Review: ‘The Incredible Hulk’

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Vinnie Bartilucci says:

    I had a friend who used to write for Fangoria. Every time we saw film, his reaction would usually be along the lines of "it was good but it wasn't GREAT". And by "great" he meant, something that challenged the medium, something that made films as a whole better.Did I mention he wrote for Fangoria?I fear that like many did for Indy 4, people expect every comic film to be this paradigm-shifting event that will change the general public's view of what comic books are. And in return they get…a move with a superhero in it. And that somehow disappoints them.So while "perfectly fine" is just dandy for a lot of people, a lot of comic fans will only pick out the negatives, grousing that they didn't do x, y, or z "right", and generally cast aspersions on the film. And if it should actually become a HIT, even with those flagrant missteps, well, that's just proof that the public doesn't know what "good" is.Elayne said it the other day on the way to dinner; "It'll never match the picture in your head". The sooner people realize that, and grasp that there are other interpretations of the character, or book, or whatever, the better you'll likely enjoy the film, and the sooner we'll enjoy your company afterwards

  2. Mike Gold says:

    I'm fine with TIH not being as swell as IM. That was the high water mark for superhero movies over the past four years; I'm happy that it's as good as it is. It's my understanding that eventually the DVD release will contain the cut footage to which you refer. The "Actor's Cut," perhaps? Rumor has it the extra footage adds a mere hour or more to the movie. At that length, I'm awaiting the sequel: Napoleon Smash!

  3. Michael H. Price says:

    Most enlightening, Matt. Thanks. Similar take from this corner on THE INCREDIBLE HULK, which beyond its own merits 'n' debits must heft such baggage as (1) immediate comparisons with IRON MAN (yep, a superior film and still playing to packed weekend houses, at least in this Southwestern metro area), and (2) a lingering aftertaste of Ang Lee's overintellectualized HULK of 2003.No guesswork here whether all that excised footage would have elevated the new film from good to great or maybe even transcendent. A story for another day, or DVD, whichever comes first. The performances are nonetheless smart and engaging (the crix appear mixed as to whether Tim Roth's villainy is just right or overplayed; I dig that seething Grand Manner style, myself). And Edward Norton establishes Banner's torments with efficiency.The "bookend" structure, with its anchoring battle-roy-alley sequences at either end, sublimates the dramatic exposition, but the brisk running time and the cut-to-the-chase pacing fill the bill nicely for a spot of summertime popcorn-movie escapism. And here's to all those "merely good" movies.

  4. Martha Thomases says:

    I didn't hate the Ang Lee film. Yeah, monster poodles are silly, but I liked the angst-y stuff.

  5. Mark Torres/MFC Stud says:

    I thought it was interestiing that the first few minutes of the film was like "this is how the first hulk movie should have been". 'Cause this film does feel like a sequel, but to a different Hulk movie!

  6. Michael H. Price says:

    Here's the link to our Business Press review: