The Incredible Hulk

From an antique tragedy interspersed with Marvel action, we've dropped a few steps down. And remained standing in a contradictory mezzanine. Five years after Ang Lee's vision, which was received rather hesitantly, it is no wonder that we were supposed to forget about it from the very beginning. For my part, I could see that version a hundred times, but I give up because I know I am in the clear minority. And yet Louis Leterrier is so excited about the previously overlooked Hulk-smash that he doesn't care much about character depth or traumatic inserts, and the Brazilian intro annoys even him. As for the central characters and their performers, I have to frown a bit as well, because Betty is nothing more than a lovely catalyst for Banner's emotions this time, and Edward Norton's portrayal of the titular hero is occasionally disappointingly shallow. So why the high rating in the end? Because every action scene is an explosive, impressive spectacle that takes your breath away, and Blonsky a.k.a. Abomination boldly joins the gallery of marvel villains waiting to be cursed in the future, for whom I regularly have a weakness. The decisive factor for the fourth star is that this version of Hulk works solely and exclusively as bait for The Avengers. It's true that Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America are a class or two better, leaving Bruce as a small green orphan child, but from a rather unimpressive superhero side gig he ultimately matured into a pleasant one-off treat. (27/10/2008)

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% (12/11/2012)

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. (29/06/2016)

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. (19/07/2008)

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... (19/06/2008)