Movie Review

Hulk

There are a few things to admire in Hulk, but those few things are suffocated by a whole truckload of negatives, making you walk out not only disappointed at what could have possibly been achieved, but also pissed because you were a sucker to live the entire experience out.

This is a film I had contemplated walking out on numerous times throughout, only to be frustrated in the end not to have followed through with that plan. Let me also add that I never walk out of movies, as I?ve even stayed for The Master of Disguise (D+), but did almost walk out of Dude Where?s My Car? (D).
It came to a point probably a little over an hour through Hulk where I wanted to check my watch; but being as though I knew this was around 138 minutes long, I feared knowing what the amount of time I had left to sit in torture was. After a while of hesitation, I stopped being a pansy and checked?and checked?and checked ? you get the point.

Having liked X-Men 2 (B), the comic book adventure that launched summer to an enormous box office start, the flick really painted a solid picture to what Hulk was deeply missing. Coming from director Ang Lee, most notably known for bringing to life Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (among other sophisticated releases), Hulk is a dull and hollow film that really makes you wonder if he himself was sincerely content with the final results. It had occurred to me midway through that this was the first film since Swept Away (D+) where I looked at the director?s name (Guy Ritchie) and exclaimed, "Is this really you ? this bore-feast? You?re better than this!"

Though I wasn?t any more emotionally involved in Hulk than I was throughout Swept Away?s duration (as well as the frustration level being relatively on the same level on each occasion), Ang Lee rises above by a slight margin. The reason for this is simply through a matter of style, or quite possibly what could be referred to as desperation.

Throughout Hulk, we?re presented a story with characters lacking meaning and definition ? lacking in a reason to care on our part. However, Lee nevertheless attaches an editing style that proves to be rather slick and cool when it does play its part; so while we realize the script is really going nowhere pretty fast, we do have the opportunity to gaze at this directorial trick blinding us from the truth.

Alongside the editing tactic, Lee creates a few moments in the beginning that really made me think of a cross between a Tim Burton and Oliver Stone film ? the tone being a very specific emotion; it was like being presented a surreal fantasy world with an almost fever-dream sensation. The visual intrigue was there like in a Burton creation (but friendlier than the usual Burton), but there was also a tint of the crazy yet irresistible atmosphere seen in Natural Born Killers; for those who are not on the same page, perhaps it was just my demented little mind. The music and sound effects chosen for these spots were also ideal.

However impacting these few moments tend to be, it doesn?t make up for what The Hulk is missing for the remaining two hours, and that happens to be a long list of aspects that went close to terribly wrong. So in a case like this, where in fact is the best place to begin? Well, let?s start with the basics ? the story.

Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) is a quiet and reserved scientist, working in the same perimeters as his ex-girlfriend, Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). Banner is known for being a rather constrained individual, never really lashing out at anyone in anger; he lives in a world of peace, even if frustration may boil up his nerves at times. When Talbot, played by Josh Lucas, comes into the picture, annoying Bruce due to his questionable intention of wooing Betty over, Bruce?s irritation level rises; could this be a sign of events to come?

When Banner and Ross attempt a genetic experiment, an innocent bystander is accidentally caught right in the middle; as a result, Bruce rushes in to save the day, but in return, the experiment is tested on his body. Bruce is very worried about the consequences of what he just did, but as we sit and watch, we anticipate the transformation he?ll soon make; we want to see the green monster lash out and create a fun disaster show that?s the equivalent of what Godzilla wasn?t. This genetic experiment soon causes the monster inside Bruce to slowly show its presence; slowly and steadily, the story builds to when he finally pops and wreaks havoc.

The problem with Hulk lies in several different areas. First of all, Ang Lee seems to promise us he?s going a correct route, and that being to let the premise act as a crucial element to the storytelling process rather than simply using it as an excuse to blow up town. I liked the idea of an inner beast exploding out of a gentle soul, but as much as this theme shows encouragement, nothing with this concept is explored beneath the page.

The characters we?re handed are almost one-dimensional; we understand the basics of our protagonists, but that?s about all we ever learn. As Hulk was playing, it came to my attention that if anybody had died as a result of anything, it wouldn?t have made any difference on my emotions. I was not attached to anyone, only awaiting the chase of which I was told was at the finale; in fact, the real showdown was the only thing keeping me in the theater, and once I stayed for that attraction, I regretted doing so.

As if the story and its characters couldn?t be any more basic in nature, it does the impossible and even showcases that component for most of the duration. There are action bits that come here and there, but rarely are they ever enticing, nor do the scenes occupy a decent screen time. We keep waiting, patiently or impatiently, for something to evolve from this production; scene after scene revolves around dialogue between characters, and yet it is sometimes difficult to figure out the precise meaning of these segments. Hulk seems to go on and on even when there were times I was convinced its running time was up; unfortunately, there was evidently plenty of space to fill on the screen.

Critics often say that some disaster movies should focus more on story than the action, as it creates a sense of reality, which can deepen the affect. With Signs, the Shyamalan picture is more of a human drama, which forces the horror of the idea to be that much more frightening ? the experience feels real.

With Hulk, the storyline couldn?t be any more contrived in believability, but being a comic book flick I?m willing to stretch my imagination as long as the ride delivers. But that is the dilemma with this film, as it is all story and the story doesn?t have much to it; it?s a two hour and twenty minute big budget event that expresses the same points for most of the attraction. The film never goes anywhere, and for such a long flick, being stuck in the theater for that long, screaming and yelling, is almost death.

I appreciate it when films resort to intelligence and hand in a story that is well thought out and operated, then turning to action, both (contents) of which fitting in the picture rather than taking the illusion that the story?s there in order for the action to roll out. The Hulk doesn?t do that; for a good distance it makes you think it?ll travel the intelligent route, but then it tricks you. You believe there could be promise down the road, but then that promise is broken. And then you yourself feel just like The Hulk ? wanting to break out of your gentle soul, wreaking havoc on those talents who are making you sit for over two hours at this desperate filmmaking piece.

When the big action moments finally begin to give way, you feel like cheering, for now something has finally happened. But the other benchmark that is not met is making the CGI Hulk look like he?s really on the screen, bouncing continuously through the desert, hopping away like this year?s Kangaroo Jack. I?ve yet to see Jack, but if he could fly hundreds of feet into the air in that movie, then this is probably the equivalent.

I found myself occasionally chuckling along, with the audience, at the unbelievable extent the special effects went during these spots. I can take a movie that doesn?t totally look (to the detail) like reality, but watching the green monster rebel against society is almost laughable to witness. It then came to my attention that if The Hulk was more of an action movie than one that concentrated on story concepts, this comic book adaptation just might have been more miserable to witness. I then started to appreciate the story presence a tad bit more, but even so, this is one bore feast that I never want to see again.

Since I was at a point near the end of the flick where I just wanted to have fun with it despite my frustration level being pretty high up there, I started making vocal remarks, which I only resort to when I?m really not content with the experience. And during the finale of Nick Nolte?s dramatic speech near the end of the picture, the only sarcastic words that I could stumble across were: "I think he wins Best Actor of the year."

It?s almost hard to think Hulk was more bland and worthless than this year?s Daredevil (C), but the truth is, if Hulk weren?t so damn long it probably would have achieved the more average rating. The film was riding on a C grade for a good way through; just when things convinced me they weren?t going to change, my opinion went down the slope. With The Hulk?s obvious ending pointing toward future sequels, all I can say is that next time, unless there is some sort of faith for the picture, that you pretty definitely won?t find me a victim of the massacre.

Lee's Grade: C-
Ranked #125 of 132 between Dreamcatcher (#124) and The Medallion (#126) for 2003 movies.

A	0.4%
B	30.0%
C	61.7%
D	8.0%
F	0.0%