Well, i think it’s pretty obvious, but I’d lean towards “not bother at all.”
It’s just a badly made film, whether you dig on the comic book/TV show version of the Hulk, or not. None of the characters are very sympathetic, the action is sparse considering the length of the film, the romance, despite being an important plot point is almost non-existent.
Bana (a coincedental name for the actor playing Bruce Banner, at the least) is not too shabby, but he’s got nothing to work with. Connelly’s performance wanders from good to bad, hell, even Sam Elliot (who I always get a kick out of) comes across pretty flat, with one or two exceptions. And as I said, Nick Nolte usually works for me, but not this time around.
The psycho drama is drawn out, boring, and badly done, even for a “comic book movie,” the comic book style visuals are seriously overdone, and in all the wrong places…
(The split screening and multiple camera angles should have been used to keep the pace of the film quick and involving, as they tend to do in a comic book, but all they really do is draw out the sequences that are too long or visually boring to begin with, to the detriment of the film.)
In all fairness, the CGI is great stuff. The Hulk looks damned decent, and, as much as he can be said to be realistic looking, he is.
If you must, wait and rent the DVD, and just chapter skip to the good bits.
Just for comparison’s sake, I liked the first X-Men flick, absolutely loved the second one, and I thought Spider-Man, while a bit weak in parts, was still a lot of fun to watch. Never did catch Daredevil.
But the Hulk? Feh. All the best bits were on the special the SciFi channel ran t’other day.
[sub]Y’know, when I saw the promo that says “as seen through the eyes of a visionary director” or somesuch, I should have known that was a warning sign.[/sub]
Oh yeah, Number Six? Fair 'nuff. I forgot all about him. But that’s just more proof to my mind that there are already enough orphaned guys in colorful underwear running around.