HULK (2003)
A repressed scientist turns into Shrek.
Yeah, I'm afraid computer animation is still not up to the job of creating lifelike characters interacting with humans, though great strides have been made. The way the character moves is usually where the worst shortcomings are. And the Hulk character is not as convincingly implemented as some other recent CGI characters have been, such as Gollum or (Lord help us) Jar Jar Binks -- and certainly no match for King Kong, made two years later. They worked very hard on making the Hulk's body realistic, but not hard enough. For instance, they gave the body layers of skin and muscle and tried to make them all move authentically, but they forgot that muscle goes slack when it's not in use. The facial expressions are also less than convincing, probably because they used motion-capture for body movement (and Ang Lee did the motion-acting himself) but not for the face. (Facial motion-capture is indeed available; it's used in The Polar Express.) Unfortunately, the lavish budget for the rest of the movie makes this one area of unrealism stick out more noticeably.
Realism is a key question here, because this is a film that presents everything else so authentically and believably -- the scientists, for instance, are the most true-to-life of any comic book film -- that accepting the premise of an all-out scientifically absurd comic book version of the Hulk, not toned down at all, is pretty difficult. "If we tone it down, it wouldn't be an action blockbuster," the money-men must have said. The problem is most pronounced in the film's final battle, which really stretches things into the further realms of implausibility, and is the reason the film earned one tent. The Hulk is one of the harder comic book characters to swallow... I kind of wish they'd picked a different one for Ang Lee to tackle, like maybe Spider-Man.
Because within the limitations mentioned, he's made a masterpiece. It might be the best existing comic book movie, and is far superior to most action blockbuster fare outside the comic book field too. His version of the story has considerable originality, and has a depth and level of maturity never previously brought to this kind of film, standing head and shoulders and massive chest above every other comic-derived film, and most other action movies. The tale is presented and developed with a mastery and an artistry that I don't think has ever been seen before in a summer blockbuster -- in fact, it's possibly the finest film ever to be marketed as an action spectacular. Almost every other major comic book movie does little more, in the end, than tell the familiar story that readers of the comic already know... this one does far more, and creates a genuinely new story within the old outline.
"Your name is not Krensler. It's Banner."
Ang Lee tips his hat to the comic origin not by making the story's environment look stylized, a la Batman (1989) or Dick Tracy, but by techniques such as frequently breaking up the screen into multiple framed boxes, fancy blendings of consecutive scenes, and cuts to different viewpoints even when the action is static, mimicking the way consecutive comic panels always view the scene from different directions. He uses this technique to assemble montages which in some cases, notably the opening credits, pack in quite a lot of exposition of the sort that would normally require contrived and excessive dialogue. By spreading parts of the action out in space instead of time, he can fit in more story without making the movie feel rushed, or making it too long. In lesser hands this technique could have been a cheap failed gimmick, but in his it's a bold and successful artistic choice. (Of course, as is necessarily the case with bold choices, some won't like it at all.) He uses splendid scenery, particularly of the southwestern desert... which intersects with a masterful use of water symbolism.
Ang Lee's methods of storytelling are so perfectly nuanced that the movie needs almost no conventional exposition. In fact, they did film one such scene near the beginning, and cut it out (not without leaving some dangling references to it)... and I think this is the first time I've ever watched a DVD's deleted scenes and agreed that every one of them was correctly removed. And his action directing is the kind I find most believable: real-time, messy, random, and largely free of show-off stunts... the exact opposite of the kind of balletic choreography you see in the Hong Kong type of action films.
There is subtle indirection used at several points so that plot developments end up surprising you... for instance, hitting you with human drama when you've been led to expect science-fictional wonders, and vice versa. But it's not a film that loses its value once you know the surprises; it's one that gains depth on re-watching.
The acting is mostly good; Jennifer Connelly and Nick Nolte are considerable talents, though some don't care for their styles, and Sam Elliott as "Thunderbolt" Ross is really excellent. General Ross's character was handled uncommonly well, with respect for his point of view and his sense of duty, despite it being in direct conflict with the scientist protagonists. Unlike almost every other movie where somebody from the government tries to kill or imprison the hero, this movie remembers that his reasons for doing so are really quite valid. He turns out to be much more trustworthy than his adversarial role would suggest. Conversely, another major character turns out to be much less trustworthy than you'd presume. The only character who's really one-dimensional is a military contractor sleazeball played by Josh Lucas.
Acting-wise, only Eric Bana in the lead role is a bit disappointing... he's good at suggesting submerged rage, but he doesn't really get how to be a repressed, bottled-up nerd. Almost nobody in Hollywood ever does, come to think of it. Here's a tip, guys: think 50% Jeff Goldblum, and 50% Daniel Roebuck as the teenage killer in River's Edge. You need a bit of that sociopathic flattened affect. Or try playing the character as semi-autistic. Anyway, when another character tells him that he stands out as nerdy even among other scientists, you don't quite buy it.
I would have given this film the #1 ranking if not for the flaws in the animated hulk itself, which never quite lets you forget that it's a digital fabrication, and the preposterosity of the final battle. The ending also cost it a bit. But this really is the first authentic action blockbuster art film, and successful on both of those levels. And I'll bet you good money that it will be the last. How will anyone pull off that combination again? Especially since this one barely broke even in theatrical release.
The bottom line is, despite its flaws I love this movie. It's one of the most replayed DVDs I own.
Hollywood hates Ang Lee's Hulk so much that instead of making a sequel, they've "re-imagined" the story only five years later. Fuck you, Hollywood.
And it's cool that they've brought in Ed Norton as Bruce Banner, but replacing Jennifer Connelly with Liv Tyler? Are you kidding me??
The new director is Louis Leterrier, who made The Transporter, a cool stylish action piece. Now nobody wants a cool stylish action Hulk... but what ended up happening is that Ed Norton took over a lot of creative control of the story, and the end result is really not the least bit Transporter-y. Instead, what we have is a take on the Hulk that's based largely on the old Bill Bixby TV show. Which I liked fine at first, being about mood and character at least as much as about action, but it jumped the shark in season 3.
Apparently the real reason Marvel threw out Ang Lee's version to do this is not so much because they hated it or wanted to wash their hands of a semi-flop, but because it was Not Invented Here. They want to make a new set of movies entirely in-house, where everything is controlled by Marvel and they can link the stories together. This film is the second entry in what we might call the Avengers Series -- the first being Iron Man. There's years and years of material they could put into this Avengers Series, especially given that each individual character can have its own set of sequels (Iron Man 3 is already a signed deal, for instance).
So how did the result turn out? Let's compare it to the Ang Lee version. Areas in which this film improved on Ang Lee:
Areas in which this film fails to measure up to Ang Lee:
About those intrusive call-outs: this is not just a minor quibble. Those references and nerd easter-eggs were so damn incessant that I wouldn't be exaggerating much to say they ruined the movie for me. They just would not let up!
The one element of this movie that its creators seem to be truly proud of, which they boast about and pat themselves on the back for in their promotional and making-of footage, is the new CGI Hulk. It's so much more advanced, it's so much more detailed, it's so much more realistically modeled... it even has a heartbeat to make the veins throb!... they're completely convinced that it's far more real and solid and believable than the 2003 CGI model. Well, IT'S NOT. It's no better! They still haven't figured out how to let muscles go slack, and the fact that they gave the muscles body-builder striations just emphasizes the issue. And the face, despite the expressions being based on motion capture of a real face in a far more detailed way, ends up looking a lot more cartoonish than the old one. For every area they've improved, they've lost ground somewhere else. Overall it's a wash at best.
Compared to its predecessor, this is indeed basically just a big dumb action movie. Or maybe not dumb -- I can't really call it stupid, but it does pretty much hew to uninspired action formulae. Including the old Sci-Fi Channel chestnut about something going Terribly Wrong due to an experimental attempt to create super-soldiers. I wouldn't call it a bad movie, but I can't exactly call it a good one either.
But I do have to give it credit for the wonderful way the setting of a Brazilian slum is used in the opening act. That bit, if nothing else, was masterful. And unfortunately, since this is at the start, everything is downhill from there... in fact, one could say with all too much truth that this Hulk movie turns to crap the minute the Hulk first shows up.
Did the new give-the-fans-what-they-want action Hulk at least outperform the cerebral Hulk at the box office? No, financially the two versions performed just about the same.
I'm not sorry I watched it, but my overall response is still "fuck you".