Review: The Hulk

By Radar June 21, 2003 8:51 AM

     Print Story

Like a lot of people, I was prepared to roll my eyes at The Hulk. ?From the trailer it looked like a computer game laid over a movie. ?The movements and look of the CGI Hulk didn?t look like anything that couldn?t be done with a joystick and ?whatever is the latest game box. ?But the trailer shows the only the most unbelievable Hulk stunts. ?Like covering miles of desert in a single sproingy leap and swinging an Abrams tank around by the barrel and letting it fly. ?The trailer invites skepticism. ?

In the film, the deft writing of James Schamus places the creature in the context of fully developed characters and a story comprising age-old motivations and conflicts. ?It is, essentially, a classical tragedy. ?We don?t actually see his Greenness in daylight until almost a third of the way through a fairly long movie. ?The first third is spent developing the back story of the Banner family and Bruce Banner?s past relationship with his co-researcher, Betty (Jennifer Conelly). ?When the Hulk does make his green debut, it is in shadow and dimness. ?By the time we see him in the light of day, we?re used to him?he?s the big, green guy. ? ?

It?s not visual verisimilitude that suspends disbelief, good writing does that. ?King Kong on the Empire State Building, swatting at biplanes, doesn?t even come close to looking real, but Kong?s tragic pathos fills us and the Hulk comes close to matching it. ?Of course the Hulk doesn?t look real. ?He?s a giant green monster. ?Gollum and the ?bullet-time? sequences in the Matrix don?t look real either. ?Actually the Hulk doesn?t look any more artificial than the make-up on Sam Elliot, who, playing a four star general and nemesis of Bruce Banner?s mad scientist father, still seems like a refugee from a made-for-TV western. ?Nolte plays the senior Banner to the hilt, maybe a little beyond the hilt sometimes. ?He is in danger of being type cast as anything with the word ?mad? in its name.

In spite of all the debate over the appearance of the beast himself, the film looks great?like a well-drawn comic, its frames are tightly composed around quirky close-ups and alienating long shots. ?Editor Tim Squyres moves fluidly through scenes and the usually intrusive transitional devices like wipes and fades make perfect sense and, although the cubist perspectives add little or nothing to the plot, keep the film firmly anchored in comicland. ?Using standard comic composition techniques, director Ang Lee seems to be saying to the audience: this is an adaptation of a comic book, for crying out loud. ?And he?s right, if you can?t see it for what it is, it will certainly disappoint.

And it will be a long disappointment because this is one leisurely film. ?It never drags, and it seems less than its 138 minute running time, but it never hurries as it builds the characters and the story. ?And it sets up nicely for a sequel as well. ?There is no need to rush if you know your working on a trilogy, which seems to be the current standard for big action movies.

It is in the telegraphing of the sequel that the film fails. ?Where it could have been tragic, had its end reached a final and honest conclusion, it sets up hope and optimism, anticipation of another chance for Bruce Banner to find a cure to unchain himself from the beast that rages within. ?This is presumably good for Bruce, but bad for the film. ?For tragedy to work, it must be moving toward a final conclusion, an inevitable and, of course, tragic end. ? The wages of sin must be paid, even unfair ones, even those of the father visited upon the son.

Irony and humor are strikingly absent. ?It?s not as if the film takes itself too seriously?it?s not, like the Matrix, pretentious or overbearing in its message?it?s more like the makers were so absorbed with film craft CGI work that they didn?t have time for fun. ?Now, anytime you?re spending $150 million of someone else?s money it?s serious business, and by all accounts Lee and the rest of the crew worked long and hard on The Hulk. ?Perhaps its greatest shortcoming is that all that hard work shows.

Tweet This Now!

Reader Discussions:

Post YOUR opinion too!

The Hulk is a lot like Spiderman...   reply

Posted by Yakobusan (spam@mysan.de) on June 26, 2003 1:23 PM

...it has a good, tight story, a animated main actor and a stupid ending.

What it has more than other recent comic movies is heart! You become Bruce banner in the first five minutes, and you explore this beast inside his corpse together with him. That's the best thing about it! It is psychologically so dense and belivable, you can really enjoy that. Eric Bana is a good choice for Bruce Banner, when he does that "I am getting angry thing" you really are scared! Jennifer Connelly is beautiful as always, but her role is not that perfect... But well, what is? Nick Nolte as the father is really good, too. He is a bit of an a--hole, but on the other hand he is a scientist and his son is his project.

What makes the story very good too is the editing! It is so awesome! They transfered the Marvel comic style directly onto the movie! It's unbelivable, you have to see it for yourself. Those quick cuts and moving bars are really impressing and add a lot of speed to the movie. It really becomes a comic with the time, it gets faster, later lots of action, and it goes deeper and deeper...

What you all want to hear is the animation quality. Well, like I said, it is like Spiderman, you know it is digital, and you see it. But then it is like with Gollum in The Lord Of The Rings: After 5 minutes you stop thinking about how well he is done and you accept him as a character. Same here. What I didn't like were those strange dogs... I think Ang Lee had to put them in for Marvel's sake. Because without these other comic figures The Hulk could be like a horror movie or something... The rest of the movie is like a action movie, not a comic. Well, actually, I can't really say that, cause I didn't read the comics. But for me, it seemed a little bit like Godzilla or something...

Anyway, the movie is touching, and it makes you want to see a second part. It has the energy and power of Spiderman plus the good Story from X-Men 2. The score is good, you don't really notice it, the camera too, everything is okay, normal for a big budget Hollywood movie I would say.

So: Definitly watchable! I give it 4 out of 5 stars.
Just one thing: Dear editors, be more creative on the endings. Please.