"The Incredible Hulk" (2008)

Movie rating:  64 (on scale of 0 to 100)

I liked this movie VERY slightly more than "Iraon Man" (rating 63), even though the movie has enormous flaws.  At the family reunion, only my older daughter agreed with me on that (because she HATED "Iron Man", as most of the family (who had seen "Iron Man") liked "Iron Man" better.  The raters on Internet Movie Data Base also disagree--rating "Iron Man" 8.2 (out of 10) and "The Incredible Hulk" 7.8.  Both are incredible OVERRATINGS.  "The Bridge on teh River Kwai" (one of the best movies ever made, and easily a raing of 100 on my scale), for example, receives an average rating of 8.4 on IMB.  Alred Hitchcock's "Spellbound", which I rate at 100 (see review of "Iron Man" for explanation of rating scale), receives a rating on IMB of only 7.7.   Neither "Iron Man" nor "The Incredible Hulk" is in the same league as "Spellbound".  I notice that new movies receive an inflated rating on IMB--perhaps a natural thing, but making IMB ratings ridiculously inconsistent.  You will note that my ratings tend to go the opposite direction (correctly).  I tend to rate older movies much HIGHER than modern movies, because they were BETTER.  I generally see AT LEAST 3 or 4 movies a week (without even counting any I may watch that I have seen before) better than either "The Increidble Hulk" or "Iron Man", because I mainly watch Turner Classic Movies. I digress.  Back to "The Incredible Hulk".

The plot of the movie is the SAME as "Iron Man" (sort of amazing for obviously connected movies, since Tony Stark makes an overhyped, cameo appearance in "The Incredible Hulk").   "The Incredible Hulk" is about "good" Incredible Hulk battling "bad" Incredible Hulk, as "Iraon Man" ends up with a battle of "good" Iron Man vs. "bad" Iron Man.  In both movies, the villains are military type men (although in "Iron Man" it was a weapons manufactdurer for the military while here it is the military itself) wanting to use the "super power" as a weapon.  The only difference is that "Iron Man" uses hardware and software, while "The Incredible Hulk" is about biolobical super powers induced by ratdiation.  Still, there is little difference in the movies, in terms of plot.

Further, the first 15 to 20 minutes of "The Incredible Hulk" are incredibly DULL (incontrast to "Iron Man", where the development of the suit at the beginning of the movie is one of the more interesting parts of the movie.  As an aside, this inexplicable obsession with SUBTITLES at the beginning of action movies is disturbing.  It is done in BOTH "The Incredible Hulk" and "Iron Man", but is truly ridiculous in "The Incredible Hulk".  I am a little prejudiced here because I have trouble following subtitles on the screen (eyesight--do not pick up details quickly enough). 

The beginning of "The Incredible Hulk" also makes little sense.  There is not much reason for Bruce Banner to be where he is, and the whole dull beginning accomplishes nothing other than to get the movie (and Banner) to where it (he) should have STARTED. 

Further, part fo the publicity for the movie is a GYP.  Robert Downey, Jr., as Tony Stark, is NOT part of "The Incredible Hulk".  He is NOT a character with any role in the movie.  He merely makes a token appearance at the end, to no purpose in this movie (except to set up a future movie).  His appearance merely highlights that the film makers were AWARE (how could they not be?) of the similarities in the plot of this movie and "Iron Man".

Further, "The Incredible Hulk" is essentially humerless (the few attempts at humor are not very successful).  The brash Robert Downey, Jr. lends a comic tone to "Iron Man" that is not present here, and there are more truly (and intentionally) funny scenes.

Still, I liked "The Incredible Hulk" slightly better, with all of its enormous flaws, and think it is marginally worth seeing.  WHY?

Well, the battle of the monsters (rather ridiculous in "Iron Man") is more fun in "The Incredible Hulk", even if no more believable.  I found the Hulk a more interesting "super hero" than a man in a metal suit.  The animation really is well done.

True, Downey plays a more interesting, and complex, charachter than Ed Norton.  Yet, that is a fault as well as a virtue.  Downey plays "Iron Man" as CAMP.  Ed Norton plays Bruce Banner as a real person concerned with doing the right thing.   Downey "grows" into that view in "Iron Man", but we always feel that he is taking none of it seriously.  In my view, that is wy critics reacted so favorably to "Iron Man".  Critics LIKE cynicism generally, and in this kind of movie in particular.  In other words, Downey is HIP.  Norton comes across as almost a nerd, in comparison.  

Even though (or perhaps because) I am the most cynical of men, I like Norton's approach slightly better, in terms of the whole movie, even though Downey gave a more showy, and probably better, performance. 

Theese are fantasy movies.  You are not menat to believe them.  However, I think it is a MAJOR virtue for the characters in these movies to come across as REAL people who just happen to be in an unreal situation.  With a wink, "Iron Man" tells you that it does not take the characters at all seriously.  In contrast, "The Incredible Hulk" characters seem to rave a greater reality.  One of my favorite movies is "Nashville" (easily a l100 rating again).  I saw one review that said that the virtue of the characters in that movie is that you believe that they live, breathe, and bleed real blood.  Although on a MUCH lower level, you come closer to that belief in "The Incredible Hulk" than in "Iron Man".  More humor (of the kind with warmth) would still have helped.  There is, however, a more convincing love story in "The Incredible Hulk", even though the "new boyfriend" makes NO snese, in the context of the movie, and disappears from the movie without any reason for his existence in the first place. 

All in all, I liked the better "battle" scenes enough, and the more "real" characters, enough in "The Incredible Hilk" to MILDLY recommend it, and to prefer it (slightly) to the superior humor of "Iron Man", even with the more interesting, showy performance of Downey. 

My older daughter, Kenda, thought "Iron Man" to be thoroughly dull (liking it less than I did, even though I barely thought it worth seeing).  She is the ONLLY one who agreeed with me that "The Incredible Hulk" is the better movie, even while also recoginizing its flaws.  IMB agrees with everyone else.  It is close

But where I assure you I (and Kenda) am RIGHT is that NEITHER "The Incredible Hulk" nor "Iron Man" are really GOOD movies.  They are merely mildly worth sseeing, with some enjoyable moments.