Film Review | The Incredible Hulk (2008)

When Marvel set up their standalone film studio and began the multi-franchised journey towards Avengers Assemble, Bruce Banner and his asparagus-hued alter-ego were unique out of all the Avengers in that they had already received a big screen outing through Ang Lee's 2003 film Hulk. Lee's film received a mixed reaction: whilst some enjoyed the cerebral approach to exploring Banner's split personality (myself included), others felt that it sacrificed too much of the wanton destruction that The Hulk is arguably most famous for. 2008's The Incredible Hulk therefore not only needed to re-introduce the character as part of the newly established Marvel Cinematic Universe, but reboot the franchise to distance it sufficiently from Lee's version.

Skimming over the gamma ray accident which transformed Dr. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) into The Hulk during the opening credits, the film catches up with Banner hiding out in South America and attempting to find a cure for his condition. However, General Ross (William Hurt) is still hunting down Banner with the desire to weaponise what's inside him, with ruthless soldier Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) by his side.

Looking at the success of director Louis Leterrier's film in creating a clear distinction from Lee's, unfortunately The Incredible Hulk is flawed from the very start. Depicting scenes remarkably similar to those seen throughout Lee's Hulk, the opening credits montage in fact serves as a link between the two films. Kicking things off with Banner's imposed exile in South America - the same place that he was seen in the closing moments of Lee's film - adds further confusion as to whether this is a whole new franchise or a sequel to an existing one.

Unfortunately, the film's problems just continue. This is one of Norton's most lacklustre performances,  feeling severely miscast as Banner throughout. The character lacks depth and is never satisfying: Banner is supposed to be one of the leading scientific minds in the world, and yet we never see any evidence of this brilliance. We never see enough of the internal struggle between Banner and The Hulk either, something which both Lee's film and 2012's Avengers Assemble manage a lot better. Norton's Banner essentially ends up as a bit of a sadsack who we don't particularly care about.

The cast elsewhere isn't much better. Liv Tyler as love interest Betty Ross irritates throughout, Hurt's General Ross never feels like anything more than a stereotypical angry army guy, and Tim Blake Nelson's supporting role late on in the film is disappointingly grating for such a talented actor. Roth as Blonsky arguably puts in the most effective performance, but can only do so much with the script which ranges from flat and lazy to downright cringeworthy. At one point, a fellow soldier asks Blonsky how he feels before undertaking a battle with The Hulk. "Like a monster", Blonsky replies. As we've just seen the character begin his own genetic mutation a matter of seconds before, this response is entirely redundant. But, more importantly, even in Marvel's comic book setting, who actually talks like that? There are countless other examples littered all through the script just like this.

The plot bumbles along, erratically switching focus between Banner, Blonsky and Betty Ross, giving the film a distinctly unfocused feel, with characters introduced haphazardly before being swiftly removed again. The film has a couple of half-decent action sequences as its high points, but to be frank the CGI ranges from underwhelming (this is probably the least satisfying big screen realisation of The Hulk to date) to near Michael Bay levels of overkill. The final battle is oversaturated with effects making it both confusing and entirely devoid of any emotion.

They (whoever they might be) say that hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately for The Incredible Hulk, it really isn't. With Mark Ruffalo successfully taking the role of Banner and The Hulk over in Avengers Assemble (and, at the time of writing, all future Marvel projects), Leterrier's take on the character just looks all the more ill-conceived and poorly realised. Released in the same year as Nolan's The Dark Knight, one of the most successful comic book reboot films of all time, The Incredible Hulk now serves only as a perfect example of how not to rejuvenate a superhero franchise.

3/10

Film Review | The Bourne Legacy (2012)

It's hardly a surprise that, with the commercial and critical success of the first three Bourne films, Universal wanted to continue the franchise with a fourth outing. What's perhaps more surprising is that the studio decided to go ahead with this idea without Bourne. After Matt Damon decided that three is the magic number and elected not to return to the series, The Bourne Legacy hands the baton over from Damon to Jeremy Renner. A smart move on paper at least: Renner has over the last couple of years built the beginnings of a solid action CV with roles in The Hurt Locker, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol and, most recently, Avengers Assemble. But can a Bourne film work without the man to whom the series owes its name?

Renner is Aaron Cross, a black ops agent who suddenly finds himself under attack by his own employers following complications caused by the actions of Jason Bourne. Cross joins forces with Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), also being hunted by the CIA for her connection to the program of which Cross was a part, and together they work to elude their pursuers.

Renner does well in the lead role, looking and acting the part of Aaron Cross whilst at the same time making him a likeable and, at times, sympathetic presence. Weisz is also pleasing as Marta, balancing both the emotional and physical sides of her character well. Edward Norton does well with what he has, although his character - a shady high-ranking CIA operative - feels underdeveloped, never receiving enough screen time to allow the actor to make him truly believable. The same can unfortunately be said for many of the less prominent characters. A key antagonist in the film's final act receives no development whatsoever in fact, coming across far too much like deus ex machina to feel in any way authentic. 

The action is enjoyable enough, but it is in this area that it truly becomes clear that The Bourne Legacy is not the same calibre of action film as those in the trilogy preceding it. Having written all four Bourne screenplays, Tony Gilroy clearly knows the series inside out, and he makes this apparent through the intelligent nods and references to events of the previous films (mostly The Bourne Ultimatum) that come up at several points throughout Legacy. Gilroy also directs here, but unfortunately never manages to imbue proceedings with the same energy or panache that Paul Greengrass brought to the previous two installments, or even that of Doug Liman who helmed the original. What Gilroy produces is not awful, just never memorable. I found myself struggling to recall any genuine action highlights that had stuck with me not long after watching.

That's The Bourne Legacy's key problem: it's a Bourne film in name and plot, but not in style or execution. It's a perfectly serviceable action film, flawed but enjoyable. But the fact that it's linked intrinsically to one of the most highly acclaimed series of action films ever made only serves to highlight how ordinary it is. I wouldn't go as far as saying that this is an unnecessary continuation of the series - the nature of this being a "sideways" sequel is one of the most inventive aspects of the film. But to get the most out of The Bourne Legacy, you might be best to emulate the circumstances of Matt Damon's character at the start of The Bourne Identity before watching, and forget everything you know about Bourne.

6/10