User reviews

As I am writing this review, Avengers: Endgame is breaking box-office records as the culmination of 11 years of the MCU. Marvel Studios has become a juggernaut that seemingly nothing can ever stop. When The Incredible Hulk came out in 2008, the second movie of the so-called « Phase 1 » after Iron Man, such a success was merely a hope, if it was envisaged at all.

However, this movie is an oddity in the MCU. It isn't considered an essential watch, a lot of people just forget about it, or simply have never seen it. And this isn't very suprising, as The Incredible Hulk has a completely different feel as any other MCU movie. There are no vibrant colors, jokes are few and far between, and, supreme heresy, it doesn't even feature the beloved Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner / the Hulk. Despite that, I think this movie should be more recognized by Marvel enthusiasts.

For one, I was surprised at the number of foreshadowing in it. Despite its reputation, it is very clear, watching now, that it was definitely intended as the beginning of a cinematic universe. There are references to Stark Industries, to super soldiers, to S.H.I.E.L.D., and the movie clearly lays the ground for a sequel (that never happened and probably never will).

The performances were strong, and I will single out Edward Norton, who left the Marvel boat after this, for reasons still a bit unclear. Watching this movie made me regret that he didn't stay in the role for more movies (no disrespect to Mr. Ruffalo whom I like a lot, as does everyone). I am a big fan of Edward Norton in general, from whom I have never seen an unenjoyable performance. That stays true for this movie. To me, his casting as Bruce Banner was an inspired one. He portrayed the tortured soul of the character exactly as I envision it, and with a lot of nuances.

The story itself isn't very remarkable. It's fairly conventional, although maybe not totally conventional for a superhero movie. I would say it's more of a thriller, about a man on the run from the military who are after his secrets and his life. We've seen this story before, but here the man also happens to turn into a big, green monster when his pulse gets too high. It isn't just a thriller, though, bu also very much a love story, which may be one of the reasons of its unpopularity (?). If that's the case, then it's a shame, because I found the love story actually well done. There was a real chemistry between Edward Norton and Liv Tyler, who portrayed a sweet, but capable Betty Ross, and there wasn't a moment where I didn't believe that these two characters were completely in love.

What this movie might be criticized for, is a lack of the titular Hulk. It's true that it's mainly Banner's story. However, the scenes in which the Hulk appears are very satisfying. I must say I was impressed by the CGI. It isn't as modern as what we're used to see nowadays, but still very good. In a movie with such a realistic feel, it's even more difficult to make a huge CGI monster look like it's really there in the scene, but I though that it worked perfectly.

This movie definitely is the odd one out in regards to the whole MCU, but I think it deserves not to be forgotten or dismissed. Not only is its quality on par with other, more popular Marvel movies, it is also our only Hulk solo movie, and it will stay so for the foreseeable future, due to the distribution deal between Marvel and Universal. So, if you're taking a nostalgia trip through the history of the MCU, or if you're only just now starting to delve into this cinematic universe, don't skip the Incredible Hulk.

The Incredible Hulk, based on another marvel superhero and also the 1970s TV show, revolves around Bruce Banner becoming a fugitive after his science experiment exposes gamma radiation on him which transforms him into the Hulk which becomes his appearance for brief periods of time. Meanwhile, General Ross and his army including Emil Blonsky tracks down Bruce and little does he know that Emil decides to use a serum that would give him some abilities while also transforming him into an even worse creature imaginable.

Out of all the MCU films I've seen, the one that didn't make as much money compared to the others is this. Which is a shame because this is directed by Louis Leterrier, who would later direct the terrible Clash of the Titans remake, Now You See Me, and the recent TV show The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance (which I severely liked). And the acting from everyone involved is good. Edward Norton does a great job as Bruce Banner, Liv Tyler from The Lord of the Rings trilogy does a good job too as Betty as did William Hurt and Tim Roth and Tim Blake Nelson. Sure, the villain could've been developed more and the second act of the film could've been better, but everything else is done very well. The cinematography is gorgeous, the pacing is decent, the editing is superb, the music from Craig Armstrong is rousing, and the action sequences are solid.

So, overall, this isn't a perfect film by any means but it's way better than the 2003 version (which isn't terrible but could've been much better). To those who have seen most of the MCU films or not, certainly give this one a go. :)

First off, let's get one thing straight - - - this movie is NOT a sequel to the 2003 Hulk which had attempts to portray many things from the Hulk comics (father-son conflict, father-daughter strained relationship, a love triangle of sorts) that resulted in a confusing, sometimes scary (remember that scene where The Hulk was fighting off killer dogs?) movie.

This Incredible Hulk version is a simpler story; however, with strong performances by Edward Norton, William Hurt and Liv Tyler, it entertains (yes the key word is that it ENTERTAINS) better than its predecessor.

While it retains a more serious tone generally than, say Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk is definitely not a pushover when it comes to getting fans to enjoy a good movie. The action sequences, though not that many, were pretty good. Whatever lacking in action you think it has in the beginning, the climax between the Hulk and Abomination (you've seen that in the trailer so no spoiler there) should more than make up for it. It doesn't have many light moments (I only count about 3, really, cause they were quite few so I remembered them), but it wasn't as totally dark as the Ang Lee version.

And to some extent, at least this Hulk is less CGI/cartoony-looking than the last one. While he does have those weird ridges/lines stretching across his body, making the muscles seem different than what you'd see on a big body builder, this Hulk is more realistic (but really, how realistic can you get with a CGI-made anti-hero?), so you at least have an improvement there.

Edward Norton is more believable as the "tragic-story-of-my-life" protagonist Bruce Banner (no offense to Eric Bana, but he was just too muscular and less flawed-looking that Norton). The one actor I miss here, though, is Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross. While Liv Tyler's portrayal was credible enough, I don't think anyone can beat Jennifer's take on Ms. Ross.

Overall, I give it a 7 out of 10. Good enough to watch, entertaining and enjoyable without the complexities that the 2003 movie brought to the table, and a worthy addition to cinematic adaptation library that Marvel's adding every year. Hopefully, it will pick up steam after people realize that it's not the complicated, semi-psychological thriller (?) movie that the 2003 Hulk attempted to be. Rather an enjoyable cinematic achievement that's good enough to watch on the big screen.

Three cheers for Marvel for finally realizing that no one knows their material better then themselves. May they never sell another beloved superhero to a lesser being again.

For the second time this summer Marvel has given us a superhero movie that just plain rocks. With the exact right amount of humour, character development and great action sequences, the Incredible Hulk is up there with Iron Man as one of my favourite films to be released so far in the summer movie season. While I didn't like it quite as much as Iron Man (Robert Downey WAS Tony Stark. Whereas something still doesn't sit right about Edward Norton as Bruce...) it was nevertheless a great, faithful adaptation of the comic books. Plus the cameo appearances by both Stan Lee and Robert Downey Jr where terrific! Possibly my favourite Stan Lee cameo yet.

There isn't really much else to say besides, go see it for yourselves. If you're a fan of the comics, or just of fun popcorn films you'll definitely enjoy this one.

8/10

From that brilliant poster of Ed Norton dressed all in denim walking away from the huge frame of his alter ego the Hulk to the superb end fight that shows the makers of Spiderman 3 how it should be done this is a great film. Not by any means a brilliant film but a truly enjoyable superhero romp none the less. Gone is the emotion that Ang Lee tried to inject into Hulk (2003) and back is the smashing and shouting and smashing. Plagued by his demons and his uncontrollable green counterpart, Norton plays Dr. Bruce Banner a scientist with a secret, desperate to find a cure. Hot on his heels are the army lead by Emil Blonsky (Roth) under the command of General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross, who just so happens to be the dad of Banners girlfriend Betty (Tyler), who wants to know how he gets all angry and use the technology to create 'super soldiers'. Plus Iron Man Tony Stark is in it. That then is about it, what you get is a chase movie with some great characters, some great effects and a couple of amazing set pieces including the end fight between the Hulk and the Abomination. All in all it's smashing stuff that should leave other superhero films green with envy.

I attended a sneak preview of The Incredible Hulk last night. Incredible? No, but Very Good. And it washes the bad taste left in my mouth from Indiana Jones and the Big Letdown. The story is good, the acting is awesome. Ed Norton is the perfect person to play the tormented Bruce Banner. He is more believable in the roll than Eric Bana. Liv Tyler is very good as Betty Ross (formally played by the tasty Jennifer Connelly) William Hurt as General Ross is impressive and makes for a worthy adversary to Bruce Banner. If I had to come up with a negative, it would be Tim Roth. While I really like him, and he always plays great villains, I feel he's just miss cast here. He seems tiny next to General Ross. Instead of coming off like the English bad ass special op he's supposed to be, he comes off more like a jerk with Napoleon Syndrome. Someone more physically imposing like Vinnie Jones (Bullet tooth from Snatch), or Daniel Craig (the new Bond) would have been more convincing for the part. But I'm just picking here. The movie is a joy. Great action. No long boring, dragging development stuff that the first Hulk had in spades. There are some very nice cameos as well. Some were a surprise, some were not. I didn't see Nick Fury anywhere except in a brief headline in a montage. However I did not remain through the credits, so there might have been a scene at the end like Iron Man that I don't know about. I give it ***1/2 out of ****. I also predict it to make 80+million this weekend when it opens to the public and should "Hulk Smash" the competition. The movie received an ovation from the audience at the end which sums it up. A worthy movie made for the fans and everyone else.

My Take: Flawed but modestly entertaining, and compared to the previous HULK opus, a little better.

Among the others, I was disappointed by Ang Lee's HULK. I have no problem with a more character-driven superhero/comic book movie, but in the expense of deepening the character's persona, it lacks the good ol' comic book action fans have grown to love. Louis Leterrier's reboot/semi-sequel THE INCREDIBLE HULK makes up for that. It's still a flawed experience, with some scenes that still pad out the better bits, but in terms of pure big-screen comic book experience, it's an improvement, albeit not a vast one.

In case you actually liked the Ang Lee version, Leterrier and writers Zak Penn (and Edward Norton, who made an uncredited re-write on his character) doesn't really forget the events of the first movie, but still makes sure everyone else keeps up with a new and different story. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) is now in hiding, still in search for a cure for his "sickness" with the help of an unseen contributor. Meanwhile, Gen. Ross (William Hurt) is still in search of our monster-transforming fugitive, this time with the help of a bloodthirsty assassin (Tim Roth) who is proves his more than a match for our hero (and we learn later, more than a match for the Hulk as well).

Unlike Lee's artsy version, Leterrier isn't afraid to push through with the action for most of the time, even if his direction of the dramatic scenes are just as slow-moving as Lee's. The still-developing romance between Buce and Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) just doesn't spark. Norton, a fine actor who does a good job in deepening the character, just lacks the charisma of even a doomed comic book character, while Tyler just doesn't add anything to the role. Hurt and Roth actually add some actual depth to the proceedings. While it won't compare to the Iron Men and Dark Knights of the same year, Leterrier does deliver the "Hulk Smash" fans expect, if very little else.

Rating: *** out of 5.

For those that know only of the original comic book Hulk, the TV series Hulk, or the regrettable Ang Lee Hulk, you should know that this new version is a mixture of origins.

Without spoiling it, one of the larger ingredients in this new Hulk comes from a Marvel series that is an alternate universe. There are many differences in the Ultimates Universe. In this version, Banner did not get his gamma radiation from exposure during an experimental bomb explosion. I won't spoil it, but you can go to www.marvel.com and look under "Ultimates" if you wish to get the gist of it.

I can truly say that this version captures a little of everything, so that no matter what your knowledge is of the Hulk character, there's tie-ins to everything.

Personally, I felt this reboot was well thought out. It allows for any future connectivity by not limiting it to one version of the Hulk. This will allow future Marvel movie-makers the ability to pick and choose aspects from the multitude of alternate universes, re-tellings, and time spans to combine whatever they please.

This was well cast. When the overall product can make me forget the fact that I don't like a specific actor, and truly appreciate the total entertainment experience, it's something to smile about. I won't mention which one I don't care for, since all that will do is spark useless debate.

Story - intricate and intelligent, fast-paced, yet deeply explanatory, complex, yet easily taken in by non-geeks. Enough references to the true comic, alternate comic, and TV show, that everyone in the sneak peek seemed to be pleased. I surely was.

CGI was great. Don't know why some have to nit-pick, but you can't please everyone, I guess. Action was wonderful with plenty of it! If you've ever read one of my reviews, you'll know that I'm a true fan of overall entertainment. While I have favorites, I don't base reviews on just one actor, writer, director, production company, genre, or whatever. So, if you don't like my opinion, so be it.

Out of the five original Avengers, I always thought that the Incredible Hulk was the least interesting and therefore least likely character to be adapted to film (except Ant-Man, although he'll be arriving in 2010...look forward to that.) However, here we sit in 2008 with not just one, but TWO different portrayals of the less-than-jolly green giant. The main problem that the new film faces is that some people will believe it to be a sequel to Ang Lee's 2003 effort, which upon release was blindfolded, made to stand against a wall and executed by public firing squad. The fact is that it is not a sequel at all. Instead, director Louis Leterrier has pulled a 'Batman Begins' and rebooted the franchise, and not just in name only. Everything about the 'Hulk is excellent. From the special effects to the characters to the reticent nods to other superheroes within the Marvel universe, the 'Hulk succeeds on every level.

The film sidesteps the curse of the tedious 'origin story' by showing it to the audience in the opening credits. That should really be a law within superhero movies. It works so well: Bruce Banner works on a radioactive serum with love interest/scientist Betty Ross (played by Liv Tyler's lips), he injects himself to see if it works, it transforms him into the Hulk. There, that didn't need to take one hundred minutes of screen time did it? This means that director Leterrier has free reign to explore how Bruce Banner lives as the Hulk and the attempts by the United States army to track him down and neutralise him, which leads to several action set pieces involving vehicles being thrown into walls and soldiers firing a nimiety of bullets at the Hulk, even when they can clearly see them bouncing off his body. Really, what is the best they are hoping for in a situation like that? "Keep firing, he might develop a vague sense of moral ill-being and stop!" Ultimately, the film boils down to a brawl in New York City between the Hulk and his evil counterpart, a special-ops soldier (Tim Roth being exemplary as usual) willingly injected with the Hulk genes, much like the climax to 'Iron Man.' The difference here is that the build up to this fight doesn't seem rushed like in 'Iron Man' because Leterrier has been able to utilise the whole of the film's running time to arrive at this natural conclusion, instead of being preoccupied with the origin story and tagging on an antagonist at the end.

Whoever cast Edward Norton as Dr Bruce Banner is almost as much of a genius as the person who asked Robert Downey Jr. To play Tony Stark in 'Iron Man' (who makes an appearance in the film inducing fan-boy erections everywhere.) Norton plays his role with understated finesse, never resorting to overly pained facial expressions, intense eye contact or shouting to display the anguish which is consuming him for the majority of the film. He simply shows that the Hulk sized burden on his back is destroying him, crushing his will to live. He looks haunted and tired, but possesses a steely resolve not to succumb to the beast within, although it would temporarily end his struggle if he did so. He's so good that Christian Bale will have to turn water into wine in The Dark Knight to retain his title as King of the Superheroes (Tobey Maguire? Hahaha, you're kidding...wait, you aren't?) There are many minor elements in 'The Incredible Hulk' that elevates it above most movies in this genre. For example, for nearly half of the film the audience are only provided with fleeting glimpses of the Hulk, much like Batman in 'Begins. His presence is not overused, though it easily could be with the bravura CGI shown at the end. Indeed, the first chase scene does not involve Banner turning into the Hulk at all, it is just an exciting pursuit across rooftops in Rio De Janeiro. Also, the orchestral score lends an air of intelligence to the film and enhances the scenes much more than an overdriven guitar track (hello, Iron Man) would have done.

The Incredible Hulk is one of those minority superhero films; it's good. In fact, with regard to any competition it faces, you (if you were looking to conclude a film review with a dialogue related pun) might be inclined to say "Hulk smash!"

With only the vaguest whiff of a story and a lack of character development even in Bruce Banner, the sort of tortured conflicted comic book character seemingly custom-made for character development, The Incredible Hulk really only has its special effects going for it. And while those are decent, a movie that is nothing but its special effects is not a movie.

Ed Norton doesn't really do much with the role. Yes, I know Ed Norton is a brilliant actor prone to giving amazing performances, but he just doesn't do that here; Mark Rufallo's laconic Bruce Banner in the Avengers is far more interesting than Norton's here.

Frankly, I was just bored. Not so bored that I stopped watching, but consistently restless and never drawn in.

Honestly, as soon as I heard they were making another Hulk movie I was surprised. When I heard they had cast Ed Norton, I was shocked. So going into this movie I had no idea what to expect. Coming out, I feel like an idiot because it was really masterfully done. Lettier does an amazing job, Norton was fantastic, and as far as a comic book movie goes, this one is just about on top with little nods and mentions. If you don't walk out of this film screaming HELLL YEAAAA, then you are not normal. Far better than Ang Lee's attempt at the green man and as far as this year, it's definitely Marvel's year. No better way to make up for Spiderman 3 than releasing Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk just a month apart. Thank you Marvel for cleaning the mess Spiderman 3 left and clearing your name. This film just makes me thing of one word...AVENGERS

This MCU movie is far superior than later ones. The story is good, the action is good, the cgi is good. I consider it far betrer than Iron man 2 and 3, the whole Thor trilogy and Avengers 2. The difference between this movie and better ones is that it does not have a forced joke every minute and a half like later ones. The reason that it has lower average rating is also because back then no Marvel fanboys existed. It is reviewed by pure movie and comic book fans. The other movies I mentioned were people getting on the MARVEL CAN DO NO WRONG bandwagon amd just rilled until today. Marvel is doing good, but this one deserves much more respect and recognition. Also, Edward Norton is a better Banner than Rufallo. Sorry Mark

Before getting into the film, I should probably point out that I am not the best reviewer for this film--unless, like me, you aren't all that familiar with the Hulk. Apart from seeing the pilot of the TV series and riding on the Hulk ride at Universal's theme park, The Island's of Adventure, I have never seen anything of the green guy--not a single comic book nor the previous movie from 2003. So, for the die-hard Hulkophile, I am certainly not the best person to review the film. In fact, I only have watched super hero films because I have a friend and daughter who push me to give them a try. And, in general, I have enjoyed them...but I am still not a big fan.

This film is a sequel (of sorts) and it's obvious from the beginning that the film has come after a lot of things have occurred. Bruce Banner is already the Hulk and how that all came to be was explored in the first film...or at least that's what I've been told. Oddly, he's in Brazil and perhaps he chose this nation because of their spiffy green flag. After a short time, the evil general (William Hurt) and his minions pounce on Banner and try to kidnap him. Not unexpectedly, Banner becomes Hulk and kicks butt. Later, they try the same thing repeatedly, but this time they give Tim Roth (why is an English guy playing a guy in the US Army, by the way--he certainly was no Rambo!) a series of injections to make him a super-soldier--and giving him a chance to defeat the Hulk. The only trouble is--who is going to control this new insanely dangerous nemesis.

Despite my being a relative Hulk newbie, I was surprised that my opinion AND the opinion of both my daughters (including the comic book geek one) was pretty much the same. The film had some nice action but not a whole lot else. As for the rest of the film, it was a tad dull and the relationship with the girl really seemed to slow down the film. As a result, the film is a time-passer and not a whole lot more. I sure hope that the folks at Marvel think twice about all their many, many announced upcoming films. If you keep making mediocre super-hero films, you might just end up killing the genre. This is NOT a film of the same quality as "Iron Man" or "The Dark Knight" (yes, Marvel fans, I know this is a DC franchise--back off, nerd-boys!!!).

While the storyline is predictable, I suspect that this flick (along with Iron Man) ushers in a new era of sorts for Marvel-based movies. While not as slick & witty as Iron Man, let's face it, the Hulk is not nearly as complex a character.

I thought for a moment that perhaps this was the kind of flick I might dial up another friend to watch but I decided to take my wife which turned out to be a bonus for the both of us... I lucked out that I just so happened to take her to a movie that featured Portuguese (EN sub-titles on & off for about 10 minutes or so) but as it turns out she claimed to like it more than Iron Man (which I admit, I might have been a bit more partial to).

Basic plot, good acting (on Norton's part), great special effects, and while I may have been more partial to Iron Man, the battles featured here cannot be compared.

Keep 'em coming Marvel - great job!!

About 1100 reviews on the old IMDb and I am going to do something I have never done before -- review on a bell curve.

Seriously, before you start listing all the things you DIDN'T like, ask yourself how many live action Hulk movies have there been outside of the Avenger ensemble acts? Answer: Two. Only two. Just two.

And the entry from Ang Lee was so wretched, so horrific, that this one gets a push up the curve.

It is actually a solid film. Roth makes a great villain. Tyler was a great love interest. (The scene where Hulk becomes a giant fire extinguisher is one for the record books and memorable). And Norton is arguably the highest-level A-lister to ever play the role.

(Or, also arguably, to ever play it again -- notice he was gone from the Avenger movies. Also notice that the two solo-Hulk movies did so poorly at the box office that this one actually ends with a promo for the coming Avengers, suggesting that the suits at Marvel are no longer interested in gambling on Hulk in a film by himself and all your future Hulk movies may be of the animated variety).

All done, this is a much better film than the reviews would suggest.

Another movie hated by spoiled, weird fans and people.

what's not to like?

I have to admit I've never been much of an Ang Lee fan, but this pathetic B-movie disaster just pales in comparison to Lee's film. To begin with, the plot (if it can be called that) is so shallow and full of holes that it's embarrassing to see respectable actors like Edward Norton and Tim Roth involved with this mess. An American military airplane heading towards Rio? Brazil is not Iraq. It would have been put down by the Brazilian Air Force in a minute. A vehicle with half a dozen armed guys in a Brazilian favela? The local drug bosses would have gladly used them as target practice. And the cream of the crop, a "for export" bottled juice factory INSIDE a favela? This will become the joke of the year in Brazil. As to the reviewer from Singapore who wrote "(...)the crowded streets and cluttered housing on the streets of Rio De Janeiro(...)" - for mercy's sake, get a clue and your geography right before writing this kind of nonsense. The scenes take place in a FAVELA, which are poor, isolated parts of the city, not the city itself.

There are far FEWER action sequences than on Lee's film, and what there is is so pointless, badly executed and less exciting that the average popcorn eater above 6 years of age will be bored to death. Any self respecting fan of the Hulk comic books will rate this abomination of a movie as low as possible. I gave Ang Lee's film 9 stars, and this one gets 2 only because the CGI work on the Hulk is very well done, otherwise it would have gotten 1 star (since IMDb doesn't allow a 0 star rating).