Roger Ebert summed this up perfectly: "The Incredible Hulk" is no doubt an ideal version of the Hulk saga for those who found Ang Lee's "Hulk" (2003) too talky, or dare I say, too thoughtful. But not for me. It sidesteps the intriguing aspects of Hulkdom and spends way too much time in, dare I say, noisy and mindless action sequences."
@fannboygh I agree. The first Hulk was an actual movie, and a good one- with depth, clarity, and character development. Luckily I was aware of who Ang Lee was and what he can do, and was prepared to meet a serious film- kind of reminiscent of how Crouching Tiger left people laughing and scratching their heads until almost 2-3 years later with other films to reference to.
The CGI of the hulk is terrible in both Hulk films. All I saw was how unreal he looked. Say what you will about the strange way that the 70s TV show took the character out of the comics and put him into real world situations, but when Bixby's Banner turns into Ferrigno's hulk, at least you KNOW the hulk wasn't contrived on a computer and many of the stories were tremendously compelling and believable with heart, something neither Hulk movie had. Hollywood should quit with most superhero re-do's.
How was it a 2 hour trailer for The Avengers when the only connection it ended up really having to the Avengers was a 2 minute scene at the end that wasn't even mentioned in The Avengers?
2:54 - That’s a laughable observation if ever I heard one. TIH is full of asinine dialogue and juvenile humor with none of Hulk’s mature subject matter: child abandonment, uxoricide, the nation-state, and the military-industrial complex. TIH’s epilogue in particular is so nonsensical that Marvel even retconned it with The Consultant.
Eric Bana was a Good Hulk. Edward Norton is well, no other word to put it, but he was an “Incredible Hulk”. And in my opinion, Mark Ruffalo is the BEST HULK OF THEM ALL.
@SeanConnery9000 Disagree. This film is far from brilliant. The lines were cliche and the film was predictable. The action scenes were overblown and they didn't get as much into the heavy burden that Banner carries as the Hulk. Tim Roth is not believable as the Abomination. At least in the Eric Bana looked like the Hulk in the first film. This Hulk looks nothing like Edward Norton.
I like both the 2003 and 2008 versions of the Hulk. The main problem, IMO, with the 2003 Hulk is Eric Bana. I know it's become a cliche to describe Bana as boring but I still think it's a fitting description. He looks bland and his acting style tends to be very cerebral and muted. That approach works for some roles but here, it just doesn't work for me.
The Incredible Hulk 2008 is a great movie! Edward Norton is great as Bruce Banner! Liv Tyler is great as Betty Ross! This film puts together the Marvel Comics with the old 70s TV series! This is a great movie! The Best Marvel Comics Adaptation!
The one issue I had with this movie was that there were too many inside jokes/winks to the camera. Having cameos of either Stan Lee or Lou Ferrigno would've been cute; having them BOTH make appearances AND a clip of Bill Bixby from The Courtship of Eddie's Father was overdoing it. This movie did improve on 2003, though, with better acting and the script actually having a sense of humor - like the taxicab scene.
Its ironic that Michael Phillips says every few years we'll be getting another version of the Hulk, seeing as after Edward Norton Jr was dropped and Mark Ruffalo was cast in his pl;ace fro the Avengers.
Spider-man (2002) is for ALL audiences while Spider-man 2 is for the "thinking" kind of audience they both different everyone like them.I meant to write down 2003 is a better monster movie while 2008 is a better Hulk movie. Before I analyze 2003,I keep hearing people saying 2003 has more dramatic weight put on it than 2008. But after I observes and analyze,I realize 2003 never did have drama weight put on it.2003 maybe a tragic but that dont mean character shouldnt be proactive.After all what
@JoeFixit62 It did do poor, but my guess is that either the Hulk didn't look that believable/too brightly green (which would contribute to the unrealisticality of it) or it was incredibly slow and sorta boring except for the action scenes; at least that's what I found.
@QuatermassMan Well the appearance of The Abomination. That was given away in the trailer instead of letting us guess his appearance through out the movie. Back on topic: I loved this movie, really loved it. Much better than the Ang Lee movie. Though I liked what Ang Lee was trying to do with his version of the Hulk. I even thought it could have worked. The problem with his movie was the Hulks appearance and the anti-climactic fights. Worse being the one with the Jellyfish-thing.
I never saw the big difference that (supposedly) makes this movie better than the 2003 version. Okay, the whole Bruce's father thing was a miss on the 2003's side, but this movie didn't blow me away either. IMHO they're both worth one viewing, but none of them are even close to Iron Man.
The Achilles heel of this movie is Liv Tyler. I like her in certain roles but she is just completely wrong here, she and Norton have absolutely no chenistry and just look wrong together.
important in a story isnt what happens to characters is how they deal with it. Ang Lee try to make 2003 into a great tradegy and by making Bruce Banner a sympathetic character.Dr Octopus in Spiderman 2 is a sympathetic character but Dr Ock has clear problem and clear goal in mind and try to accomplish them and at the end he learn from his mistaken and became a hero for saving the city.But 2003 Hulk, There nothing similar to that formula and that did work. 2008 did that not 2003.
THIS MOVIE was 100% better than the Ang Lee "Hulk" Movie ( 2003 ) it was made much more like the comic/70s tv series --- as far as the story .. the 2003 version's story was horrible and had NOTHING to do with the comic and more to do with a father/son aspect and this movie was Bruce's struggle to become HUMAN AGAIN . This movie had the love interest with Betty but his fear of hurting anyone around him due to his afliction ( transforming into the beast ) ultimatly having to face it in the end.
I can understand the criticism, but underacted? Anytime Josh Lucas (Talbot) was on screen was over the top. Or are you referring specifically to Eric Bana's acting style? As much as I dislike Michael France, he did a good job with Brian Banner, using the 'House of M' canon. (Possibly the best hulk after WW Hulk). Also, are you comparing the hulk movies, or just as a movie in general?
I like both Hulk movies but they aren't the best comic book adaptations in the realm of the Bat-flicks or the Spider-Man or Iron Man movies. But they're decent and I'm gonna miss Ed Norton in Avengers. Shoulda given him the cash.
@sypin o yeah,plus the new hulk cast doesnt come even close to the ang lee one,every one was giving performence and were not winking at the camera like norton,the only thing that didnt liked about ang lee hulk was the last spanish scene,he oviusly did it to the mainstream people,or universal.
Ang Lee's film is better, but neither film is quite the tragic tale the Hulk should be. Both lose me with their lame villains, and forced action scenes, but at least Ang Lee's film included that disturbing notion that Bruce, on some level, ENJOYED being free of the normal constraints... In regards to the love story, it emulates "The Cat People" nicely by showing that he cannot even give in to intimacy, for fear of hurting those he loves... The 2008 version doesn't even bother with any of that.
what failed me in the 2003 movie was the dog fight, for some reasons I found that scene really lame unwatchable.. this movie was from beginning to the end more 'professionally' done, the first hulk puts more introduction to the hulk though, but neither really shine to me, as someone watch movie I would wish they goes more details about hulk's unparellel power, because even stands against Thor he still seem on a parch higher
To me, both films are dreadfully boring. The first was an ambitious failure, where everyone tried damn hard to add artistic value to a film that didn't really need it, the second was a by-the-numbers blockbuster flick where nobody involved seemed like they gave a shit. Now if somebody could just take the energy and effort of the first one, and add it to the silly popcorn ambition of the second one, then you'd have one hell of a movie.
@sidmute00 If it's a figure of speech - don't compare it to a highly appreciated drama movie about two homosexuals. Try to understand how offending that sounds.
@sidmute00 You obviously used the term "gay" (or "ghey" as you misspelled it) to show how lame you think Ang Lee's Hulk movie was... and you did it by comparing it with Brokeback Mountain - ironic and convenient enough. And it took you 3 freakin' months to respond??
@kurvos TH-cam isn't my life. "ghey" is a slang spelling of the original word. You don't get out much, do you? You take everything literally, don't you? How sad.
It's not "Hulk". Hulk was the 2003 version. This is "The Incredible Hulk"
Roger Ebert summed this up perfectly: "The Incredible Hulk" is no doubt an ideal version of the Hulk saga for those who found Ang Lee's "Hulk" (2003) too talky, or dare I say, too thoughtful. But not for me. It sidesteps the intriguing aspects of Hulkdom and spends way too much time in, dare I say, noisy and mindless action sequences."
@fannboygh I agree. The first Hulk was an actual movie, and a good one- with depth, clarity, and character development. Luckily I was aware of who Ang Lee was and what he can do, and was prepared to meet a serious film- kind of reminiscent of how Crouching Tiger left people laughing and scratching their heads until almost 2-3 years later with other films to reference to.
I know I'm in the minority, but I enjoyed 2003 Hulk much more than I did 2008 Hulk.
I agree. Ang Lee made a much more interesting movie
what happened to "the leader"?
+Jayson Brown Imprisoned in a SHIELD black site facility.
The movie is not called Hulk.
Nothing was given away in the trailer.
One of the underrated movies in the mcu!
What did they think of the 2003 movie?
321SPONGEBOLT it sucked
321SPONGEBOLT No, it got Two Thumbs Up From Ebert & Roeper.
V For Vendetta & Watchmen. Iron Man also delivers major deluxe punch, pure rennaissance style.
The CGI of the hulk is terrible in both Hulk films. All I saw was how unreal he looked. Say what you will about the strange way that the 70s TV show took the character out of the comics and put him into real world situations, but when Bixby's Banner turns into Ferrigno's hulk, at least you KNOW the hulk wasn't contrived on a computer and many of the stories were tremendously compelling and believable with heart, something neither Hulk movie had. Hollywood should quit with most superhero re-do's.
The Hulk (2003) - A+ Award-worthy
The Incredible Hulk (2008) - A- Perfect
Give me the old 70's TV show any day!At least he didn't look like a cartoon!
@FerneJohn When they showed Tony Stark talking to the General at the end. It was released in the trailer.
I like it more than Iron Man and the Ang Lee Hulk because I found myself watching the 2008 flick more often.
I wish they would have kept norton on for the avengers. I like mark ruffalo too, but norton is better
@AnalyticalMenace What do they give away in the trailer?
Can you post the review for Hulk (2003), from Ebert & Roeper?
Liv Tyler is so hot in this
How was it a 2 hour trailer for The Avengers when the only connection it ended up really having to the Avengers was a 2 minute scene at the end that wasn't even mentioned in The Avengers?
2:54 - That’s a laughable observation if ever I heard one. TIH is full of asinine dialogue and juvenile humor with none of Hulk’s mature subject matter: child abandonment, uxoricide, the nation-state, and the military-industrial complex. TIH’s epilogue in particular is so nonsensical that Marvel even retconned it with The Consultant.
Second favorite marvel film behind Iron Man of course
I really liked one better than the first one. Better paced for sure.
what was the twist secret,roepers talking about
This was the waaaaay better movie than the 03 movie
Perry Mehta I agree
Perry Mehta agreed. Can’t believe people are actually trying to defend the 03 one
To be honest, I liked the 03 Version. But you’re right this version is better.
Eric Bana was a Good Hulk.
Edward Norton is well, no other word to put it, but he was an “Incredible Hulk”.
And in my opinion, Mark Ruffalo is the BEST HULK OF THEM ALL.
@Borys Jagielski each their own
@SeanConnery9000 Disagree. This film is far from brilliant. The lines were cliche and the film was predictable. The action scenes were overblown and they didn't get as much into the heavy burden that Banner carries as the Hulk. Tim Roth is not believable as the Abomination. At least in the Eric Bana looked like the Hulk in the first film. This Hulk looks nothing like Edward Norton.
I like both the 2003 and 2008 versions of the Hulk. The main problem, IMO, with the 2003 Hulk is Eric Bana. I know it's become a cliche to describe Bana as boring but I still think it's a fitting description. He looks bland and his acting style tends to be very cerebral and muted. That approach works for some roles but here, it just doesn't work for me.
The Incredible Hulk 2008 is a great movie! Edward Norton is great as Bruce Banner! Liv Tyler is great as Betty Ross! This film puts together the Marvel Comics with the old 70s TV series! This is a great movie! The Best Marvel Comics Adaptation!
The one issue I had with this movie was that there were too many inside jokes/winks to the camera. Having cameos of either Stan Lee or Lou Ferrigno would've been cute; having them BOTH make appearances AND a clip of Bill Bixby from The Courtship of Eddie's Father was overdoing it. This movie did improve on 2003, though, with better acting and the script actually having a sense of humor - like the taxicab scene.
2003 is a better drama movie
2008 is a better Hulk movie
Its ironic that Michael Phillips says every few years we'll be getting another version of the Hulk, seeing as after Edward Norton Jr was dropped and Mark Ruffalo was cast in his pl;ace fro the Avengers.
Spider-man (2002) is for ALL audiences while Spider-man 2 is for the "thinking" kind of audience they both different everyone like them.I meant to write down 2003 is a better monster movie while 2008 is a better Hulk movie. Before I analyze 2003,I keep hearing people saying 2003 has more dramatic weight put on it than 2008. But after I observes and analyze,I realize 2003 never did have drama weight put on it.2003 maybe a tragic but that dont mean character shouldnt be proactive.After all what
@JoeFixit62 It did do poor, but my guess is that either the Hulk didn't look that believable/too brightly green (which would contribute to the unrealisticality of it) or it was incredibly slow and sorta boring except for the action scenes; at least that's what I found.
@QuatermassMan Well the appearance of The Abomination. That was given away in the trailer instead of letting us guess his appearance through out the movie.
Back on topic: I loved this movie, really loved it. Much better than the Ang Lee movie.
Though I liked what Ang Lee was trying to do with his version of the Hulk. I even thought it could have worked. The problem with his movie was the Hulks appearance and the anti-climactic fights. Worse being the one with the Jellyfish-thing.
Funny, Ang Lee's Hulk didn't provoke a single thought in me. I know it tired to, but I couldn't figure out what the film was trying to say.
I have to agree with these guys 100% about the trailer-spoiler. Takes the epicness away from the (no longer unexpected) guest appearance.
I never saw the big difference that (supposedly) makes this movie better than the 2003 version. Okay, the whole Bruce's father thing was a miss on the 2003's side, but this movie didn't blow me away either.
IMHO they're both worth one viewing, but none of them are even close to Iron Man.
This hulk was the shit!Way better then the first one!
This hulk looked like a video game character.
The Achilles heel of this movie is Liv Tyler. I like her in certain roles but she is just completely wrong here, she and Norton have absolutely no chenistry and just look wrong together.
important in a story isnt what happens to characters is how they deal with it. Ang Lee try to make 2003 into a great tradegy and by making Bruce Banner a sympathetic character.Dr Octopus in Spiderman 2 is a sympathetic character but Dr Ock has clear problem and clear goal in mind and try to accomplish them and at the end he learn from his mistaken and became a hero for saving the city.But 2003 Hulk, There nothing similar to that formula and that did work. 2008 did that not 2003.
THIS MOVIE was 100% better than the Ang Lee "Hulk" Movie ( 2003 ) it was made much more like the comic/70s tv series --- as far as the story .. the 2003 version's story was horrible and had NOTHING to do with the comic and more to do with a father/son aspect and this movie was Bruce's struggle to become HUMAN AGAIN . This movie had the love interest with Betty but his fear of hurting anyone around him due to his afliction ( transforming into the beast ) ultimatly having to face it in the end.
I can understand the criticism, but underacted? Anytime Josh Lucas (Talbot) was on screen was over the top. Or are you referring specifically to Eric Bana's acting style? As much as I dislike Michael France, he did a good job with Brian Banner, using the 'House of M' canon. (Possibly the best hulk after WW Hulk). Also, are you comparing the hulk movies, or just as a movie in general?
I like both Hulk movies but they aren't the best comic book adaptations in the realm of the Bat-flicks or the Spider-Man or Iron Man movies. But they're decent and I'm gonna miss Ed Norton in Avengers. Shoulda given him the cash.
this movie actually looks pretty good. it looks better than the first one and the first one rules
One of the best MCU movies. Norton was a perfect choice, sorry Rufallo.
@sypin o yeah,plus the new hulk cast doesnt come even close to the ang lee one,every one was giving performence and were not winking at the camera like norton,the only thing that didnt liked about ang lee hulk was the last spanish scene,he oviusly did it to the mainstream people,or universal.
this movie was okay. the first one was soo corny and i agree 100% that norton is the key element here
The Incredible Hulk was so good, and Alot better than the first 2003 Hulk movie was terrible!
Ang Lee's film is better, but neither film is quite the tragic tale the Hulk should be. Both lose me with their lame villains, and forced action scenes, but at least Ang Lee's film included that disturbing notion that Bruce, on some level, ENJOYED being free of the normal constraints... In regards to the love story, it emulates "The Cat People" nicely by showing that he cannot even give in to intimacy, for fear of hurting those he loves... The 2008 version doesn't even bother with any of that.
what failed me in the 2003 movie was the dog fight, for some reasons I found that scene really lame unwatchable.. this movie was from beginning to the end more 'professionally' done, the first hulk puts more introduction to the hulk though, but neither really shine to me, as someone watch movie I would wish they goes more details about hulk's unparellel power, because even stands against Thor he still seem on a parch higher
Right... with such compelling reasons, who could argue!
When movie reviewers don't notice that a movie forgets it's own plot, time to find new movie reviewers.
To me, both films are dreadfully boring. The first was an ambitious failure, where everyone tried damn hard to add artistic value to a film that didn't really need it, the second was a by-the-numbers blockbuster flick where nobody involved seemed like they gave a shit. Now if somebody could just take the energy and effort of the first one, and add it to the silly popcorn ambition of the second one, then you'd have one hell of a movie.
All cgi is shitty. Jurassic park's one of the only ones to get away with it, and that's only because it wasn't all cgi.
I like Michael Phillips
both hulks are good...but the first is way too talky and boring. The newer one is less words and more actions
@sidmute00 ... so you're only at TH-cam once every 3rd month? How odd. :P
@SeanConnery9000 I actually thing the first one was better. But they were both real good.
In itself and compared to any other movie Hulk ever appeared. Ang Lee's Hulk is a complete failure for me as a movie.
Ang lees version blew. Besides, i think Ed Norton fit the part more.
@disasterzone1974 the hulk always looked like a cartoon
Not to me this movie was mix, I didn't like the action scenes , felt like pg movie despite the loud noises and rapid blast
@kurvos I take time between responding to dumb responses.
It shouldn't say Ebert and Roeper.
Luke Luke I know, it should’ve been changed to “Richard Roeper & The Movies”.
@@brianrose8772 💯💯💯👍
@JoeFixit62 too thoughtfull for transformers fans...ang lees hulk its so uderrated...
Well, Ebert gave it 👎 2.5/4. So he would’ve disagreed with this review.
Oh really?
are you the hulk?
@sidmute00 If it's a figure of speech - don't compare it to a highly appreciated drama movie about two homosexuals. Try to understand how offending that sounds.
I hated this movie. Once again the so called critics 's judgment are in question.
this movie was okay
This one is WAY better, whereas the 2003 was far too scientific and talky.
thoughtful my ass. it was a disastersly foggy, boring, uneneergized, terriblely written, underacted, illogical mess.
They tried.
Hulk was better.
ehhhh......thumbs iffy for me
@sidmute00 Look who's talking.
@kurvos Let's be friends. lol.
This movie was awesome but the 2003 brokeback hulk was garbage. The story the hulks design the multiple comic camera angles Eric bana!
@sidmute00 You obviously used the term "gay" (or "ghey" as you misspelled it) to show how lame you think Ang Lee's Hulk movie was... and you did it by comparing it with Brokeback Mountain - ironic and convenient enough.
And it took you 3 freakin' months to respond??
@kurvos I love gay people. What are you talking about?
definitely. this hulk looks the fakest.
@kurvos TH-cam isn't my life. "ghey" is a slang spelling of the original word. You don't get out much, do you? You take everything literally, don't you? How sad.
I found this movie boring.
I prefer the 03 hulk n I also prefer siskel n ebert
Where is Ebert? Getting her jaw removed?
Ebert was no longer (it was a he) on the show because of jaw cancer that took his voice.
Hey Clem, I believe it was throat cancer
Hulk still sucks!!!!! He will never have his own movie case it will be just as bad like 2003.