#36: Hulk (2003) June 4, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Drama, Sci-fi, 2000s, 2 stars, 2008, superhero films, Ang Lee , trackback2003 | Ang Lee | 132 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13
With the Edward Norton-starring (and -penned), Louis Leterrier-directed sequel/re-imagining of the Hulk coming this summer, I decided it was finally time to watch Ang Lee’s much derided 2003 attempt at bringing Marvel’s green monster-hero-thing to the big screen. Much like the lead character — in a Jekyll & Hyde-style, he’s mild-mannered scientist Bruce Banner by day, but the big green monstrous Hulk when angry — this is very much a film of two vastly different sides.
Indeed, the most striking thing about Lee’s interpretation of the Hulk is what a mish-mash of styles it is. On the one hand, it wants to be a drama/thriller, focussed on father-child issues and military cover-ups. On the other, it has comic book action sequences and a bizarre editing style inspired by comics — a compilation of unusual techniques that look like a Media Studies teacher’s wet dream. Not even Spider-Man was that kooky. In the end, it just means the cutting style feel out of place, firstly because for much of the film (at least the first 45 minutes) it’s the only reminder of the film’s comic roots, but especially because Lee’s use of the tricksy techniques is inconsistent — sometimes confusingly overused, sometimes apparently forgotten. Other technical elements also detract. Danny Elfman’s score is blandly uninspired, a carbon copy of his work on similar films. Worst of all is the CGI Hulk — it looks like they used an action figure he’s so plasticky. It gets by OK in early appearances, swathed in moody shadows, but in the glaring desert sunlight he doesn’t stand a chance.
The big, destructive sequences starring the Hulk himself are too little too late. There’s nothing wrong with sneaking drama into blockbusters, but this feels like a blockbuster snuck into a drama. There are fights because there have to be, not because anyone involved in making the film seems to want them. They’re badly placed thanks to the plot structure and the film’s pace topples under their weight. Even the climax wants to be a battle of wills between father and son, but turns into a nonsensical messy CGI splurge. That said, the dramatic moments don’t fare much better. Usually so watchable, Eric Bana can do little with the material offered here. The rest of the cast don’t suffer as much, and there are times when it almost works, but neither the dramatic nor blockbuster sides fully function in themselves, and certainly not when slammed together.
Hulk is not a film anyone could love — even the weakest comic adaptations usually have their fans — and, for a film aimed at a devoted fan base, this is perhaps its biggest flaw. Equally, it retains too much of the superhero genre for anyone to consider admiring it as a purely dramatic film. Hopefully Hulk-fan Norton’s film can marry the two halves better… or if not, at least create some cool destruction-filled action.
Comments»
Aside from your comments regarding the CGI (typically misunderstood as with most film-reviewers these days) your views on this film seem spot on - it tried to be too many things and seemingly wasn’t sure which group of people to aim itself at, missing just about everybody in the process. I was real disappointed myself after waiting years for a great big budget movie based on this character. Nevertheless I can’t help but look forward to the Norton film - perhaps we’ll never learn…
At least there’s always the TV series - not particularly faithful to the source, it was consistently dark and much more adult than we can expect from any film adaptation these days despite material that seems suited to contrary.
I have to admit, I do have some sort of lop-sided respect for the sheer breathtaking inanity of taking one of the comic world’s most physical, brutal characters, and framing him in some sort of trippy, sub-Kubrickian psychedelia come the film’s end.
I don’t see how I (or other reviewers) have misunderstood the CGI, Paul. Surely it’s meant to be believable (as much as CGI can), especially in a film that, editing aside, seems to be aiming firmly at dramatic realism?
I’m not a Hulk fan at the best of times, as there’s only so much watchablity in Green-Giant-Smashes-Things.
That said, this film was okay to begin with, then got incredibly dull incredibly fast.
Granted, it was five years ago when I last saw the movie, but I seem to remember my movie experience as something like this:
“Wow, Hulk is in the desert and smashing up the army, that was cool! What now? Oh, he’s still running through the desert throwing tanks around, okay. Right, what’s next? Oh, more smashing things up in the desert?”
One Hour Later…
“Finally, we’re out of the desert and now he’s doing the exact same thing but in the city! Wow, more tank-smashing! Fantastic!”
Basically the Banner stuff was okay, and the Hulk stuff went on for seemingly aaaage. Perhaps, rather than simply having one following the other, they could have mixed them up a bit more, and found a way to intersperse the “Hulk Smash!” parts of the film with the Banner stuff. Maybe that would have broken it up a bit and made it more watchable.
I also won’t mention the bizarre underwater fight thing.
Really though, Bob, at what point would a CGI Hulk become realistic and believable, causing people to think, “wow, how did they do that? It’s just too realistic for CGI!!” Typically when CGI is used for something that everybody knows is not filmed for real (e.g. a dinosaur, a monster, a comet-destroyed city, etc.) people generally comment on the CGI used because they think it is not real enough or whatever, yet CGI is so often used in films for things that could have been filmed for real but people don’t actually notice because the techniques are so good (though not 100% of the time of course). People often comment on CGI just because they’re aware of its usage, and in cased like the above examples - the fantastical - there’s no getting away from people being aware of that no matter how good the CGI is.
Plus, remember that we’re not so far away from a time when special effects just didn’t very often look anywhere near to being close to being completely realistic, and people complained less then! The main problems with the Hulk movie have very little to do with special effects..
Other than that I agree with your comments as already mentioned and it was an otherwise astute review, and I look forward to your views on the Edward Norton movie when that appears.
I think that good CGI can make the fantastical believable — to some degree, anyway, as you’re right that anything that must be CGI still requires suspension of disbelief. I’m sure you can guess which examples I’m going to use, but I think the likes of Gollum, Davy Jones and the Transformers show characters that clearly must be CGI but are realistic enough to accept. (In the case of Davy Jones, at times I was wondering if they used animatronics too… though they probably wouldn’t have looked as real!) Personally, I even find Jar Jar Binks believable enough to accept… visually, at least…
But, for me, the Hulk didn’t achieve such a level of realism. You’re entirely right that the film’s main problems lie elsewhere, however (my “Worst of all” comment in the review was a link I clearly didn’t think through!) I expect I may’ve been more forgiving of the CGI if the film’s overall quality had been higher, or if the general tone had been more cartoonish. From the trailers, I’m moderately confident about how he looks in the sequel.
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate the debate (and, indeed, people saying nice things).
Some interesting points there. I’m sure Gollum must qualify for the greatest CGI character ever - even several years after the production of the series I still find him incredibly fascinating to watch. Truly brought to life as much as that can ever be done.