I've been lied to by the critics since before the movie even came out.
I saw the 'HULK' on Monday and i could never be more satisfied with it, the story was great, the special effects were great and the action scenes were awesome.
I heard from many (UN-RELIABLE) critics that it was more than an hour before Bruce Banner turns into the HULK, from what i saw Bruce turns into the HULK about twenty minutes into the film.
They also complained that there was to much story and not enough HULK, I would like to state that when Bruce wasn't the HULK, the story was setting up for when he did become the HULK.
I'm just asking what more did the critics want? It would be stupid to come into the movie with the HULK smashing everything, what about the people that didn't read the comics? How would they understand the HULK's origin if the film opened with "HULK SMASH!"?
One other thing i would like to put that when Bruce was the HULK, the action scenes were absolutely incredible, you would have to be blind not to notice the incredible things the HULK was doing. How could you hate seeing a Military Helicopter being suplexed off the side of a mountain? How could you hate seeing a Tank being thrown over 200 yards by it's turret? How could you hate any of that stuff? I didn't see anything I didn't like. There was a seen in the movie where three Hulk dogs are attacking the HULK, one was biting the HULK's shoulder; When he failed to remove the dog he flexed his shoulder muscle and snapped the huge dog's jaw in two, now that is not boring, NOT AT ALL! It's Awesome. All in all i think the 'HULK' is worth seeing more than once and it is more than worthy of a sequel.
Ebert & Roeper gave the 'HULK' two thumbs up and they're two of the most respected critics out there (Need I Say More)
Forget those bogus reviews you've heard and go see the 'HULK' I promise you'll like it.
I would give the 'HULK' the best rating any critic could give a movie If I was a critic.