Better than the first movie (which actually wasn't that bad, you know?)

Rating: 8/10 (6 August 2008)

Let me start off by saying that Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk is NOT a bad movie. In fact, as of writing it has 5.1 rating on IMDb and an critical approval of 61% on Rotten Tomatoes (this one is currently at 65%). Ang Lee did a lot of cool stuff in his film and had a talented cast, Eric Bana was good as Bruce Banner. Overall however, the Ang Lee film suffered from being too ambitious and overly complicated, and simply not being what the audience expected. The audience went in expecting to see "Hulk smash", and got a more cerebral film than they expected, even though there was still plenty of action (Hulk did swing tanks around after all!). It is true however that action scenes in Hulk weren't the coolest, which also contributed to the negative reputation it enjoys.
The Incredible Hulk writer Zak Penn (also responsible for X-Men 2 & 3, Elektra and Behind Enemy Lines), director Louis Letterier (of the Luc Besson productions Transporter 1 & 2 and Danny The Dog/Unleashed) and actor Edward Norton (who contributed greatly to the screenplay, though he is uncredited) took the complaints over Ang Lee's film into account and aren't overly concerned with continuity in this sequel. It is mentioned that 5 years have passed and the film starts in Brasil while Lee's film ends there, but the origin of Hulk is changed in the opening credits to resemble more the famous 70s TV series (references to said series abound).
The film is more fast-paced than Lee's effort, and while there actually isn't that much more action here (both films have 3 main action scenes), it is certainly better-made and definitely cooler. The story is certainly less cerebral but it's not a throwaway either. There are characters here, and they do go through something. As for people criticizing the CGI, well that just baffles me...just hows realistic do you expect a green muscled giant stomping around to be? The effects of the 2003 movie were already very good and they're even better here. They could have done a few things slightly better interaction-wise, true, but they're still very good.
In addition, I love how Marvel movies are starting to reference each other (we have here references to Nick Fury/S.H.I.E.L.D., Tony Stark/Stark Industries, the Avengers and Captain America). This is way cool and I wish they could it for characters whose rights are owned by other companies, such as Fox, Columbia or New Line. Stan Lee's cameo is probably his best one yet and the Lou Ferrigno appearance is way cool. The guy who voiced the Hulk in one of the animated series also appears, as does Bill Bixby, indirectly.
Almost as good as Iron Man, this 2008 Hulk enters the hall of the best Marvel movies along with Blade 1, the first two X-Men, Iron Man, Spider-Man 1 and The Punisher "2004 version" (yes, I love The Punisher), and succeeds in bettering Ang Lee's underrated movie. With great action and the cool factor in spades, The Incredible Hulk should satisfy all your action blockbuster needs and leave you wanting to see Hulk smash some more. The only minor gripes I have with it are the unnecessary retconning of Lee's movie and the fact that I sincerely doubt that they asked any cast member of the first film if they wanted to return (I definitely would have preferred Jennifer Connelly reprising her role to Liv Tyler stepping in...what is it with movie sequels replacing pretty girls with unpretty ones? Maggie Gyllenhall in The Dark Knight and Liv Tyler in Hulk, sheesh!).
Well that's it. Good movie. Good action movie, that is, not good "potentially an Oscar-nominee" movie, but you should already suspect that if you know anything about this film. So yes, this is a good action blockbuster, a great one actually, one of they very best of the quite strong 2008 summer movie season.
Now vote that my review was helpful or you'll make me angry...and you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...