This last Saturday night, I watched the Incredible Hulk, the re-launch of the series starring Ed Norton as Bruce Banner, Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, William Hurt as General Thunderbolt Ross, and Tim Roth as the Abomination. It should also be noted that Tim Blake Nelson as Dr. Sterns was delightful, and he stole the few scenes he got.

This movie was smart, fast, and well done, and they did us the great service of simply glossing over the Hulk’s origin and diving right into the story. They also made a point of adapting the 1970’s television show as much as they did the comic, taking what worked from the small screen version of the franchise.

My disappointment with the Incredible Hulk is that its advertising campaign touted the movie as being “As Good As Iron Man.” Incredible Hulk was good, but it was not that good. Iron Man was one of the best superhero movies ever made, and Robert Downey Jr. was stellar as Anthony Stark. The Hulk was simply good.

The Incredible Hulk was all around much better than Ang Lee’s 2003 Hulk movie. This is easy to explain: The script was much better written on Incredible Hulk.

As far as special effects go, the Incredible Hulk looked stronger than the preceding Hulk; his muscles looked ‘ropier,’ as if painfully distended all the time. As far as the climactic battle between the Hulk and the Abomination, I was less than entertained. But, I will be the first to tell you that I probably wasn’t the target audience for this battle. Fans in their twenties and thirties, looking for the big payoff images that bring their characters to silver screen life, were probably all orgasmic in fanboy way over this spectacle.

I’ve had this conversation before, you see. Fanboys want their heroes to look cool, and if that means rubber gimp suits and vacuum fitted latex, fine. I’m all about the utility—I’d rather see a fully functional, usable suit or costume. But, that’s just me. That doesn’t apply to the Incredible Hulk so much. (Although I was impressed that Bruce Banner kept getting stretchy pants—the stretchier, the better! An important point if you don’t want the Hulk running around al fresco.)

So, do I give the Incredible Hulk a B+ or an A-? It’s a tough call. I’m opting for the B+.

Scott.

Hi, Folks:

For this episode, I watched Ang Lee’s 2003 movie, the Hulk.  I had never seen it, but from other people’s comments I had come to expect problems. 

The movie was shot beautifully.   Directed to feel something like a comic, the picture was often broken into panels, and hard-edged transitions rolled across the screen in a somewhat unique manner.  Not everyone agrees with me that this faux-comic book approach worked, but I appreciated it for what it was.  The special effects were quite beautiful, and great effort was made to make the Hulk himself appear believable, even when he’d grown to eighteen feet tall or thereabouts.  I heard that the animators employed more than a hundred separate mattes making up the Hulk’s skin to get him just right, and it showed.

That’s all well and good, but then there was that plot.  Whoa-boy.  With millions of dollars at stake, how do they let monstrosities like this happen?  I guess, put more succinctly, how do a bunch of smart people produce a dumb thing?  There were huge holes in the plot, and ridiculous omissions, and actions that defied all logic taken by characters.  You want me to name the plot holes?  I’m not going to bother.  The writers certainly didn’t.  I’m positive these are talented, professional grade writers each capable of great things, yet…

Then, there’s the acting.  Eric Bana was a complete cipher, yet I’m sure this was because he was instructed to act in this manner.  (I’ve seen him in other movies, such as Troy, and I feel confident that he can indeed act.)  Sam Elliott was awesome as General “Thunderbolt” Ross, and Nick Nolte, whose character was awkwardly shoehorned into the plot, was outstanding.  Nolte and Elliott each made the movie enjoyable for their performances, so some small grace is to be found here.

This movie gets a C-.