Full Movie Reviews
Rating of
2.5/4
Better than the 2003 film, but Still Not Great
mitchellyoung - wrote on 09/01/2012
Louis Leterrier's take on the green hero is a vast improvement on Ang Lee's 2003 travesty, undeniably one of the worst superhero films ever. However, the film still doesn't touch on the vulnerability of its hero and, rather, seems content to continue to use the Hulk as one giant CGI effect, rather than the character he deserves to be. I found Edward Norton a big improvement on Eric Bana from the 2003 film (but, then again, the Incredible Hulk improves on that film in nearly every aspect,) but I found Mark Ruffalo, of the Avengers to be an even more charming and introspective portrayal of Banner. So, I guess, the Incredible Hulk is an entertaining film, but doesn't really touch the upper echelon of hero films, populated by the Nolans and Whedons of today.
Rating of
2/4
"The Incredible Hulk" by Yojimbo
Yojimbo - wrote on 03/30/2012
Ang Lee's version of The Hulk was met with a lot of criticism but I thought it was a brave if flawed attempt to make a more cerebral superhero film. The fact is, a character whose catchphrase is "Hulk smash!" wasn't the best choice for that approach (although I think Lee would've made a great Daredevil film. Que sera sera...) The studio obviously tried to address the situation by making a much more formulaic action film for the sequel, which is understandable. But they overcompensated. The plot to this film can be summed up by: Evil general sends the troops after Ed. He runs away trying to keep his temper but can't. Hulk smash. He escapes. Evil general sends the troops after Ed. He runs away trying to keep his temper but can't. Hulk smash. Evil general creates another monster to fight …
Rating of
2.5/4
About the same quality as the first.
Ichabod Crane - wrote on 12/08/2008
This is not really better than the other one nor is it worse. It has more action scenes but the story is lacking more. At the same time it does not praddle on as much and Ed Norton is actually slightly better than Eric Bana who over did the anger. Betty Banner was better in the first and Ross is more or less the same. The villains both result in a fight this ones fight is better. This one has the lame comic book in joking which i never like but the other one had that foolish comic book framing visual. The special effects are better in this one but it still looks fake. The story in this one has little to it and it is not compelling. The action scenes are okay though but that is not enough to recommend. Neither is great because Hulk is better as a supporting character. Although I think …
Rating of
1/4
55%
CJP - wrote on 10/27/2008
Action: 2/3 + Comedy: 0.5/2 + Good vs Evil: 1/1 + Love/Sex: 0.5/1 + Special Effects: 0.5/1 + Plot: 0.5/1 + Music: 0.5/1 = 5.5/10 or 55%.
Iron Man set a very high precedence for the Marvel films which will introduce the superheroes who will become the Avengers. The Incredible Hulk therefore benefits from having a much more expanded universe (introduced are the Leader, the super-soldier formula used to create Captain America, the Abomination, Tony Stark cameos at the end to introduce the Avengers concept) but it also suffers from very overt, typical problems seen throughout Marvel films. Yes, the film answers many complaints against Ang Lee's last version, namely that there is more action.
It is therefore too bad that the Hulk suffers from poor CGI and overall quality. Special …
Rating of
4/4
Exciting, A Huge Improvement from Ang Lee's
Franz Patrick - wrote on 08/13/2008
I’m greatly surprised with this movie because “The Hulk” directed by Ang Lee was such a disappointment; that if a great director couldn’t make it work, there must be something wrong with where the material was based upon. “The Incredible Hulk,” directed by Zak Penn, is much more engaging because it was action-packed without having to result to mindless violence and Edward Norton can easily be digested as a man trying to change himself for the sake of others’ safety. Moreover, I loved that science was constantly used as an explanation and weapon: I loved the whole primer-DNA segment with the hilarious and sarcastic scientist, played by Tim Blake Nelson, because that’s one of the main ways to alter protein expression–and therefore phenotype–in real life). Liv Tyler is …
Rating of
3/4
No Iron Man, But Still Good
randwood12 - wrote on 06/19/2008
The Incredible Hulk reboots the franchise similar to Batman Begins, and attempts to erase all memory of 2003's Hulk. Leterrier gives the fans what they want, providing spectacular action sequences and one of the most exhilarating final battles in superhero film history. Edward Norton does a very good job playing Bruce Banner as a somewhat soft-spoken man who can turn into something quite opposite when angry. Liv Tyler is okay, but a little too weepy for my tastes. The centerpiece is the action, however, and there is plenty of it. Norton splits time equally between the Hulk and Banner. Speaking of the actual Hulk, this version looks a lot more realistic than the cartoonish version depicted in Ang Lee's film. Overall, the Hulk is a well-paced, exciting film which, while not quite living up …
Rating of
3/4
New "Hulk" almost smashes expectations
kcvidkid - wrote on 06/17/2008
I've never been a huge fan of "The Incredible Hulk" comics except for a period a few years ago when the storyline echoed the old television series and focused on the fugitive aspects of his alter-ego, Bruce Banner. While a complete remake of that series would probably not satisfy audiences today, merely weaving a little of its drama into the obligatory action sequences does revitalize the franchise and help us forget Ang Lee's cerebral version of only a couple years ago.
Casting acting heavyweight Edward Norton as Banner, while not quite as inspired as Robert Downey Jr. in "Iron Man", seems a smart decision when he's in solitary, scientist-on-the-run mode; however, his scenes with others (particularly Liv Tyler) are... odd. They sometimes give the movie what little humor it has, but …
Rating of
2/4
Fun, but plays it too safe
newmans_own - wrote on 06/15/2008
Since the filmmakers assumed that most audiences will be familiar with the character, they decided to get rid of most of the more psychological problems Banner experiences. Even with Norton as the lead, Banner himself is rather bland. Couple this in with some poor special effects, especially during Banner’s transformation, and you’ve got a film that plays it too safe in comparison to the first movie. Lee’s film, whose riskiness was flawed but underappreciated, tried to make something more than a guy turning into the Jolly Green Giant. No such explorations are made here. At least they’ve finally realized that pants don’t grow and shrink as one’s body does.
This film was made purely for the fans. It’s chock full of cheeky references to the original comic and the 1970s …
Rating of
3.5/4
Clash of the Titans
BryanFury - wrote on 06/13/2008
As much as I thought this remake would be a disaster I was sealed shut to my chair in amazement. The Hulk is no doubt the meanest and most vicious comic book turned live action hero. And you'll be surprised how much mayhem this creature of destruction can bring to the bigscreen. I had the most fun and thrilled experience I've had in years. Finally somebody came up with a real enough version which believable and you can just feel the emotions running through the Hulk's eyes. Ed Norton brings fierceness and the heart of true hero to a very complex character. Liv Tyler is outstanding as Norton's damsel in distress. Her beauty is just so exquisite plus she has that undeniable chemistry with Bruce Banner. Tim Roth is as evil as they could get a 10 in my villain meter. Overall if you want to …