Rating: 
Summary: What's missing? Why I cannot praise this film.
Review: For fans of the HULK in all of his incarnations, this film cannot be the best thing ever, because of reasons I want to suggest here. I rented this after missing it in the theaters so maybe I am missing the big screen experience, but here are my thoughts after watching the film and the extras. If you havent seen it, then don't read this review. there are some spoilers (I do think fans should see it, but I also was disappointed) so stop here if you do not want the experience ruined for you.Okay, first we have the origin story. What made the Hulk's origin so moving is the desperation of the test with the "gamma bomb" and Bruce Banner saving Rick Jones, and sacrificing himself to the bomb's rays. Here in the film, we have a pseudo-scientific update using "nanomeds" bathed in gamma rays that Bruce already possessed due to his Dr. Frankenstein-like father (Nick Nolte, I will say more about him later). I have problems with that because why complicate the issue by making another prior origin to the event that transforms Bruce into the Hulk? It becomes anti-climactic when Bruce is sacrificing himself in the movie. I may incite arguments from people who loved the film, but really think about it. Why have his transformation be a two step process? Unless the father/son thing was the impetus for the whole film (which it should NOT have been). It is true that Peter David has psychoanalyzed Banner in the comics, and it is entertaining to a degree, but to make Bruce and his hulkness a product of his father's tampering, is to change the origin completely! The tragedy of the Hulk (presented in HULK #1 by JACK KIRBY (shame on the filmmakers for not giving him more credit!) and Stan "the man" Lee) is that it is an accident, that happens to a decent man who is also a genius. No offense to Eric Bana, but the Bruce Banner in the film is basically there to become the hulk. You do not buy into his being a genius. He is too young. My idea of a Banner would have been Kevin Speacy, who could have played a genius, and capture the humanity of the scientist. Bana is not bringing anything to the table, and he admits it in the 2nd disc. The other thing that I noticed was the misuse of Nick Nolte as the father. What could have worked were flashbacks to Bruce's childhood and maybe the intro of the anger issues. But to use the father as the villain is (I'm sorry) stupid. What made spider man such a success is that the origin story is straightforward, the villain intense, and the tragedy inherent. HULK is the opposite. The story is convoluted, the villain nonexistent (the army was always just a 3rd party that hunted the hulk. They do not qualify as "villains". They are just "puny humans". Again, Nick Nolte as the final "showdown villain" makes no sense, even as we have been given his sort of backstory of madness and being locked up for 30 years (?) except maybe to show off some special effects) and the tragedy is less powerful than it could have been because of these things. Why not have a pure villain? (The Leader, for instance, the REAL absorbing man, or even The Abomination) The film would have been SO much better if the origin was relegated to the first 30 minutes (like Parker's in Spider man) and the rest of the film the plight of the monster, but I guess I am just wishing for things here. For a 2 1/2 hour film, the editing did not speed up the process of telling the story at all, even with the split screening.
I want to say something good about the film, and this is because I love comics. It does try very hard to be a serious drama and succeeds in that you do not laugh at all. They gave HULK the big budget treatment, with a hot current director. The music is intense from Danny Elfman, and worthy of praise. It is an emotional film to a degree, but it is so bleak that you feel drained after watching it. I compare it to Spider man, because Sam Raimi treated spider man seriously, but he kept the element of FUN and ADVENTURE that fans loved. Ang Lee is so talented, but he is more interested in telling stories about people and their problems, than telling a straightforward action tale. I don't fault him though, this was a project that probably had hundereds of people poking their noses into it until there was no story left to tell. On the second disc, Gale Anne Hurd (producer of such epics as the terminator series, and the Abyss and forgettable fare like the Relic and Virus.) says that they really "tried to capture the essence of the comics and what comic fans loved about the Hulk." Kudos for trying, but speaking as a long time fan of the comics: "You failed Gale."
Rating: 
Summary: above average movie
Review: First off, I want to clarify the fact that this movie is based on the Hulk comic that has been around for 40+ years, not the TV show that ran for five seasons in the late 70s/early 80s (which i loved, for the record). A lot of people who've reviewed the movie seem to be confused about that. The Hulk IS that big (approx.) and, yes, he CAN "bounce off mountaintops" (as one person put it), jump hundreds of feet high, swing tanks around, etc. His real name is Bruce (not David, like on the show), his father was an abusive scientist who experimented on himself and murdered his mother, and he is supposed to be a dull introvert. Now, having said that, the special effects were great and I didn't notice any gaping plotholes (this from someone who's watched the movie with his son 9 or 10 times). I suggest the critics rewatch the movie and try to see it for what it is (NOT the Bill Bixby TV show, not a lighthearted popcorn flick like SpiderMan)---a thought-provoking psychological thriller with some great action sequences. P.S. I must agree w/ everyone on the whole "Absorbing Man" twist though...that was definitely a bit ridiculous.
Rating: 
Summary: Buy it for someone you DON'T love
Review: Worst editing I've ever seen - and I've seen some awful editing.
It's like they gave an editor's job to a high school student and told them to transition every shot a different way, anyway they could think of.
The story was very bad as well. Talk about an awful ending...
Rating:
Summary: Not necessarily the Incredible Hulk
Review: PLUSES: I felt compelled to write this review only after seeing "The Hulk" on DVD, which I now own. I had previously seen the movie on the big screen and, having been confused and disappointed by it, hoped that a second viewing would find me more forgiving of Ang Lee's effort to portray one of the classic Marvel superheroes. Indeed, I recommend that even if you disliked it at first, "The Hulk" is one of those movies that grows on you the next time around in spite of its many flaws. Bottom line is that the special effects, the visuals, and the action scenes rock, though at times pushing the boundaries of "reasonable" suspension of reality/belief. Yes, the CGI could've been less "PS2" but the Hulk on a rampage was just like what I wanted to see in a live action film. MINUSES: Alas, as far as the screenplay and the story, it is clear to me that Ang Lee was in a no-win situation from the get-go because he did not seem to understand what the character of the Hulk meant and how it fit into American pop culture. This resulted in a big-budget B monster flick that could have easily been Fing Fang Foom instead of the Incredible Hulk. Had Ang Lee's writer been Peter David or Bruce Jones, things would have been otherwise - but that's not the way it went. Still, many kudos go out to Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross and to Sam Elliott as General Thunderbolt Ross. Eric Bana was handed an unplayable role as Bruce Banner. The rest of the cast could've been anyone else. As for David Banner (Nick Nolte) becoming the Absorbing Man, my only thought on it is still, "what the heck????" To conclude, I do have just one thing that bothers me about the whole project. In the DVD, both in the film's end-credits and in the interviews/special features, there is a lot of talk about the Hulk, Stan Lee, and Ang Lee. Where in all this is JACK KIRBY?? I guess Stan forgot all about the co-creator of the Hulk, though they seemed to use Kirby's artwork all over. I am not sure what the deal is with that. Without Jack Kirby, neither Stan Lee nor Ang Lee would've had much material to work from (without belittling the efforts of the copious amounts of very talented writers and artists who have done the Hulk since the 1960's.) I will close by saying that I have the notion that Jack Kirby would've enjoyed the movie but that he would've had a pointer or two to give Ang Lee on how the Hulk should be portrayed, and who all of those characters in the supporting cast were supposed to be. Though I am all for reimagining and retelling classic stories, in this case all we got was a Hulk, but not necessarily the Incredible HULK.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible Garbage
Review: The Incredible Hulk is very boring. Eventhough it is based in an action packed comic book of the same name, it does not deserve to have the title. For starters, the movie has a very slow moving and boring pace for the first hour, and the movie is 2 and a half hours long! The actors are all wooden, Eric Bana who plays Bruce Banner can't act worth a damn. Jennifer Connely who plays Betty Banner was acted like a Barbie doll and just as life-less. Nick Nolte plays a very annoying and crazy character, who talks onscreen to death, and he looked like a dirty bum to boot.
There were lots of children watching this movie in the theatre I went to, and many of them looked bored and confused. The action sequences were scarce and pointless, not to mention DARK. They should have had more action scenes in the daytime. The point of this movie was just to show off the computer animation. And I admit that the special effects were good, but that alone cannot carry this garbage! I also hated the fact that the hulk's voice sounded like a normal human because they didn't use a voice modulator. Director, Ang Lee is a moron and this is the second time he bored me to death!
Rating: 
Summary: Needs More Stan Lee and Less Ang Lee
Review: A character like the Hulk is so caged in comic book legend that any film version of it will face the scrutiny of fans. As a fan of the Hulk, and hearing the great hype about the CGI animation, I watched "The Hulk" with hope, only to be disappointed. Too much of the movie is about the origin and unexplained subtexts, and not enough about the story Stan Lee and company made famous. The story here begins slowly and vaguely. I was confused from the start with what Bruce Banner's father, David, was doing. Things are different from how Marvel's Hulk originated, and other fans will surely be as confused. Bruce's relationship with Betty is similarly confusing. Are they dating, or did they just break up? Do they love each other, or using each other's emotions to meet some professional goals? Eric Bana, as Bruce, gave a performance that meant nothing. There was nothing to relate to as his deadpan, unexpressive personality provided only a place keeper until the Hulk raged out from him. Bruce's relationship with his father is filled with inconsistencies. Throughout the movie, I never knew if his father cared for him, or saw him as a scientific project. I never understood why, if David was such a threat to the government, and if his crimes were so terrible, was he allowed out of prison. Other unanswered questions: Why was the Hulk's wrecking of the lab largely ignored? How was a big corporation manipulating the military? Why didn't Betty tell her father about the giant dogs? Why didn't the Hulk kill Talbot when he had no moral trouble killing the guys in the tank? Stylistically, Ang Lee worried more about mimicking the comic book rather than expanding on the story. The result was a video comic, not the pop cinema masterpiece it could have been. The Hulk looks good, but too much like a colored drawing imposed upon celluloid. The special effects might be technically strong, but not as impressive as the hype. This is a B-movie tramped up into a high-publicity project that never meets its mark. Ang Lee screwed it up by dwelling on secondary concerns. Anthony Trendl
Rating:
Summary: incredible mess
Review: Ang Lee directing "The Hulk" held as much, if not more, promise for me as Tim Burton directing the original "Batman." But, the trailer for "The Hulk" was an exciting buildup to a lousy movie. The story lacked any focus, Bana played Bruce Banner all wrong, and Lee's use of that ridiculous CGI Hulk was a horrendous mistake.
Rating:
Summary: HULK SMASH PUNY FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: The Good:
Sam Elliot as General "Thunderbolt" Ross. He could have carried the film as the main antagonist rather than playing second fiddle to Nick Nolte as Banner's Father, and Josh Lucas as Talbot. He turned out a solid and entertaining performance in a very dull film. This was a breakthrough performance out of someone I used to think was strictly a B-list actor. I must retract this opinion as of seeing this performance.
The special effects of The Hulk we very well done and effectively captured the magnitude of his rage and strength. The roughly 15-20 minutes of action were decent. The Bad:
Complete rubbish!!! Ang Lee should NEVER have been given the honor of directing this film. They should call this Ang Lee's The Hulk, like Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. This is NOT an even remotely accurate re-telling or entertaining version of the classic tale that was originally told by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby. Why bother with a gamma bomb? Why bother with Rick Jones who was the main believer in, conscience of, and best friend to The Hulk and Banner? Let's just re-write it to where his dad did genetic testing on himself so we can get Nick Nolte (looking like a total derelict) in the film in the feeble hopes of name recognition. The character of Banner's father could have been completely removed from the film and the only effect would have been value added. I took my girlfriend to see this at the show, and she FELL ASLEEP during the LOUD battle, which was the climax of the film because she was so bored by the slow and predictable pace!!!!!!! The Hulk is ACTION!!!!! The Hulk is RAGE!!! HULK SMASH!!!!!!! The Ugly:
Nick Nolte's appearance and same performance that I have seen since Down and Out in Beverly Hills.
Jennifer Connelly's wooden performance as Betty Ross was a nice way of making a sympathetic yet strong female character in the comic books, into a stereotypical female damsel in distress.
Last but certainly not least, Eric Bana's 2 dimensional rendition of an incredibly complex character battling the monster within reduced to a whiny gibbering wretch of a man.
Rating:
Summary: TOO BIG TO ACTUALLY MOVE!
Review: Though I did not enjoy this movie at all, there are a couple of plus sides to this film, so I would like to begin my review by addressing those. Firstly, there are a few good supporting performances caught up within this movie. Oscar winner Jennifer Connelly turns in a fine performance as Betty Ross, the love interest of lead character Bruce Banner (Eric Bana). She had very good chemistry with Eric Bana, providing him with his best scenes. She was one of the few things in this film that made its length bearable. Sam Elliot as General Ross (Betty's father) was also a welcome ingredient to an otherwise bland and uninteresting cast. The second factor that was well worth my attention in this film was the special effects. Surprisingly, they turned out to be excellent. The Hulk himself was very real looking, especially when David Banner (played by Nick Nolte) touched his face! The movie could have stood to have more Hulk in it, as the few scenes with him are the only ones that try to be anything like the comic book! In a day when rampant overuse of CGI has taken such hold, I am glad to see that something like the Hulk has actually made worthwhile use of it for a pleasant change. Now, to the bad elements of this film. Bogged down with way too much psycho drama for its own good, this film is mired in relentless flashbacks that never let up and is hampered by endless story liberties taken by the director and writers. Why fans tend to gripe about the alterations made in other superhero franchises is beyond me after seeing the liberties and changes made here. Ang Lee is a good director, as proven by the performances in this and his previous works, but his decision to tamper with a good bit of the source material killed this film for me. According to interviews, he was personally responsible for many of the "creative liberties" that were taken with the story. The Hulk's continuing increases in size as he gets angrier was a horrible idea, reminding me more of King Kong at one point as opposed to the Hulk! It was also a mistake to tamper with the Hulk's origins to such an extent. Making David Banner (Bruce's father, the name being a nod to the television series starring Bill Bixby) a psychopathic scientist who genetically experiments on his young son is completely wrong and actually steals away from the sequence in which Bruce gets blasted by Gamma rays in the laboratory accident years later. Using the last half of the film to turn David into the new super villain was the biggest mistake of all. The merging of David's character and The Absorbing Man from the comic book results in one of the most ridiculous misrepresentations of a comic book villain in recent years. The finale of the film, which sported a special effects filled clash between Bruce and his all powerful father, was a joke and made very little sense! What happened? The film was out of control at this point, but thanks to the director not knowing what an edit option is, the film kept going and going and going while accomplishing nothing. This seemimgly tacked on ending was there just to give ILM something BIG to do with Universal's money! Lee really needs to remember how to edit a movie properly. It was way too long for its own good, clocking in at a whopping 138 minutes. Lee's choice to panel so many scenes throughout the film was very annoying after a little while. This may work for a montage sequence or for opening credits, but to rely on a this technique throughout a whole film?? Very bad decision to be sure. He has stated that he wanted to remind us that we were watching a comic book movie. Does he think that we, the audience, don't already know that? Well, we are watching Lee's "artistic" version of the Hulk. I actually cannot comment on Eric Bana as an actor outside of the Hulk film, for I have never seen any other film that he has starred in. I can say, however, that I was not very pleased with his performance as Bruce Banner, but I really do not place the blame on his acting skills, but rather on the overdose of psychological problems presented by the script. Everything Bana did with his performance was on the spot, but for me the material bogged his character down incredibly. I think I would have liked Bana had he been presented with differing material and characterization to work with! As for Nick Nolte, I feel that he was miscast in the role of David Banner. He chews lots of scenery, but is ultimately wasted in the role.
Danny Elfman has delivered many fine film scores during his career. His score this time around, however, was very lacking as far as enhancing this film goes. There was a complete lack of any kind of theme for one thing, which should never be the case in a film of this type. The eastern influences heard throughout the soundtrack were very out of place for a movie set solely in America! Perhaps it would play better as an isolated soundtrack minus the movie, but as a companion to the film, it did nothing for it at all. This is a cardinal sin in movie soundtracks! If a score fails to enhance your movie going experience, then why was it there to begin with? As usual, the movie studio over-hyped their big summer release. They aimed this psychodrama at children, not realizing that they will be the ones least interested in the long, confusing, uninteresting story sprinkled with only a handful of action sequences! Is it really a wonder why this movie ended up being such a disappointment at the box office? Oh well, they had to sell toys somehow didn't they!
Rating:
Summary: Interesting
Review: I saw Hulk today. I went expecting to find a mindless summer action flick. Instead, I was taken aback by the dark, often extremely disturbing elements of it. I shouldn't be, since most of the elements showed up in the comic over th years, but I guess seeing it all on screen adds a certain emotional page that you just don't get on the four colored page. Some scenes caused me to squirm in my seat. Without elaborating, some things hit close to home. The origin story differs much from the story. In the movie, Bruce Banner's father is using his toddler son in illegal experiments hoping to build the perfect man. In actuality, his long term goal is to improve upon himself genetically. Without spoiling any more of the essential plot elements, Bruce's father is an all around abusive man who brutalizes both Bruce and his mother. Bruce represses memories of this abuse (one instance especially) but it comes out after the accident that exposes him to Gamma rays. The Gamma rays trigger his father's old experiments and turns Bruce into the Hulk. The Hulk is Bruce's id-a personification of his subconscious rage. The only calming effect on the Hulk is Betty Ross, played by Jennifer Connelly. Connelly is pretty much playing the same character she played in A Beautiful Mind She won an Oscar for that role, and although he Academy Awards ignores movies like this, I think her role here is just as emotionally intense and deserves at least a nod. Mercy, they gave one to a thug like Eminem. Why not to a comic book movie? Sam Elliot plays General "Thunderbolt" Ross, Betty's estranged father (See a theme here?) who is obsessed with destroying the Hulk-until he sees how much Betty cares for Bruce. I love Sam Elliot for his westerns, but he makes just as good an old warhorse. It eminded me a lot of his character from We Were Soldiers If you liked him in that, you'll like him in this. The best role, though, was Nick Nolte as David Banner, Bruce's father. He played him so clinically psychotic and over the top, he was the most colorful actor. He chews up every scene he is in, especially near the end when he lays out his motivations for experimenting on Bruce. It is totally chilling that a person would do that to his own son, yet I believe he's capable of it because he's such a fruitcake. The star is, of course, the Hulk. The CGI was fantastic-miles above Jar Jar Binks. My favorite scene is the battle with the tanks. There are several laugh out lius moments as he destroys them one at a time. The scene where the Hulk attacks San Francisco is also impressive. I'll admit some things had me scratching my head. The mutated poodles, for one. Yes. Mutated poodles. The ending is also largely symbolic and open to interpretation. I'll have to chew it over before I pass judgment on it. Regardless, I think Hulk is definitely worth seeing, but it is certainly not a movie fit for kids like Spiderman was.
|
