The Incredible Hulk (2008) June 26, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Louis Leterrier
If the idea of dime-a-dozen comic book movies depresses you, then the knowledge that we’re already remaking them might just tip you over the edge. That an entire franchise reboot has been developed not five years since the release of 2003’s Hulk [review] shows Marvel’s desire to shake off Ang Lee’s film as the definitive screen translation. Brushed under the carpet by this new release, it now officially ‘never happened’ - a state that Marvel and Universal would hope proliferates through the cinema-going masses. But is second time the charm for our big green friend, or will it be a case of once bitten, twice shy?
This time we meet an already isolated Bruce Banner (Edward Norton), hiding out in Brazil while trying to find a cure for his unique disease. US military forces are on to him though, and circumstances leave Banner no choice but to return home and try to locate vital data about his ‘accident’. Despite his best efforts to avoid her, Bruce crosses paths with his old flame Elisabeth Ross (Liv Tyler) and the two become close again. Meanwhile, the military has drafted a respected soldier by the name of Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to aide their mission, and he’s willing to do everything it takes – including a new form of bio-engineered drug that turns him into some kind of monstrous abomination.
It’s worth noting the slight air of negativity surrounding the release of this film over its box-office storming cousin, Iron Man [review]. Of course, audiences have been let down before by the Hulk, so they return here with a deserved scepticism that doesn’t feature in first-time features. This is a reboot though, and consequently the movie now boasts a new cast, slightly altered origin story, updated CGI, and the firm decision that, this time, it’s an action movie, not a psychological investigation. The assurance of that last decision is over the final product.
If there’s one area where the nuts have clearly been tightened it’s in the pacing department. Whereas it took Lee forty minutes to give us a glimpse of the Hulk-y goodness, and a full hour before he began fighting anything (even then it was only some rabid dogs), Leterrier’s Hulk by contrast appears in full smashing glory within the first twenty minutes, and gleefully rages through a number of scenes at regular intervals. In fact, there are extra points here for the admirable implementation of ‘getting the hell on with it’ – a choice that sees the rebooted origin story flashed in front of you before the director’s credit makes its appearance.
The drive behind the story is also more fully developed. Where it was difficult to feel a sense of urgency about Banner’s actions previously, the clear-cut reasoning behind the military wanting to get their hands on some Hulk DNA, along with Banner’s resolute intention to cure himself, means the cat and mouse game they play has much more consequence. Disappointingly, just like in 2003, when we reach the conclusion the film still presents a typical monster vs. monster showdown, but maybe there isn’t another way to really go with a character built solely to brawl.
I wasn’t sure about the casting of Edward Norton, but now I feel like I just underestimated how likeable he is as an actor. This may not be his finest performance of all time, but he makes for a more than adequate Bruce Banner, dropping some of the Clark Kent-like awkwardness from Eric Bana’s portrayal. Liv Tyler wasn’t quite doing it for me in the same way, but as love interests go, Elizabeth Ross isn’t the most fascinating anyway. Meanwhile there’s Tim Roth playing the Russian-born, Englishman who’s also an American soldier. In the greedy, power-hungry villain stakes, I’ve seen far worse, although he does have to share that title in part with William Hurt, who plays the uncharismatic Colonel Ross with a convincingly cold demeanour.
Louis Leterrier’s direction excels during the action sequences – particularly the chases which are distractingly entertaining, if not always entirely original. With a patchy resume to his name (Danny The Dog [review] had plenty of things going for it, Transporter 2 [review] had… Jason Statham?), it’s a surprise that he got himself attached to such a high profile Marvel release; although that seems to have been their tactic of late – who would have guessed Jon Favreau for the Iron Man job? Zak Penn’s script, on the other hand, is a little inconsistent. The dialogue does exactly what it says on the tin and nothing more.
In an interesting twist, the high expectation surrounding Iron Man may well have dampened my viewing of it, whereas my low expectations for this have significantly helped the overall experience. In the end, they come out close to even, although I’d still given the edge to Iron Man for setting up the more significant franchise. I only mention them together because they are, in fact, 
all cogs in a larger machine called The Avengers, due out in 2011. There’s a nice little drawstring being threaded through the relevant films right now, all in anticipation of what is it come. For the first time, Marvel are handling their crossover potential with care and I really hope it’s going to pay off.
As for what is to become of the Hulk, it’s hard to say. Sequels are a difficult concept for a character whose main elements were all covered by this film, and even if Bruce Banner’s internal conflict makes for the most interesting future direction, at the end of the day that’s not what the fans want on the big screen. Just ask Ang Lee. The knowledge that this movie merely exists to wipe the slate and redraw a character so he can be carried through to another film doesn’t sound like the most worthy of cinematic endeavours. But if you can stomach some fairly mindless popcorn-munching entertainment, don’t let your previous impressions keep you away from this. It’s officially safe to go back in the water.
Comments»
There was never anything wrong with the intentions of the first film. It’s just that any attempt to make these films intelligent as well as entertaining HAS to be done while the film is in motion. In other words sread it throughout the film. Give the core, target audience what it really wants, and then by all means put some extra quality among the blood and thunder. If it’s done right everyone’s happy. The best blockbuster is that which has the capacity to be reach the higher brow without diminishing the more obvious, fun attractions. The Marvel strips from the beginning always strove to give comics readers something a little more artistic in their own way.
There’s an interesting parallel between the Hulk franchise and that of the Fantastic Four by the way and your comment about the new film wiping the slate reminded me: Years before ‘Fantastic Four’ (around 1993) there was another movie adaptation of the comic that pretty much got shelved in the hope of it being forgotten about - I’ve never seen it as it was virtually disowned and not really released in the UK but it’s supposed to be pretty bad. The Aurum Sci-fi encyclopaedia included a review back in the 90s and it’s one of cinema’s most obscure oddities of modern times.
The only reason the previous FF movie got made was to retain the rights - it was never intended to be seen. If you hunt around the interwebs, it’s lurking in plenty of seedy places.
It’s actually quite entertaining.
In response to JJ, I can only agree that the intentions behind Ang Lee’s film were good. In fact, when praise is given, it’s usually directed towards the fact that he was at least trying to make a film that was above the usual popcorn spectacle. Of course, back in 2003 we hadn’t yet been subjected to the overbearing slew of weak action-oriented comic book flicks. Other errors aside, maybe a film like that might mean more to audiences if it was made now.
Also, I never knew of the 1994 Fantastic Four movie - curiosity alone is going to force me to hunt it down now. Thanks for the insight guys!