The Incredible Hulk

I still don’ t understand why there made an incomprehensible remake of a fairly new movie when it was already clear in advance that it would turn out more or less the same. Hulk doesn't have a good story and doesn't have that potential, he’s too serious and dramatic for a comic book hero. Technically, it's the same as with the previous film: impressive overall, but unfinished in the details. Tim Roth adds the necessary spice to it, Liv Tyler is an ornament (classic), and Edward Norton with his worried face also doesn't interest much. At least the opening credits made a proper “upgrade” and, with it’s solid orchestral accompaniment, it is one of the few captivating things you will see in the movie. (28/09/2008)

Early on, Leterrier blows Lee’s work away during the opening credits, but that's where the positives in relation to the previous film end. That there are only three action scenes in two hours doesn’t bother me so much given that even without the Hulk's fights with the army, there is still something going on and it's solidly paced. However, Leterrier's forte is contact fights in an arena or in mafia dens. In the bigger scenes, he desperately steals wherever he can think of, meaning that the opening is "Bourne Morocco," the university ambush replicates Ang's tanks from the desert, and the ending is all about CGI battles. The rest is horribly sterile so that the fated love fizzles out and the viewer shakes his head sadly. But I’m quite curious to see if the team offered at the end will really actually happen. (19/09/2008)

From an antique tragedy interspersed with Marvel action, we've dropped a few steps down. And remained standing in a contradictory mezzanine. Five years after Ang Lee's vision, which was received rather hesitantly, it is no wonder that we were supposed to forget about it from the very beginning. For my part, I could see that version a hundred times, but I give up because I know I am in the clear minority. And yet Louis Leterrier is so excited about the previously overlooked Hulk-smash that he doesn't care much about character depth or traumatic inserts, and the Brazilian intro annoys even him. As for the central characters and their performers, I have to frown a bit as well, because Betty is nothing more than a lovely catalyst for Banner's emotions this time, and Edward Norton's portrayal of the titular hero is occasionally disappointingly shallow. So why the high rating in the end? Because every action scene is an explosive, impressive spectacle that takes your breath away, and Blonsky a.k.a. Abomination boldly joins the gallery of marvel villains waiting to be cursed in the future, for whom I regularly have a weakness. The decisive factor for the fourth star is that this version of Hulk works solely and exclusively as bait for The Avengers. It's true that Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America are a class or two better, leaving Bruce as a small green orphan child, but from a rather unimpressive superhero side gig he ultimately matured into a pleasant one-off treat. (27/10/2008)

A pretty decent sequel that does Marvel no shame. The action scenes are perfectly executed and edited, and Louis Leterrier doesn't spare them, leaving the viewer not much time to think. There can be no complaints about the actors either, Edward Norton is as reliable as ever, Tim Roth handles bad guys like few others and Liv Tyler is really just there for decoration and a necessary romantic motif. But all this clashes with the insanely B-movie content, which has more clichés than a German romantic film where two lovers declare their love on a breathtaking seashore. The Incredible Hulk has no chance of becoming a classic like Raimi's Spider-Man, but it works more than well as an unpretentious comic book flick – and sometimes that's enough. 70% (12/11/2012)

Compared to Lee's Hulk, this one is filmed without a shred of an idea. The story unfolds in the style of "action - boredom - more action - boredom - a bit of suspense before the ending - boredom - final overstuffed mega-action". Of all the characters, I liked the villain Blonsky the most (I can take Tim Roth anywhere, anytime, especially when he plays a madman), and that probably wasn't the intention either. Letterier wants to impress mainly with the digital effects, but they are not very good, and at the end he piles so many on top of each other that it's unbearable, the unsympathetic Edward Norton has one facial expression throughout the film and Liv Tyler has two. But above all, it is sorely lacking in perspective! Everything is presented with such awkward seriousness... It was simply terrible. (09/09/2009)