Marvel's most underrated movie

Rating: 8/10 (7 May 2016)

with whom I am most familiar, albeit through the 1970s live-action series and the 1990s animated one. The film is great fun from start to finish. It may not have the same level of characterisation as its predecessor "Iron Man" but I thought that the action scenes were more entertaining and the pacing was considerably better. The script is well written by Zak Penn and the star Edward Norton (uncredited in this capacity) and Louis Leterrier directs the film with style. It's a shame that the Hulk has gone on to become the Marvel Cinematic Universe's answer to the Wolf Man in that he got one film (the 2003 version notwithstanding) and then only showed up in crossover films rather than getting a sequel to himself. The film had great potential for a proper sequel but I don't really see it happening at this stage.
Norton is extremely good as Bruce Banner who, in this version of events, was exposed to gamma radiation deliberately in a failed attempt by the US military to revive its World War II super-soldier project, something which would later be explored on screen in much more detail in "Captain America: The First Avenger". I generally prefer superheroes with powers as opposed to non-powered ones and the thing that I always liked about the Hulk's storyline is that there is a great sense of inner conflict. The Hulk represents the primitive, bestial side of human nature and is, in that sense, a throwback to our distant ancestors while Banner represents the better angels of our nature. We all have to struggle with the more primitive parts of us at times, though not quite so literally. However, the line is blurred somewhat in the film as the Hulk is not as animalistic as in other versions. The script does not allow Norton the same opportunity as Robert Downey, Jr. to play a character who grows and develops over the course of the film. However, he gives a great, understated performance and I always felt that the Hulk was just beneath the surface, waiting to manifest himself. I'm rather disappointed that this was Norton's only outing in the role.
Betty Ross, played well by Liv Tyler, is not quite as strong a character as I would have liked but she is much better than Pepper Potts in "Iron Man". Betty is extremely intelligent, kind, brave, resourceful and loyal. It is obvious from the beginning why Bruce is attracted to her. Speaking of which, their romantic moments seemed a great deal more realistic and heartfelt than those between Tony and Pepper in "Iron Man" and I am including the very sweet scene in which she calms down the Hulk in that. Bruce and Betty seem much more evenly managed and suited to each other, frankly. Tim Roth is as creepy and effective as you would expect as the Russian-born British Royal Marines officer Emil Blonsky but I would have preferred a better actor than the decent but not great William Hurt as General Ross. Tim Blake Nelson is great as Samuel Sterns and Ty Burrell has a nice cameo role as Betty's new boyfriend Leonard Samson. In a refreshing move, the film avoids the obvious cliché of making the other man in the love triangle a complete ass. Leonard is a nice, decent guy.
The CGI in the film is very good if not quite state of the art by 2008 standards. It is at its most impressive during the hugely entertaining climactic battle between the Hulk and the mutated Blonsky. The Hulk looked better in the nighttime scenes than in the daytime ones. It was a good idea from a dramatic point of view that the Hulk's manifestations were relatively few and far between. I appreciated the somewhat light-hearted atmosphere of the film and the references to the 1970s TV series, most notably Lou Ferrigno's cameo as a security guard - he also provided the voice of the Hulk - and the clip of Bill Bixby, a lovely tribute to the late actor who is more associated with the role of David Banner (what's in a name?) than anyone else.
Overall, this is a very enjoyable films which film rollicks along at a great pace and does not take itself too seriously.