The Incredible Hulk
posted June 12, 2008 10:29 AM
Latest attempt at bringing Hulk to the big screen isn't much of an improvement
Despite earning nearly a quarter of a billion dollars worldwide, Ang Lee’s 2003 Hulk was generally viewed as a disappointment, one of the few chinks in the Marvel armor since Stan Lee’s comics behemoth began transitioning its core franchises to the big screen. Widespread success with the X-Men, Fantastic Four and Spider-Man movies, however, has given Marvel more clout to call its own shots, resulting in this second attempt at launching a Hulk franchise. Notably different in many respects, but not different enough in key respects, it’s a serviceable but ultimately unremarkable effort that does little to transcend the dramatic limitations inherent in the concept. Like its predecessor, it’s a mélange of all-too-familiar cinematic and literary chestnuts—Beauty and the Beast, King Kong, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde—whose collective dilemmas are all neatly resolved by a spectacularly uninteresting climactic collision of CGI beasts.
Taking a Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan approach to its predecessor (i.e., ignoring it entirely), The Incredible Hulk reinvents the Hulk myth in a whirlwind credit sequence that plays like an amped-up version of the intro for the original 1978 television series. As Bruce Banner and love interest Betty Ross, Eric Bana and Jennifer Connolly have been replaced by Edward Norton and Liv Tyler, while French director Louis Leterrier (The Transporter, Unleashed) takes the reins from Oscar-winner Lee. The story this time has massive military implications, not unlike those in Iron Man. Banner’s “accident” is now the result of a top-secret Army experiment gone awry, overseen by none other than Betty’s unyielding, warmongering father, General Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) who now considers Banner to be “U.S. government property.” As the film begins, Banner is hiding out in Brazil, where a minor mistake puts him back on Ross’ radar. Suddenly, commandos—led by a certain Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth)—are knocking at the door, chasing Banner through Rio’s shantytowns before finally doing the one thing they ought not do: make him angry.
After some predictable mayhem and destruction, the big green guy (“voiced,” as it were, by original TV Hulk Lou Ferrigno, who also reprises his cameo from the first film) makes his escape, with Banner soon reemerging in the States for an intended rendezvous with an anonymous researcher (Tim Blake Nelson) who may hold the key to a cure. The trip invariably reignites the relationship with Betty while setting in motion a new series of cataclysmic events (mainly having to do with the unrelenting Blonsky) which culminate in precisely the same conclusion as Iron Man, pitting the hero against a bigger, badder, uglier and meaner version of himself.
The one thing which Marvel and Universal have not changed is perhaps the one thing they ought to have changed—the Hulk himself is still a CGI creation, an unconvincing bit of artifice that does little but remind viewers of precisely how fake and hokey the whole affair really is. Unlike Iron Man, which scrupulously endeavored to make its subject both credible and convincingly tangible, The Incredible Hulk wallows in precisely the same sort of computer-generated hokum that derailed the Lee film. If anything, the effects work here is less impressive and more cartoonish. That Leterrier is not particularly strong with character and acting further compounds the problem, leaving audiences with little to cling to but cartoon monsters and cardboard humans.
Part of the intended reinvention is to also set the table for better long-range integration with other Marvel franchises. Like the post-credit tag on Iron Man teasing Paramount’s 2011 Avengers movie, there’s a similar pre-crawl tag here—featuring Robert Downey Jr. as Tony “Iron Man” Stark—teasing the very same concept. That’s a fun and very Marvel thing to do, especially as it creates a franchise crossover between two different distributors, though it’s anyone’s guess whether this second-generation Hulk will need yet another makeover to be part of the team. What’s certain is that neither Marvel nor Universal will abandon a Hulk franchise any time soon—already on Marvel’s calendar is a 2010 Iron Man sequel and a 2011 Captain America film (both to be released by Paramount) as well as a 2010 Thor film, all preparatory to bringing the whole gang back together in July of 2011 as The Avengers. Though the Hulk remains an essential and inextricable part of that master plan, Edward Norton’s refusal to do press for the film and his very public battle with producers—who unwisely permitted their star the hubristic liberty of offering up his own cut of the film—suggests that this Hulk team is likely to be just as ill-fated as the previous one.
Distributor: Universal
Cast: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, William Hurt, Tim Roth and Tim Blake Nelson
Director: Louis Leterrier
Screenwriter: Zak Penn
Producers: Avi Arad, Gale Anne Hurd and Kevin Feige
Genre: Science fiction/Action
Rating: PG-13 for sequences of intense action violence, some frightening sci-fi images and brief suggestive content
Running time: 114 min.
Release date: June 13
24 Comments
Leave a comment
hmm said:
Obviously this film was not for you. What else are they gonna make the Hulk out of? Mud?? Of course they have to use CGI.
Oh, and if that last fight failed to impress you then I find it hard to believe you were even paying any attention to the movie altogether. It was one of the most awe-inspiring fights I've ever seen.
June 13, 2008 12:59 PM
cinematicfreak0520 said:
I completely agree with hmm. I thought this film was amazing! The Hulk is a big green guy...what the hell were they supposed to do, paint Edward Norton green and tell him to growl? I think the CGI was very much improved from the first Hulk movie. Also, I just want to point out that I love the teaser with Stark! I can't wait for all of the Marvel movies!
June 13, 2008 8:32 PM
THE COMMENTOR said:
Yeah, I agree with the two comments above... this film was markedly better than the Ang Lee version.
The alternative to CGI is Lou Ferrigno in green paint. Obviously the CGI in Iron Man looked better as Iron Man is essentially an inanimate object - he's metal. So no faces, or skin, or hair....The reviewer is clearly not interested in a Hulk film. Having said that...NO - it's not as good as Iron Man, but it is still a very good Hulk movie, that will do much better than expected at the box office.
June 14, 2008 6:00 AM
Eastcoast Film Critic said:
This film has everything we expect from Marvel products: big action, genuine excitement. This is what summer blockbusters are made of -- and signals the beginning of a great money machine for Marvel in its first self-financed endeavor.
June 14, 2008 9:32 AM
Anonymous said:
Wade Major is a tool and should not be allowed to review movies anymore. He should get his name changed while he's at it
June 14, 2008 12:34 PM
Muby said:
Wade! Are you seriosly about the comments you made? guess not. The movie was brilliant and qualifies in all aspects as a summer blockbuster with lots of action and pure excitement at its best.
June 14, 2008 11:25 PM
artanis said:
I agee, Wade you are a tool, why don't review something more to your tastes, like brokeback mountain.
June 16, 2008 8:20 AM
Reaper said:
This critic is a plain bitch!
This version of hulk is much better than the previous and it will damn well do better than the previous.One hell of a film to beat this summer.
June 16, 2008 4:47 PM
oh yeah said:
this movie is greatly improved from the previous, although the way some people see it makes me think mr. majorly sucks needs to get his cinematic eyes checked. The film sticks more to the comics in that the hulk is a raging behemoth, whereas in the last. one he showed more restraint than aggression in my opinion. The fact that there is animosity by certain, ahem, individuals about hulk being CGI is ingnorance at its peak. What the hell are you gonna do, play dress up with a gorilla! Anyway the movie was fantastic in that it was more comic oriented, but still worked as real life and that when the hulk unleashes his fury, in this movie he does it in every sense of the phrase. So the movie was great, this review is nothing short of ignorant and the hulk is one of the best movies i have seen in a while
June 16, 2008 6:39 PM
Dave said:
As a huge hulk comic fan it infuriates me that the film is prone to some reviews like this from clowns who clearly knows nothing about the comic character or his audience. The film is absolutely stunning in every regard and my only disappointment is the fight scene with abomination didn't go on longer! I hope the box office figures continue (unlike the first film) because you can take all the Iron Man's, Spiderman's, Xmen, Fantastic 4 etc.... There is only one character worth waiting for on the big screen and he is a big green angry machine!
June 16, 2008 7:28 PM
josh said:
what a retard if you think this movie is dull and bad. It is definately a must see and way better than ang lee's version. The reviewer is probably an actor that was cast out from the film or simply a person who phobic to anything green... that's why he is a poor movie critic.
June 17, 2008 9:44 PM
Anonymous said:
this movie was phenomenal and based on his history of giving bad reviews to good movies, Wades opinions should be worth about as much as a box full of dandruff
June 20, 2008 2:33 PM
Ditto said:
Wade Major,
your really a pathetic critic... you got BAD taste ...this movie rocked but of course being the snob that you are, you're too good for it.. your tastes are far removed from the general public... you should retire
June 21, 2008 9:25 AM
Jack Off said:
THe worst critic ever. I read a whole bunch of your opinions and they all sucked. I work @ a theatre and see almost every movie that comes out and you seriously have the balls to say that the hulk looked too CGI and that it was worse than the first. Just about every person that saw Ang Lee's Hulk main reason for disliking the movie was due to the Hulk seeming too cartoonish. And now this version revamps the Hulk and does a great job of cutting away from the neon green cartoon hulk and you say that it looked more cartoon than the last. You complain about CGI and yetYou probally loved The Water Horse.
June 21, 2008 1:25 PM
Korey said:
The incredible rocked!!!! Wade should retire.
June 21, 2008 7:00 PM
kevs said:
what more can i say?
wade, wonder how u landed your job.
some critics should be restricted to only certain genres of movies.
retire, man!
June 22, 2008 3:34 PM
rivan said:
wade, you are sucks! at first me and my friends were going to watch this movie, and I told them "I wish this movie could be better [though a little better] then the first one", and now I'm the one who tell to my every friend I meet to go watch this movie!
I love the fight, and very good to emerge the Gamma Wave and the Hulk Smash! and wade, you really really sucks!
June 22, 2008 9:56 PM
green man said:
How can a major company like "box office" let a so called journalist like WADE make there revues!!!we the public with a naked eye and no prior judgment should let other viewers of our personal experience... the hulk remake was an great movie from beginning to end. The effects were a hundred times better then the first one {witch i did like too} even though the story was a little over the place for the first edition of HULK .The story plot is allot better and stays more toward the original comic novelty for the second generation of Hulk.
All these movies were made for comics lovers ,one that grew up reading the original comics and on a Saturday morning woke up at 6am to start watching all these wonderful cartoons.The technology of cgi today able movie producers to deliver as close as possible to the cartoons comics.
Wade maybe this is just not your cup of tea for yo to critic on!!! can't ask a butcher to take care of your plumbing ???
June 22, 2008 11:05 PM
Mick said:
You know, I was extremely disappointed with the first hulk movie as I'm sure everyone else was and never bought it on dvd. I loved the new revamp of the character and will definitely buy the dvd when it is released. THE INCREDIBLE HULK/GO SEE IT IF YOU HAVE YET TO. 'NUFF SAID!
June 24, 2008 1:19 PM
Mitchell said:
WADE you are entitled to your own opinion. If you are not a comic book fan. You just wouldn't understand. You WADE NEED to keep an open mind and read a comic book once in while. Cause your opinion incredibly SUCKS!
June 25, 2008 3:53 PM
Andrew said:
The Hulk new version was wayyyyyyy better than the first one. I was surprise to read such poor review. This is a must see movie!
and HULK, you need to bitch slap Wade! haha HULK SLAP!!
July 2, 2008 10:38 PM
DGE said:
As for Box Office, so far the Ang Lee film has done marginally better than this latest version. It's surprising to see how close the profits of both films are at the same point in their run. Domestically, the 2003 film was ahead by about 853,000 at the beginning of the 4th week.
July 6, 2008 6:04 AM
The Second said:
coooooooool
August 9, 2008 11:31 AM
Hailey Poynter said:
I love this movie so somuch actually.
Love,
Hailey Poynter
November 7, 2008 1:40 PM