There is something about million-dollar celebrities that is remarkably similar to the superheroes of yesterday. Christian Bale has a face that screams vengeance. Hugh Jackman has an inhuman, rebellious shape to his every physical feature. Tobey Maguire, annoying as he may be, inhabits the youth and innocence of a famous web-slinging beginner. Even Robert Downey Jr., some say a bit too heady to be iron, still brings a whiff of playboy excess to a mechanical genius. In Iron Man, he perverted Tony Stark in a way that Michael Keaton and even George Clooney never attempted with their wholesome womanizing characters. (Actually Keaton simply brooded until his women raped him; but I digress)

Oh yeah and the comic book celebrities of today have money--lots of it--so they can truly relate to the idea of using all their excess finances to save the world and create some kick-ass toys along the way. The latest celebrity reborn as a superhero is Edward Norton, taking over Eric Bana of the disappointing 2003 re-imagining of the Hulk. In 2008's The Incredible Hulk, Edward Norton doesn't really try to become Bruce Banner. He lends his own screen identity to the comic book legend. Not that Edward Norton isn't a fascinating screen presence; just witness his mesmerizing performances in The Illusionist and American History X. The intellectual mysticism he exudes is captivating without being snobby or impenetrable. I as a heterosexual super hero myself (minus the money) have no problem admitting that Edward Norton is easily one of the three sexiest men in cinema.

However, I was left to wonder why was such a thin, brainy man chosen to play one of Marvel's most brutish characters? Other than the fact that Norton is a real life super hero (rich and famous, and with the power to transform into anything the studio creates him to be) the casting decision is anyone's guess. Norton doesn't bring any particular personality to Bruce Banner nor does he capture the essence of Lou Ferrigno (who not only makes a cameo personality but also lends his voice to the Hulk). He doesn't even borrow any quirks from the comic book Hulk. If anything, I was thinking Norton's personality might be more befitting of Marvel's early gray Hulk, the one capable of forming coherent sentences (though still talking in the third person). No, instead we get Edward Norton for part of the movie (or most of the movie, according to Norton's finicky ego that demands he have final cut over the picture) and then an animatronic-makeup ridden-CGI created monster just a few a few tweaks removed from being Peter Jackson's King Kong.

Granted, the Hulk's human meets dinosaur facial expressions were fun to behold. And I'm not one to complain, as my favorite superhero movie this year, Iron Man, didn't particularly uphold the character of Tony Stark as much as it let Robert Downey Jr.'s hyperactive mind stomp all over it. Still, I was left feeling underwhelmed at all the action in The Incredible Hulk, as director Louis Leterrier obviously delivered a much more commercial product than Iron Man's Jon Favreau. Favreau somehow injected Iron Man with more of the same bawdy humor and regretful heart that he brought to the screenplay of 1996's Swingers. Leterrier simply filmed a 114 minute ego trip to Edward Norton's liking, probably taking twisted pleasure in degenerating Norton's good lucks into atrocious nuclear-active waste. Perhaps I wasn't expecting that much from Hulk, but was expecting far more from Edward Norton, the consummate Illusionist who never fails to entertain. The Incredible Hulk taught me that today's award-winning superheroes have their own weakness: lousy scripts. What else could render one of today's best working actors helpless, confused and startlingly miscast? Nevertheless, I give Hulk a marginal recommendation because it sets the stage for an interesting Avengers movie, due in 2011. Now a bunch of pampered million dollar super egos colliding in their efforts to save the world? That sounds entertaining...but only if they cast Tom Cruise as Captain America! Grade: B-