Hulk (2003) June 22, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Ang Lee
He came, he smashed, he pondered. Ang Lee’s meditative Hulk film was only in our cinemas five short years ago, and although it drew derision from both critics and the fan boy masses as a naval-gazing failure, it at least had a unique sensibility that countless similarly sourced released have let slip into what we now know as ‘the comic book movie’: a formulaic all-action spectacular, emotional depth sold separately.
There are exceptions (Sam Raimi’s Spider-man films had a decent grasp of their human emotive overtones, as did Christopher Nolan’s Batman reboot), but just think about the others: Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Alien vs Predator, The Punisher, Daredevil, Elektra, (shudder) Ghost Rider. All examples of movies pushed out to audiences who supposedly couldn’t get enough of this stuff – and, incidentally, failed to realise that ‘this stuff’ meant quality adaptations, like Bryan Singer’s X-Men, not shoddy misinterpretations surrounded by CGI. It’s here that we find Hulk, a character so easily suited to the crash-bang action movie that the film practically makes a point of rebelling against it.
The opening scenes set the tone for the rest of the film: Bruce Banner, a great scientist from similarly gifted parents, is quietly working on a cell repair project using gamma radiation. When an accident occurs, he is left exposed to the radioactive materials but mysteriously does not die. What he does gain is something far worse – a giant green beast that grows from within him whenever Bruce gets angry. Now the government, and namely lab partner Betty Ross’ father, want to get their hands on the monster, while Bruce tries to figure out why it happened and how it links to his mysterious past.
From homosexual cowboys to oriental erotic intrigue, director Ang Lee doesn’t seem like the type to work in such a restrictive genre, so maybe the decision to have him helm a mainstream blockbuster was never the right one. His style is more introspective, and so the film takes on this weird mix of would-be action spectacular tethered by self-analysing, talky lab scenes and the kind of character delving that big budget comic book movies usually denounce outright. As a result, there is lots of chatter about dreams, as well as eerie disjointed flashbacks and visualised memories throughout. It’s far from art-house, but still probably the most meditative of the Marvel comic flicks.
This isn’t the problem, however. The dilemma here is that none of it really works. Bruce Banner’s unwanted rage is maybe due a bit of couch time, and a thoughtfully plotted dissection of his internal conflict should ideally be at the heart of any Hulk film. Here however, we get a downbeat overview of the uncontrollable anger buried inside Banner, with too much dialogue offering too little insight. The father-son dynamic is totally underplayed, while Bruce himself seems to gain almost no understanding of the power he possesses. When he’s not going through the motions of smashing things (an infrequent occurrence in retrospect), he’s quietly pondering his past or being pushed around by military forces.
One moment alone shows Banner’s most interesting depth, an admission that at the point where he loses control, he enjoys the experience. Part of this is the devilish delivery of Eric Bana, who does a good job embodying the pent-up scientist but never quite convinces that he could have Hulk-like qualities trapped within. Jennifer Connelly plays fellow scientist and love interest with charm although her appearances never stretch what she is capable of, while Nick Nolte remains his usual bedraggled self as the film’s weakest element - a villain so inadequately set up that he appears merely to give the film an explosive showdown rather than have any baring on the story.
Despite the reservations, what Ang Lee brings to the movie is an assured visual sensibility and maybe the most direct comic-strip-to-screen interpretation we’ve ever seen. It’s not Sin City with its frame-for-panel recreations, but more of an overall look that includes split screen techniques to create layered panes and a variety of transitions which move between shots in way that maintains a constant flow. He doesn’t always get it right, though. The conclusion is completely ruined by an under water setting that makes it near impossible to tell what’s going on - or why. Plus, his inability to deliver a short movie (his films regularly sprawl way past the two-hour mark), make this a patience testing exercise at 138 minutes.
What Hulk does recognize is the idea that time spent understanding the character is as important as the time you spend seeing that character in action. The problem here is that it errs so heavily in the favour of its characters, it loses track of the fact that audiences expect at least some spectacular moments of destruction. After all, “Hulk smash” – that’s just what he does. Even the distinct visual style can’t hold together a weakly structured story and inconclusive narrative arc that poses questions without coming up with any answers. It doesn’t pander to the genre, but neither does it break the mould - an activity that Hulk himself would no doubt jump at the chance to do.
Comments»
Some well thought out comments regarding the issues of Lee’s film - have you seen the new film yet? I thought it was much more well rounded and less tedious (I’ve just reviewed it).
Thanks Paul – I did catch the new movie last week (just came from reading your review, actually). I’ll have my own ramblings on the matter up in the next few days, but without wanting to give too much away, I agree with you that it’s a step up.
Where they go with it from here though, I’m not quite sure.
Well the comic has found an endless supply of stories so I suppose if they can’t come up with a new one they can always dip into there for inspiration.
Next though…. Avengers vs Hulk! Maybe anyway (just guessing from the final scene).