Indy.com
Today:
The Incredible Hulk
Posted: Jun 18, 2008 in Things to do, Movies, TV and Celebrities
Tags:
"C+" Rating by Robert W. Hammerle
The only honest way to describe the most recent version of "The Incredible Hulk" is to say that it is not so incredible. With the exception of the opening sequence which finds our human mutant (Edward Norton) hiding out in an urban slum somewhere in Brazil, it is uniformly uninspired, one-dimensional and most disappointing of all, sadly dull.
Of all the summer movies released to date in 2008, this is the one that is most transparently aimed at boys sixteen years of age and younger. And since "Z," my Saudi exchange student, has returned home, I was denied my template to appropriately judge how this film plays with its target group.
As stated above, the movie begins with Bruce Banner (the Hulk) living in a remote area of Brazil while he tries to discover a cure for his mutation. His location having been discovered by his former boss and protagonist, General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt), the scenes involving the attempted capture of the unfortunate Mr. Banner are the best dramatic parts of this movie.
In particular, the chase scenes through the crowded alleys of the fetid Brazilian slum and bottling plant where Banner has been working are a hoot. And I must say that his initial transformation into "The Hulk," with predictable results to his pursuers, was what summer action films are all about.
The enigmatic Tim Roth plays Emil Blonsky, the psychologically damaged leader of the group trying to capture Banner. His obsession eventually leads to his own mutation into something called the "Abomination," and Roth plays the monster with the same fierce, pathological rage that he brought to his role as Thade, the demented warrior ape in Tim Burton's otherwise forgettable remake of the "Planet of the Apes" (2001).
Quite frankly, I am now convinced that "The Incredible Hulk" is simply a superhero/monster that doesn't translate well to the screen. Ang Lee's original attempt in "Hulk" (2003) was overly burdened with a lengthy psychological lead-in, something that this one mercifully avoids. On the other hand, there is no more emotional depth or angst to this film than there was to the lightweight "Fantastic Four" films (2005 & 2007).
Furthermore, I have a hard time imagining why a female of any age would want to go to this film. The only woman in this picture of any note is Liv Tyler, who plays Mr. Norton's long lost love interest. However, she is literally a one trick emotional pony, in that she is called upon to do little more than look desperate and angst ridden.
While I certainly want to acknowledge the fine quality of the special effects, particularly when Banner transforms into "The Hulk," this movie is a complete waste of the incredible talents of Mr. Norton, one of our truly fine actors. What other actor has the following resume:
(1) Larry Flynt's irrepressible lawyer in "The People vs. Larry Flynt" (1996);
(2) The psychotic stutterer in "Primal Fear" (1996);
(3) The devastating turn as a white racist in "American History X" (1998);
(4) His tormented turn as Brad Pitt's alter ego in "Fight Club" (1999);
(5) The surprise villain in "The Italian Job" (2003);
(6) The passionate love-struck doctor and magician in his two underrated films of 2006, "The Painted Veil" and "The Illusionist."
It is interesting to note that in a film largely devoid of imagination, director Louis Leterrier was creative enough to have Lou Ferrigno, the original Hulk in the TV series, voice his old monster in this film. Additionally, pay attention to the scene where Mr. Norton, watching TV while holed up in his Brazilian shanty, looks up to see Bill Bixby in "The Courtship of Eddie's Father," the same Bill Bixby who played TV's Bruce Banner.
If Mr. Leterrier had used half as much imagination with the rest of his film, he might have truly made something worth remembering. As it is, this is a high-budget "B movie," nothing more and nothing less.
wow,,,am i ever glad i didn't listen to your review of this film- seems to me that you didn't even watch what everyone else was watching.
"a film largely devoid of imagination..."- what in the hell do you think THE INCREDIBLE HULK is? it's Stan Lee's creation- based on imagination, and Leterrier did 100% of his job in creating a sensational depiction of what comic book readers wanted to see in the first place.
the only dull thing related to this movie, is, sadly, your review.
next time, stay home and rent BEACHES.
Strictmachine:
My God, but you are one angry person! Do you always react so bitterly when someone disagrees with you?
Additionally, I obviously didn't come to this film with your area of expertise, namely "what comic book readers wanted to see in the first place." In that regard, I somewhat envy you comic book devotees, because it takes so little to entertain most of you!
There is so much more I'd like to say concerning your acid response, but I think I will simply choose to invoke a principle that I have always lived by: "If you duel wits with an idiot, you run the risk of becoming one."
The comments you have made clearly show your intelligence, but I have to respectfully disagree with some of them. I don't think that the movie was aimed primarily at 16 year old boys. In fact, it has a strong undercurrent of nostalgia, being heavily rooted in the 1970's television series that most 16 year olds would have little if any familiarity with.
There may also be much more emotional depth here than you give credit for. Most of us want power, especially when we feel victimized or mistreated, but we also fear losing control, and the Hulk represents extremes of both. Being the strongest man in the world is a very desirable thing, but in this case it is inextricably coupled with a very undesirable thing - being afraid of losing control and hurting others - so there is real pathos here. Banner never wanted to be the Hulk, but he needs the Hulk as the only thing powerful enough save him (and others) in dangerous situations. I find the sense of conflict rather delicious myself.
I do agree that the Hulk may not translate well to the big screen. It's probably easier to sell a monster as a hero in the pure fantasy realm of comic books than to a general movie audience. Still, I really enjoyed this movie.
While I certainly enjoyed the movie, I don't think Bob is that far off base, except the one that Hulk doesn't translate well. I noted in my review that Ang Lee's Hulk still weighs heavy on this film, even though it's not a sequel or connected in any way.
It's the fact that the film had to be "rebooted" that left that baggage from the Ang Lee version and the failures associated with it (the introspective, slow-moving narrative, the daddy issues, the way it went so far over the top, the lengthy origin story) that pushed Marvel to make a faster-paced action film rather than a long, deep look at the character, the curse, and the reaction the military had to the Hulk.
Keep in mind that there is a significant amount of footage (I believe 40 minutes) that the studio cut in order to make it a leaner more popcornish film. They were trying to cleanse themselves of the box office stink that Ang Lee left the franchise with (though the movie was good in some ways), and they kind of were so worried about distancing themselves that they forgot to actually make the best movie they could make.
I'll be looking forward to the extended cut on the DVD, which I think will make for a much stronger picture in the end.
Johnnybegoode:
While I am responding somewhat belatedly, I do think your comments of June 20, 2008 had merit. However, while I also know that many share your view, for me this was just an enjoyable special effects laden "B" summer movie.
I certainly enjoyed the numerous action scenes, but the drama apart from that was rather one-dimensional. And while I have repeatedly expressed my tremendous admiration for the acting skills of Edward Norton, I again state that he was wasted in the "Hulk."