El increíble Hulk

En una rápida sucesión, he visto ambas últimas adaptaciones cinematográficas del superhéroe de cómic y esta más reciente gana en mi opinión. Hay varias comparaciones que se pueden hacer. El reparto de actores aquí es mucho más fuerte. Especialmente Tim Roth es mi villano favorito y aquí confirma su gran talento. Y precisamente su personaje es otro punto a favor, ya que en la obra de Lee falta un oponente del Hulk y Nick Nolte como padre de Hulk, que se desvía del camino, no llena ese vacío. En general, El Increíble Hulk es más ágil desde el principio con una trama emocionante y llena de acción, y al mismo tiempo no carece de escenas más serias, románticas o divertidas. Y la escena del enfrentamiento entre Hulk y Abominación es la mejor de toda la película. Robert Downey Jr. al final es la guinda del pastel. (29.07.2008)

Un reparto único frente a una caracterización primitiva al nivel de un juego de PC bidimensional. La ambición de las grandes películas frente al cliché de las películas de clase B. Estilización visual kitsch de rostro serio y acción militarista fetichistamente directa e interesada. Simplemente «un nivel completamente nuevo de rareza», o un entretenido placer culpable digno de la Frambuesa de Oro a la peor película del año. (19.07.2008)

From an antique tragedy interspersed with Marvel action, it went a few steps down. And it remained standing in a contradictory mezzanine. Five years after Lee's vision, which was received rather hesitantly, it is no wonder that we are supposed to forget about it from the very beginning. I could see it a hundred times, but I give up because I know I am in the clear minority. However, Leterrier is so excited about the previously overlooked Hulk-smash that he doesn't care much about character depth or traumatic inserts, and the Brazilian introduction even annoys him. As for the central characters and their performers, I have to frown a bit as well, because Betty is nothing more than a lovely catalyst for Banner's emotions this time, and Norton's portrayal of the titular hero is occasionally disappointingly shallow. So why the high rating in the end? Because any action scene is an explosive, impressive spectacle that takes your breath away, and Blonsky aka Abomination boldly joins the gallery of marvel villains cursed in the future, to whom I regularly have a weakness. The decisive factor for the fourth star is that this version of Hulk works solely and exclusively as bait for the Avengers. Yes, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America are a class or two better, leaving Bruce as a small green one behind, but from a rather inconspicuous superhero side game, he gradually matured into a pleasant bite-sized snack. Note: The translation has been slightly modified for better readability. (27.10.2008)

Early on, Leterrier blows Lee’s work away during the opening credits, but that's where the positives in relation to the previous film end. That there are only three action scenes in two hours doesn’t bother me so much given that even without the Hulk's fights with the army, there is still something going on and it's solidly paced. However, Leterrier's forte is contact fights in an arena or in mafia dens. In the bigger scenes, he desperately steals wherever he can think of, meaning that the opening is "Bourne Morocco," the university ambush replicates Ang's tanks from the desert, and the ending is all about CGI battles. The rest is horribly sterile so that the fated love fizzles out and the viewer shakes his head sadly. But I’m quite curious to see if the team offered at the end will really actually happen. (19.09.2008)

Bruce Banner would have be pleased with this approach. Occasionally he would have been so enthusiastic about it that he would purr like a little baby at his mother’s breast. And in some places he would be so pissed with it that his elastic pants would get too small even for his alter ego. The Incredible Hulk is an amazing joy ride along a sinusoid graph. Nah, I’m kidding. About the sinusoid graph. While at some points and in some scenes it works even better than Ang Lee’s version, as a whole it is a ride half-way to nowhere. Lee’s adaptation is more “Banneresque", while Leterrier’s version is unequivocally “Hulky". How significant. It’s up to you which you like best. I’m reminded of Marvel’s first movie attempt - Iron Man. In that movie, the juice like the style and the actors worked well, but the action element, the finale and even the villain was rather subdued. Here it’s almost precisely the other way round. The villain and the action are ok (but still no miracle), but the rest is just a bit wishy-washy. For instance sparks fly between Norton and Tyler as they would in a microwave oven during a power blackout. Paradoxically it works more at the moments when he appears in that miserable CGI guise. And the movie is rather lifeless in comparison with Iron Man. No jokes, no snappy comebacks (all hail a couple of exceptions). But I’m not saying it’s bad. In the end we have two good genre movies in place of one great one. But, as the ending hints, there’s a lot more in store (and we’ll probably see it soon). Oh, and one more criticism. I would probably rather have seen Liv’s bare chest rather than Norton’s. So fans of America’s substitute for their missing mythology will have a reason to be happy. The rest of us have another quality picture in front of us to join the rather thin ranks of colorfully saucy comic book movies. Somehow, right now I feel like watching a classic version of Jekyll and Hyde... (19.06.2008)