|
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800080/ Starring: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt First off, "The Incredible Hulk" 2008 is to "The Incredible Hulk" 2005 as a waterslide is to opera. Sure, opera is intellectual, challenging, and artistic; but a waterslide's a whole hell of a lot of fun. The new Hulk is a continuation of sorts from the earlier movie. We don't get to see Banner have his gamma-ray accident or begin his fight with the government - we pick him up in Brazil, on the lam from the government forces who want to weaponize his bizarre anatomy. The script itself is pretty workmanlike, not throwing anything essentially new into the mix but providing everything you expect in a big-budget superhero movie: thrills, laughs, and a silly excuse for a Stan Lee cameo. There's enough here for both a die-hard comic fan and a new arrival to the Marvel universe. The acting in the movie is surprisingly mediocre, considering the cast. Ed Norton is a phenomenal actor of almost unrivalled ferocitiy in his generation, yet he is wasted here. It's mostly the fault of the blasé script. Norton tries valiantly to show Banner's inner turmoil through his highly expressive face, but he comes off as more mopey than chaotic. Supposedly Banner has learned anger-management tactics since the last time we saw him, but perhaps Norton's take on the role is a bit too mild-mannered. This is not to say the acting is bad, however - I just wasn't particularily impressed with any performance, save one. Tim Roth is excellent as the antagonist, but that's to be expected. He grimaces and scowls his way through the film, and his naturally hooded stare makes him perfect for the role. Like most superhero movies, you're more captivated by the bad guy then you ever are the good. The action: in a word, awesome. Everything that was wrong about Ang Lee's Hulk is made right in this movie. It's visceral and intense, with sequences that seem to last far longer than they have in other movies of this type. The city of Toronto is on full display, and the Hulk and his opponents tear up Yonge street like they're having an asphalt giveaway. All in all, the Hulk is exactly what you think it will be: a fantastical, funny, and action-filled reboot of a franchise that came out of the gate stumbling. All the meditative aspects of Lee's film are traded in for gold, old-fashioned derring-do, and audiences will eat it up. It's not revolutionary, but it's a great expression of the Superhero form. Rating: 4/5 tl;dr: Pros: Awesome action, far-flung setpieces, everything you expect. Cons: Doesn't really do anything fundamentally new, workmanlike script leads to acting that doesn't live up to the potential of the stars. Oh, and the final scene contains a completely gratuitous crossover-hinting cameo that was probably shot within the last month, if you know what I mean. e: My first time in the film dump - it wouldn't let me post a poll. No idea. Blackula69 fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jun 10, 2008 |
#
?
Jun 10, 2008 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
This is the movie that I wanted to see when I walked into theaters three years ago. The beginning of this film has a strong vibe of the classic TV series; with a Bruce Banner content to be mediocre, as he's on the run. We even get the campy sad music from the TV series. It quickly turns into a modern comic-action movie; complete with gun battles, monsters, ultimate fights, and a sensitive anti-hero. Also purple pants...  All in all this movie isn't perfect. As Blackula69 stated the acting was definitely sub-par. Norton seems bored with himself through most of the movie, and to be blunt I don't think Liv Tyler could act her way out of a paper bag. On the plus side the film's villains, played respectively by Tim Roth and William Hurt, are true to form in the movie. Pros: LOTS of play building up to the movie we all know is coming. Including a guest appearance by a certain armor wearing billionaire, the constant presence of a major military power, and the mutation of a scientist into what I can only suspect to be a certain smart (albeit ugly) adversary of the Hulk. Also the fighting is top notch. Cons: Norton hamming it up when we all know how fantastic he can be. Liv Tyler. All in all 4 out of 5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2008 05:33
|
|
|
If they could somehow combine the two Hulk movies together you'd probably have a drat good one. The things Ang Lee's Hulk got right, they missed the mark on here. And got right some of the things Ang Lee's Hulk missed. Norton is a better Banner. He phones in it but it still beats Bana's sedated performance. Elliot was a better Thunderbolt Ross and Jennifer Connelly was a better Betty Ross. Tim Roth did nothing for me. I don't see how anyone can say the CG work here is better than the first one. It's terrible, visually, most of the time. The acting of the CG characters is pretty good, but Ang Lee's Hulk himself was acted better. Save for the beginning of the Hulk and Abomination fight where Hulk uses the police car, that minute of footage is stellar, the action is a letdown for anyone who has seen what's capable in the previous Hulk or played Ultimate Destruction. This Hulk is restrained and too vulnerable. Just when he should Hulk out and destroy every thing in sight, they neuter him and end the scene. The CG is weak, but the camera work makes up for it and allows you to get at least somewhat invested in the action. Still, The Playstation 3 cut scene quality of the CG is what disappointed me the most. It didn't help that a trailer for Hellboy II played before the movie and the special effects there look unbelievably good. It's not just that you can't make Hulk look real, because the first one did in several scenes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YKlLxCR2hs Lee's Hulk had more depth oozing from every frame of the film. The new Hulk barely scratches the surface of any internal issues. I can understand the reason for this, as Lee's Hulk became too melodramatic. Moderation is the key. This one has more action scenes, but Lee's Hulk had superior action scenes. It is possible to mix in equal parts action and drama. In an effort to get as far away as possible from the serious, classical mythology underpinnings of Lee's film, they went too far the other direction and made a live action cartoon. Spider-Man 2 should be the model of balance every future Marvel film helmer looks to for inspiration. I noticed a lot of scenes in the trailer were cut from the movie. Betty's boyfriend definitely needed some more screen time because I was not convinced that he was anything other than flamingly gay. His scene from the trailer with Banner looks interesting as they talk in code about Bruce's psyche problems. There's also the 'Bruce attempts suicide but is thwarted by a Hulk transformation' scene that should add some meat. Let's see those 70 missing minutes. Overall, the new one is true to the character, which the first one missed. Ang Lee missed the point of the character completely. That was my biggest complaint with it. Otherwise I'd say his film is superior in storytelling, directing, and visuals. Run of the mill action flick but still entertains nonetheless. 3/5 Hulk 2003: 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2008 23:45
|
|
|
I saw this following up from Iron Man a week earlier and you definitely notice the similarities in production and style. That said, what made Iron Man above average as a hero flick was the excellent performance of Robert Downey Jr, you can't help but think what holds Hulk back is the lack of an actor taking on their role by the scruff of the neck. Norton does a competant job as Banner but there isn't much character he has to work with in the script, and he does end up coming across most of the time as a bit mopey. Liv Tyler has all the personality of a plank of wood in her role, but Hurt plays a good bastard. The main gripe with the movie was, to me at least, how badly miscast Tim Roth was. Trying to convince the audience that a tiny guy with the frame of an 11 year old girl is a hardass military vet was something I just couldn't suspend belief on. The gradual transformation on his character were made all the harder to believe because of this too. The action was done well enough but a little lacking, the special effects were pretty erratic though, particularly in the second fight. The attempts at humour in the movie often missed the mark pretty badly, and there are also a few little plot holes in the story which detract a little. All that being said, this movie is a far better film in my eyes to the Ang Lee version simply because it is so much more accessable to its target audience. It knows what it wants to be and doesn't try to go overboard with it. People who want to see a simple popcorn movie about the Hulk get exactly that, and will enjoy it. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2008 06:32
|
|
|
No style. No substance. No depth. Relatively little action (wasn't that the biggest complaint about the first one?...I mean come on, instead of actually having Hulk smash poo poo, he just *says* "Hulk smash"..lame) Pretty mediocre acting from such A list movie stars. Abomination's CGI was pretty poor, and his story wasn't tied up well at the end. In fact, the movie leaves off pretty much at the same place it began. The Hulk story wasn't advanced in any way really, it was more like a big budget episode of the old TV series. OK, I have to admit, Ang Lee's Hulk is my favorite comic book film. I'm in the minority there. But it was a beautifully executed, well acted piece of moving poetry that involved me in the film in such a different way. It was a film about anger, and the events of the movie had you feeling that emotion vicariously with the characters. By contrast, this Hulk film was...flat in that involvement, and really just made me angry that they made such a lovely, two dimensional film. Far less creative than the first film, especially visually, but also technically. The camerawork was "shaky" and just didn't demonstrate much talent in the cinematography department. In the scenes in the first Hulk where the story was advanced by an editing technique that actually looked like comic book cells on a page, I knew they had fully embraced the source of the flick. You just don't get that kind of quality in this new Hulk. And for all the hype about Ed Norton wanting to do this one right, he just didn't seem like he cared enough to give a decent performance. A lot of people complained about Bana's "sedated" performance, but what I saw was rage boiling up inside him because that's exactly how I felt based on the way the other characters were treating him. Ang Lee dared to make the viewer introspect and empathize with the Hulk, something that I think was lost on the average popcorn-fisting moviegoer, but something that I've appreciated greatly every since the film was released... I think for all the pissing and moaning everyone did over the first one, especially Norton, they just really failed to come up with something better... 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2008 02:49
|
|
|
Pretty good action movie but the timing is poor - it follows Iron Man, which may have set the bar impossibly high and is sort of like making a local garage band follow a bonafide platinum-selling rock group that has the current #1 single. So it's something of a miracle that TiH doesn't completely stink up the joint by comparison. Edward Norton was good - Tim Roth was good - Liv Tyler was ineffective but in a poorly developed role, so I don't blame her abilities. The script was passable for the most part, although the third act was disjointed and the final fight ended pretty bizarrely/poorly. Where the movie shines is in bringing The Hulk back into the larger Marvel universe, further setting up the Avengers (which is slowly building into something epic for Marvel). Tony Starks cameo was spot on and I'm glad they put it ahead of the final credits, since it adds a lot of weight to the entire project. The nods to the super soldier program were excellent, and the actual fight between Hulk and a super soldier is eye-popping. Visually I prefer this Hulk to Ang Lee's, although neither manages to look organic in the world (yeah the defense is often 'but it's a big green guy, how can he look real!'... I just think if special effect studios can make dinosaurs and giant monkeys and dragons look real, they should be able to pull off The Hulk too). If I was giving recommendations, I would wait for the DVD because some important footage seemed to be missing, especially in the last half of the movie. Overall this movie succeeds with the Batman Begins-type 'relaunch', but in a very limited way -- the first Hulk wasn't as bad as the Batman franchise became, and this Hulk isn't enough of an increase in quality from Ang Lee's version to be completely justified - 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2008 02:26
|
|
|
The Hulk is my favorite comic character and untill 2008 i considered the 2003 movie to be the best comicbook movie made. From this i was ecpecting a simpler story and a lot of action and that is what i got. I was a bit vary of Ed Norton before seeing this, he has been in some really bad movies and he simply doesnt look like Bruce Banner, after seeing the movie he still doesnt look the part as much as Bana did but otherwise he did the role very well. Liv Tyler did her job ok, not really much for her to do. Tim Roth was really good, probably the best human actor in the movie. Cgi and Action was great ofcourse, i like the new look of the hulk even though he is a little underpowered. The Incredible Hulk was all i could ever want with tons of extra stuff for the comic readers. 5/5 Hulk 2003 : 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2008 13:55
|
|
|
Man, this movie was awful. Most of the flaws have already been pointed out but it really was that bad. Even the action couldn't save it. I know it's just one of those movies were you just sit and enjoy but even then I felt the urge to walk out. The sweeping scenes of Brazil were pretty awesome though. Some of my problems Swallows the "data", turns into the hulk, and pukes it back up? "No, you can't sell that! It's the only thing you have left of her!" The battle scene at the college. Yeah, because this would go completely unoticed. Yet somehow 2 college kids got a glimpse. And the freaking hummers constantly flying into the scene doing a huge jump over some hill? "Blue team, go!" Cue hummer flying into scene. This happened about 10 times. Blah blah cliche man makes something that was a mistake. Tries to destroy it. Then needs it to fight something else and "save the world". Because obviously the only thing that could take that out was another hulk. I saw the hulk smash from a mile away. And even then it was ridiculous. Police car boxing gloves? Really? And I don't know the story but I imagine that Professor that got some on his head will turn into the bad guy in a future movie? I mean I didn't think the last one was so bad and I still dont understand everyones problem with it. But I think it was way better than this one. Also, the trailer, as complained about in GBS, pretty much gives away the whole movie anyways. 2/5 Pros - Decent action, I guess. Cinematography and landscaping shots weren't bad. Cons - Everything else. Poor acting from A-list actors. cheesy, predictable, and cliche. Although the entertainment factor didn't redeem the above. Nostalgia4Dogges fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jun 30, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2008 17:03
|
|
|
I'm not the nitpicking plot-hole "the science is impossible!!!" type of movie watcher but I do value one thing: music. There was something off about this movie, and after concluding it wasn't the script, the acting or the sfx, I realized that the background score had been one long string pad with breaks only for the action sequences. It's a good movie, but when the score doesn't work, as it often doesn't nowadays (most Hollywood composers since the 80's are talentless hacks IMO), it tends to drag the rest of the movie with it. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2008 01:26
|
|
|
“More action!” That’s what the fans called out for after the onslaught that met Ang Lee’s 2003 Hulk. And that’s the very thing that writer-star Edward Norton aimed to give us. When director Louis Leterrier, famous for his action-packed-but-nothing-more Transporter movies, was signed onto the project it was pretty clear that things were about to change. Empire claimed the climactic battle to be a 26-minute free-for-all spanning across Harlem. The times may be a bit off, but the action in Letterier’s re-incarnation is exactly what Hulk fans will be watering at the mouth for; it’s in your face, it’s brash, it’s crude, and it doesn’t take itself too seriously. The plot sees Banner (Ed Norton) on the run from the US armed forces, who want to take his DNA for sampling so that they can mould – as Tim Roth’s Bronsky over simplifies it – “super soldiers.” Banner doesn’t like this. Banner hides from the army, whilst the Hulk fights with them. The comparisons with Ang Lee’s Hulk aren’t really very profound, except that in both films our superhero is green. In fact, the dissimilarity between the two can be told from the off. After an intense opening credits sequence, in which we get a hulk out and an origins story in a format that doesn’t do the drama justice, we get an incident ticker reading “157 Days Without Incident.” And here’s where the first difference lies; Leterrier’s Incredible Hulk simplifies this period into four words, whilst Lee’s Hulk would take as much interest in this 157 “incident-less” period as it would the initial hulk-up. And your opinion on this as a good thing or a bad thing depends on your opinions on 2003’s big green. I, personally, loved it. And no, this is not a way of me justifying myself as cine-literate just because I liked the slightly more philosophical take on the brute. I think Lee’s film was something different. And that’s what Leterrier’s Incredible Hulk lacks; a little bit of originality. Of course, walking into the theatre ninety per cent of people know exactly what they’re letting themselves in for, but that doesn’t mean a bit of originality – like in Lee’s film – is a bad thing. Another dissimilarity that I noticed was the climactic battle. In Lee’s 2003 effort, Hulk takes on a dishevelled Nick Nolte in an abstract battle, away from all prying eyes in a private glade. The Incredible Hulk hosts its climactic scene in Harlem, with millions of prying eyes and your typical Hollywood garrison of police and soldiers. Again, whilst 2008’s effort conforms to movie clichés, Lee’s 2003 version strived to be that little bit different. And 2003’s version is not the only film that the Incredible Hulk has taken influence from. You don’t have to look hard to see most of them. The initial (admittedly impressive) tracking shot that sweeps over the top of a Brazilian slums that Banner calls home is a throw-back to 2003’s City of God (Fernando Meirelles), as if the makers are trying to get that gritty, dramatic feel. And then there’s the final battle, which takes a lot from 50’s Japanese film Gojira (Ishiro Honda), and even snippets from 2008’s Cloverfield (Matt Reeves). There’s also the relationship between Betty (Liv Tyler) and Hulk’s alter-ego Bruce Banner, which draws parallels to King Kong (1933, Merrian Cooper and Ernest Schoedstack) and Beauty and the Beast (1991, Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise). There’s even a Reservoir Dogs (1992, Quentin Tarrantino) reference thrown in there, probably thanks to the presence of Tim Roth. Referencing each of these films is a nice touch, and one that will make a movie fan smile, but it also manages to point out that this new version of Big Green is not as good as each and every one of these films. I don’t usually like references in films, unless they’re inter-references between linked ones (like the final scene which I won’t ruin), because linking to a film so obviously better than your own does nothing but bring your movie down. And then there’s the misplaced romantic sub-plot. Liv Tyler is not my favourite actress, and that’s not just because of the restraining order. Her scenes carry a drama about them that seems misplaced, as if twenty minutes of Love, Actually has managed to sneak into the middle of an all-out action film. There are many, many superhero films where the romantic part of it is the worst bit, including Batman Begins (2005, Chris Nolan) and all three Spider-Man films. Needless to say, Hulk’s Tyler-Norton love story tops that list, because the two of them have little to no chemistry, and neither of them seem to be committed to that particular part of the film. You don’t care about their pay-off, and wish they’d just get it over with so we can get to some more Hulk Smash. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that Tyler had more chemistry with the CGI than she did with Norton. As I’ve already suggested, the Incredible Hulk shines when we move into the action scenes. The initial, opening-credits montage didn’t fill me with the greatest confidence. It did seem like something from a camp 80s TV show, but once we move away from the 1st person perspective we get to see a raw intensity that rivals any fight scene ever made in a superhero movie. In particular, there’s a scene slap bang in the middle that stems from a Banner-Ross romantic encounter (just as I was slumping off). In the grounds of a university, we get a scene that involves, in no particular order: Matrix-esque slo-mo, Car doors used for shields and weapons, a Helicopter being blown up, a Hulk-out, a freak-out and more [bloodless] deaths than you can shake a fist at. At one point, William Hurt’s power-driven General shouts out “move him towards the cannons!” Forget psychobabble or mythos, this is why people come to see a Hulk movie. But despite the fact that the Incredible Hulk is more about Hulk Smash than psychoanalysis, there is a running theme. And, in my view, it’s of Assurances. All four of our major characters have has assurances made to them that haven’t been kept. Banner was lied to about the true meaning behind his experiments, and has had his good will and book smarts turned against him because of bravery. Elizabeth has been lied to about Bruce, and his true destiny. The General has been lied to about almost everything by his superiors, which has painted a picture in his mind that power is the only thing that really matters. And Blonsky has been lied to about his place in the scheme of things. He’s not an innovator, he’s a guinea pig. Basically, the Incredible Hulk asks us about trust, about the credibility of the assurances we get in our own life, and the reliability of the sources they come from. So, Hulk’s main competition (Dark Knight excluded, because that’s in a league of its own) is Jon Favreau’s very different Iron Man. And how does it come up against it? Pretty well. They’re both similar films, with our hero going up against something much better or stronger than he is, but still a version of him. Both films point out the ambiguity of the notion of a hero, and both question the intelligence in putting all of your faith in this one person – especially when this person is as flawed as the rest of us. When we’re concentrating on the comedy and the humour (Hulk has two funny lines; “you won’t like me when I’m... hungry”, and “why do you keep hitting people?!”), Iron Man runs away with the competition. But for the action? Big Green easily supersedes his Iron-clad brother, with fight scenes that make Iron Man’s final battle seem like a fight that involves cuddly, old Jeff Bridges. In truth, they’re both pretty good, but for very different reasons. Another similarity between Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk is that its worse performance comes from its female lead (as mentioned earlier), and that its best two come from its hero and arch-villain. Edward Norton’s script is patchy, but his performance is excellent. He never, to me at least, seemed like the correct choice to play the Hulk, but it works. He’s adept at playing Bruce, the social paranoia and the feeling that he’s a pariah being heavy influences on his performances. With the Hulk, it’s not really his job, more that of the CGI technicians and Lou Ferringo (who has not so much a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo as a fall-asleep-and-wake-up-half-hour-later-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo), who provides the voice. Superseding even Norton is Tim Roth, who delivers a hammy-yet-brilliant performance as his arch-nemesis and military mastermind Emil Blonsky. Maybe in the last two minutes, before the transformation, his tough-guy persona does begin to grate, but up until that moment its top notch stuff from a top notch actor. In essence, the Incredible Hulk is two different films crammed into one. One is brilliant, and the other is awful, and they both seem to balance each other out. As with Iron Man, Hulk v2.0 lends itself to suggest a sequel would be a good move, and therefore the Avengers seems like a fantastic move. The Avengers will need to give its time to the heroes, and hence won’t have dodgy romance (hopefully, it won’t feature a WAGs subplot), and will pack Hulk’s punch but capture Stark’s sense of humour. It’s also great how they’re building it throughout the other creations, and it appears that the Avengers may just be another movie that everyone can’t wait to see. Only another three years to go. Verdict When Hulk uses his brawn, this is exponentially better than Iron Man and up there with the best comic book movies. However, when it gets down to romantic parts and the “comedic” quips, it’s a sour disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2008 12:10
|
|
|
Norton wasn't at his finest here, but this is a tough role to take on. What is especially attractive about Banner's character? No one really cares about his human form, we want the transformed Hulk. He isn't the charismatic, fast talking Tony Stark who gets by on his wit and intelligence, he's a regular nerdy guy that transforms into a beast that yells "HULK SMASH", you know. Not too much depth there, other than the whole "I must control my anger" angle. The plot devices used to provoke Banner's rage were a bit weak. I think he did about as good a job as the part warranted. Marvel really played up the love story angle, because it is good business and a guaranteed sell in the box office. Unrequited love is about as old a Hollywood theme as Hollywood itself. Nothing new to report here. Still, I felt sympathy for Norton's character, at least. The action scenes were mostly terrific. I especially liked how in the beginning, initially the Hulk lurked in shadows and it was mostly his silhouette that we saw destroying the factory. I had kind of hoped that the action would be more geared toward the ambiguous first action sequence. The college campus scene was a little outrageous, however. The final battle was definitely the money shot of the film. If you watch the credits, I'll bet you half of that staff was there just for that sequence. Cinematography was spot on. Gorgeous helicopter shots, both of expansive cityscapes and landscapes. Some of the locations they filmed at are incredibly beautiful. Was not expecting this in a summer Blockbuster film. 3D modelers did a much better job of animating and portraying Hulk, since I actually didn't laugh when I saw his face unlike the Ang Lee film. He's still cartoonish in this film without being too ridiculous. As a final note, Tim Roth delivers big here, he's probably the strongest part of the cast. This is about as good a film as I thought it would be. 3/5 Jedah fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jul 7, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2008 16:44
|
|
|
What an utter waste of $125M and great cgi, makeup, and acting talent. Completely lacks substance and feels like a new low in Hollywood cynicism. Never have I seen a movie so obviously contrived with no purpose other than to exist as an opportunity for future franchise crossovers... Could have been very good, technically the film was solid, the tone was really great, but seriously, nothing happens in this kids movie. Nothing. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2008 14:57
|
|
|
The Incredible Hulk isn't a reboot but you can tell Hollywood executives sat around and decided that this time they were going to put as much action in it as possible. Because you know action = $ in their reptilian brains. Unfortunately, that's the only thing in Incredible Hulk that is notably superior to Ang Lee's Hulk. The acting in this one is hammy and forced. When you watch Edward Norton as Bruce Banner you just see him as Edward Norton. He could be the same character as the one in the Illusionist for all you could tell. Same thing with Liv Tyler and Tim Roth. It's paint by the numbers acting, sleepwalking through another paycheck. The CGI is not really that much of an improvement over Hulk (2003) but the action sequences are. This time you get to see Hulk in all his glory smashing up the city and tossing aside humvees. This sounds great until you notice Hulk still looks incredibly rubbery at times. There were moments in the film (including the climactic action scene) where he resembles a Dreamwork's animated character from a children's film. Maybe that's who the intended audience for the Incredible Hulk was? Anyways, it's disappointing but worth a rental I suppose. The best part is the last 15 minutes of the movie. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2008 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
I went in with low expectations after the last spectacular incarnation of our fine Mr. Hulk. I am a huge fan of Edward Norton so i was thrilled to hear that he was playing the green giant. He lived up to my expectations and i enjoyed this movie for the most part. That's where Liv Tyler comes in. I do not appreciate her work at all, and her forced dialogue and dry emotions seemed to ruin my summer-blockbuster experience. Which is exactly what the Incredible Hulk was, a summer action movie. If you hold it to expectations of other summer action movies like Transformers, it actually holds up pretty well. But in this No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood world we live in, the Incredible Hulk deserves a 3/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2008 16:39
|
|
