A pale shadow of Ange Lee's infinitely superior version.

Rating: 3/10 (13 June 2008)

Ang Lee's version had the nuances of a classic Greek tragedy. And, in the end, that's what superheroes are: they're the modern day equivalent of the Greek and Norse Gods of ancient times. We don't love Superman just because he can fly and lift heavy things. We love him because he is a symbol of the best in humankind, and yet also suffers from the same doubts, fears and unrequited love that plague us mere mortals. Superheroes are supposed to be fun, yes. But it does not have to be "turn off your brain" fun. But, then . . . "turn off your brain" fun has its place. While being painfully aware of its cheesy weaknesses, I had a great deal of fun with "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer", and even confess a great fondness for Joel Schumacher's "Batman Forever". But that's just it: The Incredible Hulk, as directed by Louis Letterier, was not that much fun.
The new film is not a "Batman Begins"-style reboot as was long rumored. No, it's actually more akin in many ways to "Batman Forever" (though Letterier does use the opening credits to set up a slightly different version of the origin story than we saw in the previous film). We open with Bruce Banner (now played by Edward Norton) on the run from the government, who wants to use his alter ego, the Hulk, as a weapon. The government forces are lead by hard as nails, blood and guts, shoot first and later, cigar-eating General William "Thunderbolt" Ross, played by . . . William Hurt? Seriously? WILLIAM FREAKING HURT. The ultimate stuffed shirt. The man who put the "ass" in "pomp-ass" (we know it's not spelled or pronounced that way, but in Hurt's case, it should be). As a piece of casting, this is akin to watching Kelsey Grammar portray a rodeo cowboy. It just doesn't work. In Hurt's defense, he does provide the film with its greatest moments of tension: we wait with baited breath to see if his mustache is going to fall off. But the smug self-satisfaction he seems to be taking in his own overracting makes his performance unbearable. And it doesn't help that most of his scenes are with Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky, a soldier with Captain Ahab-like obsession with defeating the Hulk, but an annoying tendency to slouch and shuffle like a 1920's Jazz musician with his shoes on the wrong feet when he walks. Roth, after his Academy Award nominated turn in the underrated Rob Roy, underwent some sort of bizarre religious conversion and gave up his talent for lent. Hurt and Roth are engaged in a titanic struggle to see who can chew the scenery more egregiously. No one wins, but the audience certainly loses.
Banner, desperately seeking a cure for his condition, is lead back to his lost love, General Ross' daughter Betty (Liv Tyler). Norton and Tyler have an easy, breezy charisma that Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly may have lacked in those roles, but do not approach the same level of depth. And, besides, far too little of the film focuses on them. This is one of those comic book films that seems more interested in the villains than the heroes, but we're not talking Jack Nicholson as the Joker here. We're not even talking Scott Paulin as the Red Skull. We're talking WILLIAM *^@$# HURT AS . . . sorry. That was just a piece of casting that really didn't work for me.
But the bottom line is, after two-time Academy Award Winner Lee's cerebral human drama failed to connect with mass audiences, the goal here was not to delve deeply into the characters, but instead to provide a series of exciting action set pieces. The was supposed to be the "hulk Smash" version, and I went in embracing that and prepared to enjoy it on its own merits. After all, I've been arguing since 2003 that Universal Pictures and Marvel Studios were foolish to jump to the conclusion that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon made Ang Lee an action director. That film featured eye-popping fight scenes, but in its heart and soul wasn't that far removed from Lee's previous Oscar-nominee Sense and Sensibility.
But Letterier's direction makes one yearn for the steady hand of Brett Ratner or Mark Steven Johnson. It was as if Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay chose to band together and combine weaknesses. And darn it if Ang Lee didn't give us much better action sequences. Truth be told, while there may be more action senes in this film, in terms of quality, they don't even come close.
This is not a film that is likely to make anyone desperate to have two hours of their lives back. It's not terrible. It's just . . . really not very good.