The problem with “Hulk” lies in its story and to some degree its visual effects, but mostly – story.
I had so much anticipation for Ang Lee´s big screen adaptation of Marvel´s "Hulk." The film starred Eric Bana, an actor I had been telling my friends would be one of the next great ones. I had watched "Chopper" and just been in awe of his performance. Of course, Ang Lee directed the wonderful "Sense and Sensibility" and a little Hong Kong classic "Wo hu cang long" which was released to us English speaking folk as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." With so much respected talent, it seemed like "Hulk" would be a slam dunk summer blockbuster and erase memories of "Godzilla." "Spider-Man" became a big screen sensation with Tobey Maguire and Sam Raimi. "Hulk" seemed like the next best thing.
Oh how my hopes were squashed. "Hulk" didn´t turn out to be a complete disappointment, but it was no "Spider-Man" and it certainly was no "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." The team of Bana and Ang Lee did no justice to Stan Lee´s "Hulk" and I left theaters feeling cheated. After all, with a supporting cast of the beautiful Jennifer Connelly, the always captivating Sam Elliot and everybody´s favorite scruffy veteran Nick Nolte, how could this film have went so wrong? Even Stan Lee and Lo Ferrigno stopped by for cameo roles as security guards. "Hulk" should have been the start of something wonderful. It should have catapulted Eric Bana into the stratosphere. It should have put Ang Lee far above Michael Bay and not into the same bucket as Paul Weasel S. Anderson.
Time has passed and I´m still a little disappointed, but have come to appreciate the film some. I certainly welcome "Hulk" more onto my screen than I do Ang Lee´s "Brokeback Mountain." Eric Bana has been in a few good movies, but is not the megastar I expected him to be. The film is still too heavy on exposition, too light on action and too visually weak to tackle the amazing "Spider-Man," but it is far superior to "Aliens vs. Predator," another heartache for me. The HD-DVD packaging says "The larger-than-life Marvel Super Hero The Hulk explodes onto the big screen!" Well, he is now on my not-so-big screen and still doesn´t explode, but I can now sit down and enjoy the movie with a bit of a smile and though I still think Nick Nolte´s really bad hair is the best part of the film, I´m starting to appreciate the attempt to make the big green guy a Hollywood tent pole.
Eric Bana is Bruce Banner, a scientist who has a slight mishap with some gamma rays. His coworker and romantic interest Betty Ross witnesses the accident and doesn´t understand how he isn´t dead, but in perfect health. Banner may not have died, but the gamma radiation altered his DNA and put within him a beast that explodes into a gigantic green Hulk that loves to smash things. Nick Nolte is Banner´s proclaimed ´father´ and has been subjected to gamma rays with a rather different effect. Banner gets upset and beats up Talbot (Josh Lucas) and becomes a menace to society that is tracked down by the military with planes, tanks and helicopters. Sam Elliot is General Ross, the father of Betty and a man who tells Bruce to stay the hell away from his daughter (if Sam Elliot told me such a thing, I personally would listen). Betty discovers that Bruce is the big green beast and becomes the caring heroine.
The problem with "Hulk" lies in its story and to some degree its visual effects, but mostly – story. Anything from dogs to ´father´ are gamma created villains for Hulk to smash. When Banner becomes Hulk, he becomes a brainless beast who is misunderstood and constantly chased by the military. Ang Lee and his team of writers decided that everything Hulk battled had to be just as big and ugly. Banner´s eventual capture and captivity makes little sense. The suicidal transformation of Nick Nolte´s character and eventual conflict is quite comical, but not in a comic book way. Ang Lee does make an attempt to bring heart to Bruce Banner and understanding to Hulk, but by doing so, "Hulk" becomes so overburdened with exposition and background information that the primary reason for such a film is lost – the Hulk is supposed to smash things and beat up bad guys. Never once does Bruce Banner say "You won´t like me when I´m angry" or does Hulk yell "HULK SMASH!" The film tries to take itself way too seriously and it tries to add to much weight to a comic book character. Perhaps a darker toned Hulk with a defined villain would have been better. The film did not succeed and about the only chance for a sequel is if Paul Weasel S. Anderson decides to make "Hulk vs. Godzilla."
Video:
I pointed out that visual effects were a problem in the main body of this review, but never gave a full explanation. Here it is – the digital effects of "Hulk" border on cartoonish at times. The transformation of "Hulk" is digital, but barely better than what was seen in "An American Werewolf in London." The look of the blue shorts on the Hulk looks painted on far too computery (if that is a word). The effects never approach the real-world believability of those seen in "Spider-Man" and perhaps that is an unfair comparison, but my opinion remains that "Hulk" could have looked far better and the fight scenes, which occurred mostly in the desert or at night did not appear grand. Hulk smashes tank. Hulk smashes helicopter. Hulk smashes large gamma radiation-poisoned dog. Nothing every looked spectacular and even "Godzilla" was more impressive visually.
Average user rating (1-5):
[release]19922[/release]