The Incredible Hulk

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)

Early on, Leterrier blows Lee’s work away during the opening credits, but that's where the positives in relation to the previous film end. That there are only three action scenes in two hours doesn’t bother me so much given that even without the Hulk's fights with the army, there is still something going on and it's solidly paced. However, Leterrier's forte is contact fights in an arena or in mafia dens. In the bigger scenes, he desperately steals wherever he can think of, meaning that the opening is "Bourne Morocco," the university ambush replicates Ang's tanks from the desert, and the ending is all about CGI battles. The rest is horribly sterile so that the fated love fizzles out and the viewer shakes his head sadly. But I’m quite curious to see if the team offered at the end will really actually happen. (19/09/2008)

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)

From an antique tragedy interspersed with Marvel action, it went a few steps down. And it remained standing in a contradictory mezzanine. Five years after Lee's vision, which was received rather hesitantly, it is no wonder that we are supposed to forget about it from the very beginning. I could see it a hundred times, but I give up because I know I am in the clear minority. However, 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 introduction even annoys 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 Norton's portrayal of the titular hero is occasionally disappointingly shallow. So why the high rating in the end? Because any action scene is an explosive, impressive spectacle that takes your breath away, and Blonsky aka Abomination boldly joins the gallery of marvel villains cursed in the future, to 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. Yes, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America are a class or two better, leaving Bruce as a small green one behind, but from a rather inconspicuous superhero side game, he gradually matured into a pleasant bite-sized snack. Note: The translation has been slightly modified for better readability. (27/10/2008)

I wasn't thrilled that the first Hulk’s original footsteps were abandoned, but it didn't turn out as badly as I expected. In fact, it turned out unexpectedly well. Although the mystery, cleverness, and fatefulness that Ang Lee delivered a few years ago are gone, we're getting a pure-bred action comic book movie, which, for The Hulk, is probably for the first time. I really enjoyed the unchanged Banner's chase scene with the soldiers on the Favela roofs, and I was glad that Leterrier approached it with the same care as, say, the fight between Blonsky and Mr. Green. Edward Norton was great as usual, and Roth and Hurt make worthy opponents. Only Liv Tyler sometimes seemed “weird". I also have to praise highly the music of Craig Armstrong, who was really playful with the soundtrack. Plus, for fans, we also have references to the Avengers and a visit from Robert Downey Jr. I had more fun than I’ve had in a long time. (18/09/2008)

Ang Lee wasn't far from the truth, but unfortunately, his Hulk came at a time that hadn't yet reckoned with the macho MCU. The Incredible Hulk of the new generation is the latest take on the classic Beauty and the Beast myth, Frankenstein's Monster, the Monster of the Black Lagoon, Swamp Thing, and more. However, I am pleased to acknowledge that, in terms of the acting, Hulk features very decent performances from Edward Norton and Liv Tyler, though the whole thing could be considered merely as "trying" - and, in retrospect, just a straight-up Marvel movie. Bruce and Betty's romance is truly life-like and their shared intimacy is very realistic. The MCU has lost a lot by losing this duo. (01/03/2015)

I still don’ t understand why there made an incomprehensible remake of a fairly new movie when it was already clear in advance that it would turn out more or less the same. Hulk doesn't have a good story and doesn't have that potential, he’s too serious and dramatic for a comic book hero. Technically, it's the same as with the previous film: impressive overall, but unfinished in the details. Tim Roth adds the necessary spice to it, Liv Tyler is an ornament (classic), and Edward Norton with his worried face also doesn't interest much. At least the opening credits made a proper “upgrade” and, with it’s solid orchestral accompaniment, it is one of the few captivating things you will see in the movie. (28/09/2008)

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. (09/09/2009)

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)

"The Incredible Hulk" is incomparably better than the previous "Hulk", but that doesn't change the fact that it is not a great film. Hulk still lacks a proper film, and I'm just curious if it will ever happen. More: http://www.comics-blog.cz/2013/08/224-neuveritelny-hulk-2008-60.html (01/08/2013)

An action flick with a touch of romance. A brilliantly crafted film that almost perfectly fulfils all the features of the genre. A little more room for Norton and Tyler's relationship would have gone a long way, but that's a very minor flaw. (11/05/2009)