Summer Cinema: ‘Hulk’
It has been the summer of the comic book. After the success of “Spider-man” last summer, Hollywood jumped on the bandwagon releasing such films as “Daredevil” and “X-2” with movies about every other super hero imaginable in development. “Hulk,” directed by Ang Lee, is the next one on the list. But unlike some of its predecessors, is a disappointing shadow of what may have been a fun summer romp.
“Hulk” tells the story of Bruce Banner (newcomer Eric Bana), an orphaned scientist working on a project involving nanomeds (tiny medical robots) and gamma rays in an attempt to speed the body’s natural healing processes. Banner is exposed to the gamma rays during a lab accident, and when mixed with some genetic mutations made by his father they make him turn big, green, and powerful when angry.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the film is Lee himself. The director of “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” employs a lot of the techniques he used in that movie in “Hulk.” Now these techniques (deliberate shots of nature, slow sweeping shots of character emotion and stars bounding off trees and mountain tops) worked great in “Crouching Tiger,” but they take away the harsh humanity of “Hulk” and turn it into an Oriental art film centering around a green monster.
Bana and co-star Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross) were great, as was Nick Nolte as Banner’s mad father. But their performances didn’t help the overstuffed script. Substance and relationship was traded for brooding, pointless dialogue and a story line lacking in energy and drive. We only really get to see the Hulk in action three times throughout the film, and are left instead with two hours of back story, flashbacks and special effects of Banner’s blood and DNA.
This film did successfully integrate a technique not used much since the sixties when movies such as “The Thomas Crown Affair” popularized the method. I’m talking about the screen within a screen; two separate frames of footage showing action from a different angle or even highlighting different actions altogether. This effect added to the feeling of watching a comic book unfold a page at a time on screen.
The CGI action of the Hulk was quite amazing. For a hulking monster they gave him extreme depth and range of emotion. If you get the chance, try to find some of the behind-the-scenes specials showcasing how they used Connelly’s face as the model for the Hulk’s emotions. It’s quite entertaining.
“Hulk” is a fun film, but no where near the best comic book film to come out in recent times. Maybe it will be like the X-men films and subsequent ones will be better. But if this is the best they can do, then no amount of temper tantrums will help them keep an audience base for their sequels. My advice: drop Lee and give Bryan Singer the job. This film is better left for the cheap theaters or DVD.
Grade: C+