I read a critics review, my response

Rating: 8/10 (22 June 2008)

Incredible Hulk 2008 review: a response Critics of Hulk 2008
Does have spoilers
TIH is a very entertaining it just leaves itself open to nitpicking and vitriol assaults. Basically I put this down not to the creative team behind the project, but to the people who financed it and cut out no less than 70 minutes of the back story, just so as to rush to the action scenes. The problem with this is, many who went to watch this movie don't have a prior investment in the character, so where I could see between the poorly edited hodge podge of scenes the potential for a really sensitive, engrossing and moving portrayal of the tragedy of Banner's lonely tormented, existence, the film itself rushes to quickly through these points for some to really grasp Bruce Banners charm. Unfortunately in the shadow of the witty, quipping Tony Stark, Bruce's on screen persona isn't given quite enough time to develop.
Having said that Ed Norton is just brilliant as the tortured alter ego to the Hulk, he really taps into the pathos and simple dignity of this tragic hero. Certainly injecting far more humanity into Banner than Eric Bana's rather phlegmatic approach to the character. He really does give the Banner role the kind of elevated dignity that Bill Bixby added to the role. I wish we could have seen more of this performance. (There is one criticism of the portrayal of Banner which is more to do with the writing; it's like the writers just forgot he's one of the most brilliant scientists in the marvel universe. There could have been more reference and use of this in the script. It really is central to Banner's character.) Another notable, but again underdeveloped character is Tim Roths Emil Blonsky. I've got to be honest I loved the Hulk comic growing up, but the one thing I always thought Hulk was missing was a decent villain. A brilliant villain for me is premised on two things 1, there has to be a level to which you understand or relate to the villain's temptation by evil or malevolence and 2, none the less you have to understand why they must be stopped. Now characters like Lex Luther or The Joker are perfect examples of such villains; one immediately recognises Lex Luther's quest for ultimate knowledge as inherently human, or, one can relate to the mirthful twisted mind of the joker, who is just an extreme reaction to the equally insane and theatrical vigilantism of batman. But what about Abomination? How do you relate to a guy who wants to become a big mutant freak like Emil Blonsky? The truth is you can't, but Tim Roth puts in such a good performance that by the end you see him as both cool and by some weird perverted logic actually relate to his quest for Hulks power. I really think he is the outstanding performance in the whole ensemble.
Liv Tyler is under used but again in this role its not so much her acting that is outstanding, than the fact that Liv actually just inhabits important aspects of Betty Ross, a certain maternal care, a child like kindness which resonates with her response to the Hulk and the chemistry with Ed Norton is quite refreshing. It's not quite as ultra quippy and Hollywood as Ironman's main romance, which gave it a level of heart felt realism. Nonetheless her performance is jarring in places, and the scene where Betty and Banner are staring at the ceiling is funny, because it is made so obvious that even Ed Norton's eyes are better actors than Liv Tyler.
William Hurt's performance as Thunderbolt Ross has its awkward moments, but nonetheless, again he manages to pull off a rather dastardly General, and even gets a laugh or shudder at his maniacal persona every once in a while. Tim Blake Nelson does his best but his role really is awfully generic and I believe the let down of the whole piece. However luckily he's not in it that much.
Another surprise is Louis Letterier's directing. Its great because it feels like Ed Norton had a lot of control over the drama; but Letterier really knows his action scenes and they are surprisingly refreshing and while there are obvious homages to genres like horror etc he really makes the action scenes and some of the CG heavy scenes both aesthetically note worthy and some of the best action spectacles in the comic genre. Apart from Roth, the Hulk himself, directed by Louis is the stand out performance in this movie. The first Hulk fight is really testimony to this.
The only other criticism I have of the film is the Tony Stark cameo. It just seems like an add on, rather than a really well though out and integral part of the plot.
All in all this is still one of the best comic-adaptations out there; much better performances than in the spider man or X-men series, far better than Ghost rider and fantastic four, perhaps not quite as consistent as Iron Man however it even outshines in places that much lauded and perhaps overrated movie, definitely not in the league of the Matrix, Blade, Batman Begins or V for Vendetta. However it does have better action scenes than the latter two, and, if we had seen the full movie rather than the studio execs "safe version", well who knows? The critics say this movie is generic, the CG bad, there's no character development etc. Some of you sceptics who hated the first movie will listen to this and wait to rent or perhaps catch it on TV and when you do you will realise you've missed a movie that was truly meant to be seen on the big screen.