Average; the beginning of the inevitable decline of the superhero genre

Rating: 6/10 (18 October 2008)

If the most commonly remembered generalization of the film output of the 1980's is teen comedies with synthesized soundtracks, the 2000's will be most remembered and generalized as the decade of the comic book movies. I have no specific qualms with the genre, quite the contrary: I think there are a handful of superhero films that are conversely at the top of their game and major recent plus points for the action-adventure genre, and this Summer also brought us the genre's greatest output, The Dark Knight. Great films like Batman Begins, X2 and Spider-Man 2 were countered by pretty lousy adaptations like Elektra and Fantastic Four, but it is The Incredible Hulk, I think, that signifies the beginning of the end for the genre.
The movie itself isn't really bad by any means at all, certainly not like Fantastic Four. Much effort has been put into both production value and telling a quality story while avoiding camp and cheesiness. Special effects are top-notch and there are plenty of grand, crowd-pleasing set pieces and action sequences that really keep the ball rolling. On the other hand, an effort has been made to attempt to keep the movie in a semi-realistic setting: sure, there are fantastical elements such as gene-altering radiation, superhuman creatures like Hulk and Abomination, far-fetched and fantastical military technology and other such things, but like Spider-Man 2 these factors are regulated to a realistic setting, avoiding the camp and altogether silliness that abound films such as Joel Schumacher's Batman films or Elektra. Marvel's taking over of their film properties and self-producing the blockbusters seems to indicate an increase in the quality of the productions, as the Marvel producers take pride in their creations, treat them with respect and take them very seriously.
As with this summer's Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk has also managed to attract to itself a major star who is not usually associated with this type of work and who takes it seriously. Edward Norton brings a little something else to the table, and it is evident that he tries his best to do the most with the Bruce Banner character and make him as believable and accessible as possible, without much success as the script basically requires him to sleepwalk through the Banner scenes as preludes to the centerpiece Hulk sequences. The rest of the supporting cast are strong as well, with such heavyweights as William Hurt and Tim Roth rounding it all out and bringing in their own signature styles and commanding presences.
Hollywood has already attempted to bring Marvel's Hulk character to the big screen once before, resulting in one of the most polarizing comic book movies ever made. Some people can't stand a minute of Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk movie, while others praise it and see its merit through the flaws. I belong in the second group, and furthermore feel like the two Hulk movies really complete one another. While Ang Lee's film was indefinitely flawed, both in its special effects work and in its ridiculously over-the-top set pieces that really took away from the experience, from a Hulk poodle attack to the terrible final showdown with Nick Nolte's villain. But on the other hand, the characterization and character development in the film was among the strongest of any superhero movie yet. Banner was made out as someone out of a Shakespearian tragedy  wrongfully accused, misunderstood, thrust into a situation against his will. He is not exhilarated from his powers but rather afraid, mortified of them. We are also treated to the revelation that Bruce and Betty Ross' relationship revolves around their both having fathers they couldn't count on, although both of their fathers are featured in the film and are shown as caring and compassionate as well as monstrous and abusive.
On the other hand, Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk serves as an anti-thesis to Lee's film. While Lee's film was weak on the action scenes, Leterrier's film excels in them, portraying them as realistic, gritty and thrilling, and avoiding camp altogether. Unfortunately, this seems to come at the expense of character development, even though Edward Norton really tries his best to up the ante.
Now, I would like to bring this back to my initial point, and explain why The Incredible Hulk marks the beginning of the inevitable decline of the superhero comic book adaptation genre. While Iron Man benefited from a sense of fun and Robert Downey, Jr.'s irresistible charm, and The Dark Knight was something in a completely different league, The Incredible Hulk, which was released in theatres right between the two other comic book juggernauts, comes across as frightfully run-of-the-mill: good, well-made, but bringing absolutely nothing new to the table. With Marvel studios lining up feature films for Thor, Captain America, Ant-Man and Nick Fury, as well as one massive The Avengers film bringing together all their independently produced film characters, it can very easily be seen that unless each film takes a completely unique standpoint and brings something really special and new to the table, they will all start feeling redundant really fast and really soon. Also, what after The Avengers? There aren't nearly enough comic book superheroes to bankroll endless comic book adaptation films, and there can only be so many sequels  both the X-Men and Spider-Man franchises crashed-and-burned whatever quality they had by film 3, Superman is already washed up, Christopher Nolan probably won't make any more than one more Batman film, and who knows how successful Marvel's upcoming, lesser-known superhero movies will fare. The Incredible Hulk, featuring a fairly universally known hero, didn't fare too well at the box office, which leaves the future of the genre, at least in my opinion, pretty clear.