So I've been re-listening to Craig Armstrong's terrific score for The Incredible Hulk lately (amazed that I find it more enjoyable of a listen than Danny Elfman's effort for 2003's film), and it made me realize just how much I appreciate and enjoy the film.
While I don't quite loathe Ang Lee's film like a lot of people do (in fact, I think it is slightly underrated), I think overall Louis Letterier made the better movie, one that fullfils the comic's promise of "Hulk Smash!" while also delving into the cursed nature of Bruce Banner's "affliction", the Hulk. It helps that extroverted Ed Norton is so much more authentic and believable than Eric Bana's portrayal. I could never empathize with Bana's Banner, while Norton's Banner is much more relatable.
That's not to say that the film doesn't have its flaws. The first hour of the film is superbly paced and we really get inside Banner's head while he's on the run, and we feel his desperation to find a cure and his self-imposed isolation from those he loves, and how that impacts him. Norton as a scientist is much more believable and realistic than the brooding Bana ever was.
However, the moment it becomes less "man on the run" and more of your run-of-the-mill comic-book movie, it loses its well-earned pathos. I do attribute this, as someone who has read Norton's original screenplay, that a lot of what was cut would have helped flesh out the story and characters more. It's a shame the studio requested cuts, because while the final version of the film is far from perfect, I believe had they kept the cut 20-30 minutes of the film (such as the opening in the arctic where Banner tried to commit suicide), it would have been a much more well-rounded film.
Bottomline, Ang Lee's Hulk is a much more cerebral version of the character while Louis Letterier's The Incredible Hulk is a much more straightforward adaptation that is ultimately in my opinion so much more satisfying.
While I don't quite loathe Ang Lee's film like a lot of people do (in fact, I think it is slightly underrated), I think overall Louis Letterier made the better movie, one that fullfils the comic's promise of "Hulk Smash!" while also delving into the cursed nature of Bruce Banner's "affliction", the Hulk. It helps that extroverted Ed Norton is so much more authentic and believable than Eric Bana's portrayal. I could never empathize with Bana's Banner, while Norton's Banner is much more relatable.
That's not to say that the film doesn't have its flaws. The first hour of the film is superbly paced and we really get inside Banner's head while he's on the run, and we feel his desperation to find a cure and his self-imposed isolation from those he loves, and how that impacts him. Norton as a scientist is much more believable and realistic than the brooding Bana ever was.
However, the moment it becomes less "man on the run" and more of your run-of-the-mill comic-book movie, it loses its well-earned pathos. I do attribute this, as someone who has read Norton's original screenplay, that a lot of what was cut would have helped flesh out the story and characters more. It's a shame the studio requested cuts, because while the final version of the film is far from perfect, I believe had they kept the cut 20-30 minutes of the film (such as the opening in the arctic where Banner tried to commit suicide), it would have been a much more well-rounded film.
Bottomline, Ang Lee's Hulk is a much more cerebral version of the character while Louis Letterier's The Incredible Hulk is a much more straightforward adaptation that is ultimately in my opinion so much more satisfying.
