Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a film that's so good, so well acted, so well written, and so engaging that I found myself constantly wishing that it wasn't centered on a silly green superhero. "The Hulk" is a film that puts all the recent comic adaptations to shame ("Spider-Man" and "Daredevil"), and is definitely the best superhero movie since Tim Burton's "Batman."
So why has this film been receiving such poor press? Why are so many people on this site bashing everything from the script to the CGI? It's simple really: American anti-intellectualism. Those that liked "Spider-Man" enjoyed it for the exact reasons intelligent people hated it--it was hollow, predictable, had no real suspense or character development, was flat and tawdry, and the action seemed crammed in just to keep the ignorant from being bored. Some claim that it was this fluff, this lack-of-seriousness, that made the movie "great": it treated the material as a comic book movie should be treated. In a way, I agree with this way of thinking, but only with a comic character like "Spider-Man" would this work: he's a superhero that, unlike the Hulk, has no dimension. He's a silly and flat character, and in a way, that should translate into a silly and flat movie (which it did). This is not to say that "Spider-Man" couldn't be better, because I feel it could have in a million ways. Hulk, on the other hand, isn't a good guy that fights crime day and night--he's far more complex and interesting. He's probably more bad than good, because his uncontrollable rages result in unprecedented destruction. Instead of simply catering to morons by having the movie be non-stop smashing, Ang Lee and his screenwriter James Schamus decided to research the character and create a film more about his struggle than his tumultuous panics. This care for the character Bruce Banner, his background, and his life shine through every frame, and this creates a sensation that's very rare in comic flicks.
Yet even Ang Lee, art-house master, knows that a summer comic blockbuster wouldn't be complete without some serious action, and the final action sequences are the most stunning and visually imaginative since Ang Lee's own "Crouching Tiger." In one scene, the Hulk, who can jump miles, jumps from a rocky canyon region to a silent desert while loads of planes and helicopters pursue him, trying to blow him to green sludge. For a moment, as he lands in this serene desert, he has lost his enemies, and he softly tumbles down a sandy hill. In the background we can hear the oncoming bombing assault. It's scenes like this that made "The Hulk" so enjoyable, fresh, and ingenious. Ang Lee only gives us action after he has invested our care into his characters, and it means so much more then the boring action scenes performed in "Spider-Man."
As far as the acting goes, it's top-notch for sure. Some claim that while Eric Bana under-acts, both Nick Nolte and Sam Elliott overact. Personally, I think this goes against the theory that comic films should be fun--overacting is what it's all about. Nick Nolte was so effectively creepy and bizarre that for me he carried the movie. Jennifer Connelly was beautiful and touching, and when the film was over she had made more of a mark than other actresses in recent action films that sit and weep on the sidelines. Sam Elliott was purely captivating, and for the first time in years captured the difficult decisions and emotions that are inherent in the military field within a very miniscule timeframe. And finally, Eric Bana, as Bruce Banner: I felt his performance was just what it should have been. He didn't try to steal the show from his green counterpart, and he stayed true to the original Marvel Bruce Banner: calm, reserved and shy (which obviously creates a parallel to Hulk). Schamus's script investigated more emotion and motivation behind the Hulk than any superhero film I think I've ever seen: and it's this serious tone that makes the movie so above and beyond the rest. This doesn't ruin the film at all (as some say), but just makes the movie that much more fascinating.
As far as the graphics go, I felt that they were FAR better than that of "Spider-Man" (where I was distracted by how bad the effects were). You can see just how difficult it must have been to create the hulk character, and the way he doesn't just appear but also interacts with his environment is great. Yes, there were times during action scenes were he seemed to be made of silly putty, but they never got as flawed as in "Spider-Man."
And finally, Ang Lee's hold on the film is crucial: the way he films it mimes a comic the entire time: wide angles and vibrant frames, and the editing swipes/fades/dissolves/ and split screens really recreate this sensation of turning the pages of a comic (I'm sure the creators of both of the last comic films wish they had thought of this). Great stuff.
In the end the movie had a great blend of seriousness and hokeyness, and made a far greater impression than any of the competition. Although it wasn't a great movie, it was a great action movie. I do feel that it was a film that was so good it felt limited by it's own source material, but that's complimentary.
So why has this film been receiving such poor press? Why are so many people on this site bashing everything from the script to the CGI? It's simple really: American anti-intellectualism. Those that liked "Spider-Man" enjoyed it for the exact reasons intelligent people hated it--it was hollow, predictable, had no real suspense or character development, was flat and tawdry, and the action seemed crammed in just to keep the ignorant from being bored. Some claim that it was this fluff, this lack-of-seriousness, that made the movie "great": it treated the material as a comic book movie should be treated. In a way, I agree with this way of thinking, but only with a comic character like "Spider-Man" would this work: he's a superhero that, unlike the Hulk, has no dimension. He's a silly and flat character, and in a way, that should translate into a silly and flat movie (which it did). This is not to say that "Spider-Man" couldn't be better, because I feel it could have in a million ways. Hulk, on the other hand, isn't a good guy that fights crime day and night--he's far more complex and interesting. He's probably more bad than good, because his uncontrollable rages result in unprecedented destruction. Instead of simply catering to morons by having the movie be non-stop smashing, Ang Lee and his screenwriter James Schamus decided to research the character and create a film more about his struggle than his tumultuous panics. This care for the character Bruce Banner, his background, and his life shine through every frame, and this creates a sensation that's very rare in comic flicks.
Yet even Ang Lee, art-house master, knows that a summer comic blockbuster wouldn't be complete without some serious action, and the final action sequences are the most stunning and visually imaginative since Ang Lee's own "Crouching Tiger." In one scene, the Hulk, who can jump miles, jumps from a rocky canyon region to a silent desert while loads of planes and helicopters pursue him, trying to blow him to green sludge. For a moment, as he lands in this serene desert, he has lost his enemies, and he softly tumbles down a sandy hill. In the background we can hear the oncoming bombing assault. It's scenes like this that made "The Hulk" so enjoyable, fresh, and ingenious. Ang Lee only gives us action after he has invested our care into his characters, and it means so much more then the boring action scenes performed in "Spider-Man."
As far as the acting goes, it's top-notch for sure. Some claim that while Eric Bana under-acts, both Nick Nolte and Sam Elliott overact. Personally, I think this goes against the theory that comic films should be fun--overacting is what it's all about. Nick Nolte was so effectively creepy and bizarre that for me he carried the movie. Jennifer Connelly was beautiful and touching, and when the film was over she had made more of a mark than other actresses in recent action films that sit and weep on the sidelines. Sam Elliott was purely captivating, and for the first time in years captured the difficult decisions and emotions that are inherent in the military field within a very miniscule timeframe. And finally, Eric Bana, as Bruce Banner: I felt his performance was just what it should have been. He didn't try to steal the show from his green counterpart, and he stayed true to the original Marvel Bruce Banner: calm, reserved and shy (which obviously creates a parallel to Hulk). Schamus's script investigated more emotion and motivation behind the Hulk than any superhero film I think I've ever seen: and it's this serious tone that makes the movie so above and beyond the rest. This doesn't ruin the film at all (as some say), but just makes the movie that much more fascinating.
As far as the graphics go, I felt that they were FAR better than that of "Spider-Man" (where I was distracted by how bad the effects were). You can see just how difficult it must have been to create the hulk character, and the way he doesn't just appear but also interacts with his environment is great. Yes, there were times during action scenes were he seemed to be made of silly putty, but they never got as flawed as in "Spider-Man."
And finally, Ang Lee's hold on the film is crucial: the way he films it mimes a comic the entire time: wide angles and vibrant frames, and the editing swipes/fades/dissolves/ and split screens really recreate this sensation of turning the pages of a comic (I'm sure the creators of both of the last comic films wish they had thought of this). Great stuff.
In the end the movie had a great blend of seriousness and hokeyness, and made a far greater impression than any of the competition. Although it wasn't a great movie, it was a great action movie. I do feel that it was a film that was so good it felt limited by it's own source material, but that's complimentary.