First off, I won't give a spoiler warning for this review. I'm sure everyone's seen both Hulk films already, so I won't bother warning about the possible spoilers in the review. ;) Anyways, on to the actual review...
The original
Hulk film, directed by Ang Lee and starring Eric Bana, came out in 2003 to mixed/negative reviews and was a bomb at the box office. While not getting near as bad reception as films such as
Batman & Robin,
Fantastic Four,
X-Men 3 or even
Daredevil and
Batman Forever, it's still considered a very weak film in the genre. But does it deserve the hate?
Hulk begins with Bruce Banner's childhood, with his DNA being radiated by gamma radiation, as well as the death of his mother and his being sent to a foster home believing both parents are dead. Years later, while testing on animals, Banner's frustrations/stress (combined with the gamma) led to his being transformed into the Hulk. After smashing his way from the lab, he becomes wanted by the military, and the movie also focuses heavily on Banner's relationship with Betty Ross.
Right off the bat, the biggest problem with
Hulk is its very slow pace. While leaving plenty of room for most of the characters to breathe, it lacks almost completely of action until the second half of the film. Only a handful of times does the Hulk go on a rampage, and it's pretty cool seeing him jump around the Grand Canyon and other places. As stated before, the film focuses heavily on Banner's relationship with Gen. Thunderbolt Ross's daughter, Betty, and Ang Lee does a pretty good job depicting the relationship. Speaking of the action, another (although mostly minor) flaw is the lack of a more challenging villain for the Hulk. The most menacing villains are...gamma-radiated dogs? Other than them, the only threat to Hulk in this movie is Ross and his army. It would've been awesome if the film depicted a villain like The Leader or even Abomination to give Hulk a run for his money, but they decided to keep the military as the primary antagonists.
Another major flaw with the movie is the actual depiction of Hulk himself. They did a good job making him look a lot like Bana, but otherwise he looked like crap. The CGI used on him made him look as if he was made of clay, and even his screams didn't sound very convincing (in his first transformation scene, he randomly threw his arms in the air and screamed crazily). The explosions were cool, as was Hulk throwing a few people around, but otherwise the film's version of the main character is completely forgettable.
So what are the redeeming qualities for
Hulk? Well, some of the casting was rather spot-on. Jennifer Connelly is excellent as leading lady Betty Ross, doing an even better job than I originally expected. Nick Nolte's great as the elder Banner, while Eric Bana and Sam Elliot are decent (though not especially standing out) as Bruce Banner and Thunderbolt Ross, respectively. Also, Ang Lee seemed to be going for a good story here, but for some reason isn't executed near as well as it could've been. Maybe it's the somewhat dodgy script, but most of the characters are given enough time to breathe. In the end,
Hulk feels more like a drama than an action film, and its slow pace and somewhat average script (as well as the mediocre CGI) detract what could've been a great movie.
Fast forward to 2008, and we have another Hulk film. Marvel Studios bought the rights back after
Hulk's mixed/negative reception (although Universal still distributed the reboot), and began fresh with
The Incredible Hulk, directed by Louis Leterrier and starring Edward Norton. Thankfully, the newer
Hulk ignores what happened with the first film (except it does kinda loosely follow the prior film's events; the original
Hulk ended in Brazil and
Incredible Hulk began with Banner in the same country), being grounded in the then-newly-formed Marvel Cinematic Universe. But is it a more worthy film for Marvel's Green Giant?
First off, the CGI for the movie is a complete improvement from Ang Lee's film. While not perfect, Leterrier's Hulk looks more ripped, more realistic, and more menacing than Lee's take. The CGI for Abomination is also great, and the film is much more action-packed than the prior movie. While
Hulk was more of a drama than an action superhero film,
The Incredible Hulk is a much better fit for the genre, while still handling character development perfectly.
The acting is also a step-up from the first film. Edward Norton (who was interested in the role for the 2003 film, but was turned off by the script) was fantastic as Dr. Banner, while Liv Tyler was as good as Connelly before her (if not better than) as Betty Ross. Tim Roth was great as Emil Blonsky/Abomination, and William Hurt is perfect as Thunderbolt Ross. Robert Downey Jr's cameo as Tony Stark at the film's end was seriously brilliant, and it was a great stepping stone for the developing MCU.
While it's hard to think of a single flaw with
The Incredible Hulk, something about it doesn't make it as strong as Marvel Studios' other films (such as
Iron Man and recent films
Thor and
Captain America: TFA). Maybe it's because Hulk isn't as deep of a character as say, Iron Man or Captain America. Regardless,
The Incredible Hulk is a vast improvement from 2003's
Hulk, and it'll be interesting to see where Marvel goes to continue this story (and best of wishes to Mark Ruffalo as he transforms into the not-so-Jolly Green Giant).
I rate
Hulk 3 out of 5 stars, and
The Incredible Hulk 4 out of 5 stars.