
Directed by: Louis Leterrier
Written by: Zak Penn, Edward Norton (uncredited but we know better)
Based on the classic Marvel character created by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby
Starring: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Tim Blake Nelson, Ty Burrell, Christina Cabot, Peter Mensah, Lou Ferrigno (voice & cameo)
Distributed by Universal
Film begins screening in the U.K. on Thursday but check your local listings for opening times/dates
Review by Michael Edwards





OK folks, I’ve sat through the full 114 minutes and am now ready to judge this fittingly bulky movie. The good news is, it doesn’t completely suck. The bad news is, it isn’t amazing either. My reviews of these big action movies tend to spark controversy whether it’s from me being too critical or not critical enough, so I’m ready to justify my opinions to the fullest here!
There was a real backlash against Ang Lee’s 2003 HULK, it was widely felt the CGI was lame, the story weak and the action uninspired. I’m pleased to inform you that a lot of that is rectified here: far from the glossily rounded figure of his last incarnation, this computer-generated behemoth bulges with sinewy muscle fibres that look ready to burst. The story doesn’t waste ages on the backstory either, in fact it’s pretty much pictorially covered in the opening credits and occasionally infused into the rest of the movie, which is a nice change. The action sequences are pretty cool too, there’s lots of smashing, heavy artillery and the final battle between the two massive fiends is impressive enough. Cars get smashed, wrecking balls are hurled about and I was even delighted to hear the words “Hulk smash!” ring out at a critical moment, and from the lips of Lou Ferrigno no less!
But that said it really felt like this was a movie salvaging a brand, setting our to undo the damage of a clumsy predecessor rather than whetting our appetites for a new era of the big green fella (who, I feel I should admit, has always been my favourite Marvel character). Roping in some great acting talent was definitely a good idea, but Edward Norton and Liv Tyler are somewhat undernourished with the script in this affair.
Bruce Banner’s vulnerability and fear comes across nicely in the capable wild-eyes of the man who has has a stab at a man fighting the beast inside before, but it’s really not given much space to develop in the few short and painfully formulaic scenes which are clearly just teeing up the action bonanzas. This constant awareness of what’s coming next certainly undermined the pleasure of the action sequences for me, and it made the romance element seem more like a half-hearted hint at a subplot than the driving force behind Banner’s hunt for a cure.
What’s more, whilst William Hurt fitted the character of General Ross PERFECTLY, I felt Tim Roth was a bit off the mark for Russian/English mercenary Emil Blonsky. His performance was restrained and he didn’t convince as a military man whose first love is hands-on combat. He just has too much of that cunning, looking over someone’s shoulder, crafty psycho persona in his characters to work as someone hungering after the brute force that Banner possesses. Tim Blake Nelson is probably most on form as the crazy Dr. Sterns, whose good intentions (a classic Marvel twist suggests) may not lead where he’d hoped.
I’ve also begun to wonder whether there might be a bit of an intrinsic problem with the big screen incarnations of our modern-day Jekyll and Hyde.
Cramming itself into the summer blockbuster slot with all the big budget kit that carries is one thing, but it also brings with it certain other expectations, one of which this particularly character is least capable of providing: humour. The sad story of this unassuming and now constantly nervous scientist and his willfully destructive alter-ego just isn’t geared for laughs. We’re treated to a few good attempts here, including Bruce’s broken Portuguese resulting in him telling someone “You wouldn’t like me when I’m hungry”, but it’s just not quite as easily incorporated as in other Marvel and DC adaptations. What’s more, the seriousness of the tale is always undermined by the fact that the monster is a huge, green monster that just can’t look realistic!
So with that in mind it is fair to say that this is a good effort at a tough character. Watching a passable (as far as a massive green irradiated beast can be) CGI hulk battle a massive military arsenal and a creepy nemesis provided some easy entertainment for a couple of hours. There were enough nods at the history of the franchise, including the necessary presence of Lou Ferrigno, a momentary intrusion of the mournful piano music from the TV series and the hulk’s favourite line. But it just wasn’t a great movie, at its best it was fun and at its worst predictable and formulaic - THE INCREDIBLE HULK is Marvel’s attempt at a safe bet to steady the franchise. I wouldn’t warn anyone off of it, but it isn’t going to be the best movie of the summer by a long shot.
Categories: Edward-Norton, Liv-Tyler, Louis-Leterrier, Reviews, The Incredible Hulk, Tim Blake Nelson, Tim-Roth, William-Hurt
As long as it doesn’t take it’self too seriously and theres plenty of action, thats all I expect from it.
Comment by Tino | June 10, 2008
Hmmm, it kind of takes itself a little seriously. But not to the extent that they bothered thinking about the dialogue they were putting in! And there’s plenty of action, don’t worry.
Comment by Michael Edwards | June 10, 2008
Why so serious? Nobody really cares about this film. TDK owns 2008!
Comment by Jd | June 10, 2008
Terrific review, Mikey baby!!! My interest in this has increased dramatically after the last trailer, and the tracking seems to be improving quite a bit as well. Perhaps this won’t be the humongous bomb I predicted at the start of the season.
Comment by Ray | June 10, 2008
I agree with JD!
TDK rules 2008!
But I do care about this film, because I really wanted to see for myself if the decision to restart the HULK franchise at a very early point in time is sound or not.
Judging on what Mike has covered here in his review, I have realized that this Letterier outing is still a notch better than Ang Lee’s.
Thanks for this enlightening review. At least I know what to expect this Friday.
Hey Mike, how come you get to watch all the advanced screenings? You’re such a lucky movie connoisseur! I envy you, really.
Comment by _N_r_chy | June 11, 2008
Great review Mike, still won’t be seeing the movie though :0)
Comment by Woodsy :0) | June 11, 2008
@_N_r_chy: I just hassle PR folks, constantly telling them how great OWF is and how much they need our reviews! Then they give me a seat. So it’s all thanks to you lovely readers. Thank you! :-)
Comment by Michael Edwards | June 12, 2008
Just got back from seeing it and I got to say I really enjoyed it. Marvel is well and truly In The House.
Comment by Tino | June 13, 2008
Hope there’s not many jokes. Too many comic movies devolve into comedies because they try to inject “fun” with several dumbass one-liners.
If there’s one thing we all learned from Batman Begins, and Spider-Man 2 it’s that with comic book movies the more seriously you handle the material the better the movie is.
Comment by JaySmack | June 13, 2008
If you know anything of real hulk you will know that ang lee’s version was accurate clever art.
if you know stan lee’s and jack kirby’s interpretation of frankenstein and jekyll and hyde and the darker side of man’s nature you will also concede lee’s version was perfect and the misplaced tripe of the tv series only damaged the hulk legend.
the knee-jerk reaction of hulk 2 is okay but the hulk is smaller and based more on the 70’s artwork he also appears weaker than in the first film.
ang lee studied hulk-lore so carefully if you know your stuff from the 60’s onwards you will know he got it right.
hulk is not just about smashing…there is so much more to the hulk.
this is now being borne out in some of the british newspaper reviews….
hulk is frankenstein….a modern tragic re-telling….liv tyler is no-way as good or as beautiful as jennifer connelly and i’m afraid hurts ‘ross’ was more ‘oily’ than manly…and sorry but roth as blonsky was totally unbelievable…..hahahaha little squirt.
and again norton as banner hmmmm he’s always been overrated….eric bana had the balance correct.
time and history will bear me out.
Comment by bikermick | July 4, 2008