (12)
A unique cast versus primitively crafted characters at the level of 2D PC games. Blockbuster ambitions versus B-movie clichés. Straight-faced tacky stylization and fetishized straightforward and self-serving militaristic action. Simply put, The Incredible Hulk is a “completely new level of weird”, or an entertaining guilty pleasure worthy of the Golden Raspberry Award for the worst movie of the year.
()
Compared to Lee's Hulk, this one is filmed without a shred of an idea. The story unfolds in the style of "action - boredom - more action - boredom - a bit of suspense before the ending - boredom - final overstuffed mega-action". Of all the characters, I liked the villain Blonsky the most (I can take Tim Roth anywhere, anytime, especially when he plays a madman), and that probably wasn't the intention either. Letterier wants to impress mainly with the digital effects, but they are not very good, and at the end he piles so many on top of each other that it's unbearable, the unsympathetic Edward Norton has one facial expression throughout the film and Liv Tyler has two. But above all, it is sorely lacking in perspective! Everything is presented with such awkward seriousness... It was simply terrible.
()
A pretty decent sequel that does Marvel no shame. The action scenes are perfectly executed and edited, and Louis Leterrier doesn't spare them, leaving the viewer not much time to think. There can be no complaints about the actors either, Edward Norton is as reliable as ever, Tim Roth handles bad guys like few others and Liv Tyler is really just there for decoration and a necessary romantic motif. But all this clashes with the insanely B-movie content, which has more clichés than a German romantic film where two lovers declare their love on a breathtaking seashore. The Incredible Hulk has no chance of becoming a classic like Raimi's Spider-Man, but it works more than well as an unpretentious comic book flick – and sometimes that's enough. 70%
()
Of all the Marvel movies, I found The Incredible Hulk to be the least entertaining and action-packed, and as far as the story goes, it was rather shallow, plus I never found the character of Bruce Banner to be very likeable (whoever played him). Also, compared to other Marvel movies, it lacked some of the quirks and maybe even a plot twist, but it's true that it was one of the first cinematic notches in this universe. And I have to admit that I'm quite glad that Mark Ruffalo appears as the Hulk in the following films, as he fits the role better than Edward Norton, even though this character is my least favorite anyway. In short, a mediocre action movie about a "green bruiser" that just flows by and has nothing to surprise.
()
Bruce Banner would have be pleased with this approach. Occasionally he would have been so enthusiastic about it that he would purr like a little baby at his mother’s breast. And in some places he would be so pissed with it that his elastic pants would get too small even for his alter ego. The Incredible Hulk is an amazing joy ride along a sinusoid graph. Nah, I’m kidding. About the sinusoid graph. While at some points and in some scenes it works even better than Ang Lee’s version, as a whole it is a ride half-way to nowhere. Lee’s adaptation is more “Banneresque", while Leterrier’s version is unequivocally “Hulky". How significant. It’s up to you which you like best. I’m reminded of Marvel’s first movie attempt - Iron Man. In that movie, the juice like the style and the actors worked well, but the action element, the finale and even the villain was rather subdued. Here it’s almost precisely the other way round. The villain and the action are ok (but still no miracle), but the rest is just a bit wishy-washy. For instance sparks fly between Norton and Tyler as they would in a microwave oven during a power blackout. Paradoxically it works more at the moments when he appears in that miserable CGI guise. And the movie is rather lifeless in comparison with Iron Man. No jokes, no snappy comebacks (all hail a couple of exceptions). But I’m not saying it’s bad. In the end we have two good genre movies in place of one great one. But, as the ending hints, there’s a lot more in store (and we’ll probably see it soon). Oh, and one more criticism. I would probably rather have seen Liv’s bare chest rather than Norton’s. So fans of America’s substitute for their missing mythology will have a reason to be happy. The rest of us have another quality picture in front of us to join the rather thin ranks of colorfully saucy comic book movies. Somehow, right now I feel like watching a classic version of Jekyll and Hyde...
()
Ads