"The Incredible Hulk (2008)" reviewed by someone who liked "The Hulk (2003)"

I saw the new Hulk film yesterday, "The Incredible Hulk". While reviews have been plentiful, I thought I'd offer my own review as someone who actually liked the first major-screen effort at Bruce Banner's story, the 2003 Ang Lee film "The Hulk".

Yes, I liked the 2003 Hulk. (You can watch a trailer for that film here). As someone who read Marvel comics fanatically c. 1986/7, I know enough about the Hulk to know that the film took wide liberties with Bruce Banner's back story. But I thought the end result mostly justified the means, even if I had trouble seeing the point of a plot featuring "Hulk dogs" and Nick Nolte as a man obsessed with "power" in the least-concrete sense possible (in fairness, the latter trait is shared by far too many villains in superhero films). On the plus side, Lee did an amazing job casting the Hulk story for what it is: a tragedy about a man consumed by forces beyond his control. In Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, and Sam Elliott, he assembled a stellar cast that in itself highlighted a recurring problem with other recent Marvel-based films like "Daredevil"and "The Fantastic Four". Bana in particular gave root to the Hulk's innate loneliness and made his lifetime of tragedies believable. While the film had plenty of action, it was perceived as "too cerebral", and despite fairly impressive box office returns, the general public got the impression that "The Hulk (2003)" was a failure. That's a shame, because it's probably the best Marvel-based film yet aside from "Spider-Man 2", and it's unquestionably superior to unwatchable dreck like 2005's "The Fantastic Four", which nonetheless generated a sequel.

At the end of "The Hulk", Bruce Banner is last seen hiding out in the rain forests of South America. At the beginning of "The Incredible Hulk", Banner is now living in the slums of Rio -- also located in South America -- and that's the only connection you'll find with the previous Hulk film. All three principals have been repaced (General Ross now played by William Hurt; Betty Ross -- now going by "Elizabeth" -- by Liv Tyler; and most notably as Banner), and in fact the entire origin story of "The Hulk" is wiped out during the opening credits with a new origin story closer in nature to the 1970s television show starring Bill Bixby* than the original Marvel storyline. Banner spends his time working a bottling plant, practicing Portugese by watching reruns of "The Courtship of Eddie's Father" (among other things), and working to suppress his inner Hulk. He's also trading emails with a researcher, "Mr. Blue", who thinks he may be able to "cure" Banner. This plotline drives banner back to the US, back to his old lab, back to Betty, and back into conflict with General Ross and the US army. Ross, meanwhile, wants to study Banner to help develop a team of "super-soldiers". As the film progresses, a mercenary with a bone to pick with Banner named Emil Blonsky gets the opportunity to become a "super-soldier", with unpleasant results for everyone involved (especially the neighborhood of Harlem -- there go many years of urban planning and gentrification).

Marvel is taking fewer chances with this film. Aside from Betty's difficult relationship with her Hulk-hunting father, there's no overt Oedipal complex underpinning this effort (Banner's family is never even mentioned); instead, it's all leading up to the near-standard super-powered showdown on the streets of New York City - just like any of the Spider-Man films**, "Daredevil", "The Fantastic Four", multiple X-Men films, etc. Along the way, we get a few pitched battles between the military and the Hulk. Unlike the last film, Hulk seems more inclined to fight than flee. He also seems to have more self-control than in the previous film, and manages to speak a few lines along the way. When the film ends, we're left with the possibility that Banner may actually be gaining control over his future transformations.

One of the biggest criticisms of the first Hulk film was that the CGI was poor. It's true that the Hulk looks a bit better this time -- his skin and famous shorts are both more natural -- but honestly, neither looks all that realistic. Good moviegoers still need to be able to suspend their disbelief for a few hours. (Incidentally, why did reviewers give the 2003 CGI Hulk such a tough time, while never remarking on the unbelievably fake troll & Harry combo in the first Harry Potter film?). You can see a short Reelz piece featuring clips from both films here. I thought Jennifer Connelly was a highlight of the last film, so I had low expectations for Liv Tyler, but she turns in a strong performance, as does Norton. Sam Elliott is missed; while Hurt does a decent job as General Ross, he doesn't carry the same gravitas, although some of this is no doubt due to a less believable modus operandi when compared to the previous film (he spends the film hunting Hulk, but after capturing him almost instantly frees him to fight Blonsky, now raging about as the Abomination. If you consider how many times he's eagerly sent the military against the Hulk in ultimately futile operations, it's not credible how quickly he decides that the only way to beat the Abomination is to send the Hulk in against him).

So -- does the 2008 Hulk film beat the 2003 Hulk film? My conclusion: No. The 2008 film definitely hews much more closely to the successful formula used by Marvel films in the last decade and looks and feels closer to the Hulk of comic-book fame and the Hulk of the 1970s TV series. Those aren't bad things, and they make for an enjoyable, well-structured film. But the 2003 film is something else entirely -- a more adult, more thoughtful, more ambitious film. In many ways, "The Hulk (2003)" was "ahead of its time", an expression that -- a college friend once observed -- really just means it wasn't popular.

* Bill Bixby was a great actor. Who else could make an absurd scene like this tense?

** The first Spider-Man film concludes not on the streets of New York City, or at a well-known landmark like the Statue of Liberty, but in what must certainly be Roosevelt Island's spooky Smallpox Hospital. It's never identified as such, but the geography makes sense.