Marvel Mush
The Incredible Hulk
Running Time 114 minutes
Written by Zak Penn
Directed by Louis Leterrier
Starring Edward Norton, William Hurt and Liv Tyler
Five years have passed since the first big-screen Hulk wasted the reputation of director Ang Lee on a computer-generated comic strip nobody wanted to see. That film suffered punishing reviews and a devastating 70 percent drop-off in attendance in the second week, from which it never recovered. But you can’t keep an old, green, 10-ton Brussels sprout down for long. It’s too early to predict if The Incredible Hulk, the CGI sequel, will sink to that same level of box office infamy, but take it from me: You’ll have the DVD by Labor Day.
If you didn’t waste your allowance on the Marvel comics created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby 46 years ago, or if you were lucky enough to miss the first film adaptation, this sequel stages a brief opening-credits prelude in flashbacks, showing Dr. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton, replacing Eric Bana) working on a top-secret scientific research project for the U.S. military, supervised by a demented Army general (William Hurt) who is also the father of Bruce’s girlfriend, Dr. Betty Ross (Liv Tyler, replacing Jennifer Connelly). The experiments goes horribly awry in a near-fatal laboratory explosion that leaves Betty without a scratch and Bruce infected with gamma-ray poisoning. Now he’s a mild fellow working in a soda-pop bottling factory in Brazil who turns the color of spinach when his blood pressure rises. Then watch out. Make him mad and he rips his clothes off and morphs into an incredible Kilimanjaro of a hunk—er, hulk—with veins that look like the Amazon River flowing through thighs the size of California redwoods. No wonder Bruce is in Brazil incognito, practicing anger management with a Portuguese guru by working his diaphragm. But the diabolical conservative, right-wing general with the locked jawbone and voice of cold steel (Mr. Hurt, hamming it up all over the place in a witty impersonation of Dick Cheney) wants Bruce captured so he can surgically remove his data bank, replicate it, and turn it into a weapon of mass destruction. (Create more powerful Hulk monsters and the U.S. military could conquer the world!) Bruce doesn’t want to be the Incredible Hulk. He just wants to be the Incredible Ed Norton. But when his eyes turn to neon and his biceps pop his chains like rubber bands, wherever he lands makes a hole so deep you can see Beijing.
After a drop of his radioactive blood lands in a bottle of carbonated fruit juice imported to the U.S., Bruce flees Brazil, wakes up naked in the jungles of Guatemala and wanders barefoot across Mexico to reach the Virginia college campus where Betsy works as a professor of cellular biology. She still loves Bruce, but he’s afraid of sex because there’s no telling what might happen if he got excited in bed. No matter. Liv Tyler has all the passion of mayonnaise.
Just when the déjà vu drives everyone to check their watches for how much running time is left, a villainous rival behemoth is introduced in the human form of a Russian-born guerrilla named Blonsky (Tim Roth), who performs radiation experiments on himself with the aid of an eye-rolling, scenery-chewing mad doctor (another corny over-the-top guest cameo by the dreadful Tim Blake Nelson) and turns into something worse than the Hulk. Imagine a T.rex with a head like a boiled peanut. The mayhem that follows is as rampant and recycled as a contemporary comic-book superhero with CGI can get—and twice as boring. Bruce’s goal: stay alive, keep running, and try not to turn into the Hulk. But war is inevitable; we get two King Kongs in battle instead of one; and the big finale by hack director Louis Leterrier is like Godzilla Meets Reptilicus, all staged in front of the Apollo Theatre in Harlem. For anyone who misses the days when monsters were played by real actors instead of computers, there’s a cameo appearance by Lou Ferrigno—who played the Hulk for years on TV—as both the voice of the Hulk and a security guard. Looking good, Lou.
It’s dismaying to think of all the wonderful performances Edward Norton has given in movies nobody ever saw. This one is high-octane slumming that will keep him in Bentleys for years.
rreed@observer.com
tim roth is one of the most annoying actors in the 100 year history of motion pictures; he isn't even good enough for a comic book movie.
Couldn't agree more with Mr. Reed. Call me old fashioned, but I just can't connect on any emotional level when seeing two cartoon monsters punching each other. Especially when we know without any doubt which cartoon monster will win. The last 20 minutes of the film was just tedious.
This is a Comic Book Action Movie. If you want Oscar Winning
Plot and Performance this is the wrong choice. But if you loved the old TV show and the comics, this is a great movie.
Your lead sentence was a dead giveaway that you should have not wasted your money or your employers money to go and view this Movie. Why don't you just stick with movies that bore you from the beginning and make a better sleep aid than Nyquil. The Hulk Could Squash You.
hey, poser critic,instead of using excessive amounts of metaphors and symalles, how about critiquing the movie and not complain about the wierd moments about charcters seeming flat. What about the conflicting double persona and how Ed Norton portrays Bruce and not Liv Tylers love intrest. Your critic is shallower than Scary Movie 4's insight on pop culture.
You have one thing right though, Marvel has been pushing a little too hard on the beatem up ending like in Spiderman 3. A movie with Ed could have a little more class.
Sorry about the poser comment, the review just feels empty and seems like a vague plot summary.
I agree, Rex. When an engorged green monster throwing cars at another crazed deformity comes across as laughable you know you're in turkey land. What a bore. What a waste of money. Even my 7 year old found it dull. Ed Norton is one of the greats of modern cinema and he does this?
I actually agree with this review and I for the life of me cannot understand how bad movie apologists can just look the other way when there is a flat product put before them on screen. Ed Norton did a credible job but Liv Tyler's line delivery was uninspired and the cgi was a definite step down from the previous Hulk even though the design is more "fan boy" friendly then the latter. The climactic battle was just so much poor cgi monster mayhem surrounded by New yorkers that obviously had no sense of self preservation since they hung around no matter how many people were injured or killed by the Abomination. If people wanted mindless, wanton poor cgi carnage with very little subtext or character development then many will be satisfied but I expected a tad bit more. At the end of the day with the 2003 Hulk Ang lee attempted to deliver a full rounded film to an audience that wanted a simplistic comic book interpretation therefore he failed the so called "target audience"; this time around that audience got just what they asked for or should I say "just what they deserved".
I actually agree with this review and I for the life of me cannot understand how bad movie apologists can just look the other way when there is a flat product put before them on screen. Ed Norton did a credible job but Liv Tyler's line delivery was uninspired and the cgi was a definite step down from the previous Hulk even though the design is more "fan boy" friendly then the latter. The climactic battle was just so much poor cgi monster mayhem surrounded by New yorkers that obviously had no sense of self preservation since they hung around no matter how many people were injured or killed by the Abomination. If people wanted mindless, wanton poor cgi carnage with very little subtext or character development then many will be satisfied but I expected a tad bit more. At the end of the day with the 2003 Hulk Ang lee attempted to deliver a full rounded film to an audience that wanted a simplistic comic book interpretation therefore he failed the so called "target audience"; this time around that audience got just what they asked for or should I say "just what they deserved".
I thought Rex Reed was dead...
I'm not going to lie i haven't seen this movie yet, but why should I not expect a good plot and performance when I'm paying the same amount of money to see one with it. What gives comic book movies the right to be crappy? why do they deserve special treatment? If you want to make a big budget movie, at least spend some time and give it a good plot. Oh, and yea the Hulk could smash me...if he wasn't CGI.
Liv Tyler's performance made me want to stick a knife in my eye every time she was on the screen. We were supposed to believe that this insipid person with the breathy little girl whisper was a cellular biologist working on weapons systems for the military? I couldn't enjoy any of the action because of her pathetic performance!
I wasn't a huge fan of this movie myself, however, I do ask myself why you expose yourself to a movie that you've clearly decided you wouldn't like before you've entered the theatre. I've drawn the conclusion that you go because your Managing Editor or Publisher expects you to review these mainstream movies. THAT my dear Mr. Reed makes you as big a sell out as Mr. Edward Norton you so criticize. Unfortunately, it also makes you a hypocrite.
Rex Reed is a legend. The Hulk is a pathetic waste of film. Too, bad. The 60's Marvel comics could be turned into great films. The only ones they got right were Spider-Man 1 and 2 and Iron-Man. The Fantastic Four was awful. If they tried to be faithful to the original vision of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, they might be able to present something of quality. Bad judgment all around.
Critics like you make me decide not to trust critics ever! As soon as is reads summer movie you jugde them like they were nominees for the Oscars to best picture. Will it hurt to much to remember that this movie is suposed to be good in his own summer way? Gee you better stick to artsy films, let's find a critic that is actually versatile and not crap on everything that doesn't look like Oscar material. This movie was awesome and I will watch it again and then buy the DVD and Edward Norton did a great job. I loved him as an actor before and I love him now even more as a fellow Hulk lover!
As others have pointed out, it is obvious here that the reviewer decided what his opinion of the film would be before seeing it. If you feel the material is unworthy to be made into a film then it is impossible not to find faults with the film. Everyone wants to find reasons to support their own opinions. Pre-viewing bias eliminates an effective film critique as Mr. Reed and any student of film should know.
I don't agree that the Hulk was a bad film. It is a sci-fi action film, and as such should be viewed and compared according to that standard. This is by no means a lower standard or bar on which to judge the film, merely a different one. I would not judge Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey according to the same standards with which I would Ford's Stagecoach or the Searchers. You simply don't do it.
I think the acting in this film was fine for the most part. Nelson's "mad scientist" was a bit much, but as a recent college grad who has taken a science class or two I can tell you that unfortunately he acted exactly like a science academic does when discussing something they are passionate about. I have stories involving a professor of biological anthropology who has lived in the wild with lemurs, studiyng them, and a gorilla suit that would back up my point quite well. I am not being hyperbolic about this to justify Nelson's performance. I am being dead serious and extremely honest. Find someone who knows college professors of cellular biology and ask them if this was an accurate portrayal of their discussion of their passions. I doubt you will find a "not at all" anywhere.
I think that cgi can take the viewer out of the film if done poorly, but it wasn't poor here. There was no overabundance of green screened backgrounds making the characters appear cartoony as in Star Wars. No, the simple fact is that those who are dead set in love for animatronics can't let go of them to accept the "it will always be inferior" cgi. I love Animatronics and mourned the passing of Stan Winston, but I can also objectively recognize good special effects.
The sheer amount of hot air and bias in this review makes it read like so much propaganda. I wouldn't trust a white supremicist to give an honest critique on desegregation, and I wouldn't give someone with such obvious prejudice this assignment. Shame on you for taking on this review Mr. Reed. You are better than this. If you had an actual critique of the film you should have used that, not this overly cliched rhetoric.
Rex Reed is dead. OD'ed on stolen CDs.
Don't you have some retiring to do?
QUOTE
"If you didn’t waste your allowance on the Marvel comics created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby 46 years ago"
I wasted mine on Batman, Superman, etc. however the comment above reveals much about it's author; Conceited, conservative who has no concept therefore respect for good graphic art. I'm not defending this film because I'm not going to waste a buck on it, but your comments reveal you also to be an arrogant SOB who is probably not in the place to review a comic book film, even if it's bad in the first place.
It's amazing, 90% of your article is just a description and rundown of the whole movie. no insight whatsoever. lazy article.
Your point would have been better taken/had more of an impact if you knew how to spell simile. Just a thought.
I liked it to each its own. If you were the director instead of one of the million critics out there, what would you do Mr. Award winning critic?