DHP Review: The Incredible Hulk
Posted by Dirty Harry on Monday, June 23rd, 2008
While much of The Incredible Hulk gets it right, what’s missing from this second screen treatment of Marvel’s Big Green Guy in just five-years is the crucial element which separates legendary superhero films from forgettable ones — the wow-moment when the film takes off, and consciously, or not, you register the need for a second-viewing: Superman catching the helicopter, Spider-Man stopping the subway train, Iron Man killing him some terrorists… Regrettably, Ed Norton’s Hulk never soars, only lumbers.
After a nifty and appreciated opening credit sequence to avoid yet-another origin story, we find Bruce Banner (Norton) living in the densely populated ghettos of Brazil — an ant in an anthill — hoping to avoid discovery before he can find the cure for his peculiar form of radiation disease. You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.
General Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is who Banner’s hiding from. Ross is looking to create super soldiers and believes what happened to Banner holds the key. After Ross discovers Banner’s whereabouts, he assembles a team that includes Royal British Marine Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), a dead-eyed killer feeling his mortality and not liking it.
The attempt to capture Banner is a piece of screenwriting logic-slop, but it creates the necessary second-act turning point that brings Bruce back home and into the arms of Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), the girl he loves and left behind to take it on the lam.
The Incredible Hulk is not anti-military. General Ross is a fully fleshed out, three-dimensional character whom Hurt infuses with humanity and a sense of his own morality. He’s both likable and sympathetic (he is William Hurt, after all), and not blind to his own failings and mistakes. The military as an institution isn’t made a part of the narrative, so this angle goes down easy, organic to the story we’re being told.
The film’s biggest problem is the Hulk himself, so obviously computer-generated you feel like you’re watching a cartoon, not a temper-created incarnation of Bruce Banner. The Abomination looks even worse. Let me simplify it by saying: It looks fake. It just looks fake.
The climatic battle between Hulk and Abomination numbs the senses. There are no real stakes or concern over either being hurt, at least until the film‘s run-time demands it. The laws of gravity and nature have nothing to do with how long the two of them will crash around Harlem. It’s all up to the screenwriter.
Norton and Tyler lack the chemistry necessary to deliver real heart to the film. As torn-apart lovers brought back together you don’t feel much for them. Part of the problem may be the lack of back story. A couple flashes in the credit sequence and Norton staring at Tyler’s photo a few times during the first act doesn’t give the audience much in the way of emotional investment.
As a chickenhawk who knows nothing about the military, even I found Ross’s attempts to capture The Hulk laughable. Rather than hit Banner with a tranquilizer dart when he steps out the front door, they swarm into his house. Rather than hit Banner with a tranquilizer dart as he strolls the university grounds, tanks and half-tracks pour out of the bushes insuring both his escape and the pulse-rate necessary for an “insert set-piece here“ moment. At one point, Ross captures Banner and even then doesn’t knock him out?
Ross’s motivation is convoluted, as well. The idea is that Ross wants Banner to make super soldiers and Banner doesn’t want Ross to make super soldiers. Simple enough. But Banner and Ross were working together when Banner’s accident occurs. Wouldn’t Ross have the data? And Ross does have blue-juice that makes Tim Roth a super soldier. Like I said, convoluted.
Norton’s very good in the role of Bruce Banner and effectively conveys the emotional life of someone who’s a temper tantrum away from losing everything and having to start over completely. Hurt is even better. This is his best role in years and he looks marvelous as a general. Tyler’s relegated to the role of “the girl,” given little to do other than look good.
The Incredible Hulk is a perfectly serviceable film that delivers the expected goods. The beats are all hit, what’s missing is inspiration.
Filed in Movie Reviews |
David Marcoeon 23 Jun 2008 at 9:36 pm 1And Ross does have blue-juice that makes Tim Roth a super soldier. Like I said, convoluted.
I believe the “blue-juice” was a frozen sample of the super soldier serum that made Captain America, the formula to it having been lost decades before and was an unstable brew to begin with, hence the “limited dose” they gave him to boost his abilities just a smidge. But even that dose causes and addiction and pushes over the edge. Ross probably believes that Banner, or his blood, holds the information to successfully mass produce super soldiers. And if Banner destroyed the data to his experiments, then he would have to go after Banner, since he’s all that’s left.
Yeah, it’s convoluted, but not a plot hole. They just figured that you would know Marvel lore before seeing the movie.
prisoner105on 23 Jun 2008 at 11:44 pm 2Ed Norton reportedly rewrote most of the Screenplay. Big mistake, as Arnold once said. Or as one of the characters said in 2001 (paraphrasing) “My God! It’s full of crap!”
The whole POINT about the Hulk/Banner is the duality. Banner is smart (and deadly dangerous, he created the “Gamma Bomb”), while the Hulk is stupid, tremendously strong, but not really dangerous (in the comics he never kills anyone).
That last point is important. Comics at their best work as a power-fantasy for the young boys and young men marginalized in popularity and social power, dreaming of what they would want to do. They rarely want to see themselves as villains, rather as heroes. Merely very strange and weird heroes.
In the Comics (not the Ultimate “reboot”) the Hulk wanders around the Southwest, tells the Military they are “puny humans, Hulk is the Strongest One There Is!” after trashing their tanks, and smashes, other, not-so-restrained monsters. Protecting (this is the biggie) Banners friends and people he cares about.
The military chase the Hulk because to them, he’s just another sci-fi monster (like those giant ants in “Them”). They don’t want to use him as a weapon because they already have one, the Gamma bomb that created the Hulk in the first place. In some ways, the Hulk represents the hope that the awful bomb and the destruction it represents can create something useful, since the Hulk is deliberately childlike, doesn’t want to hurt anyone “Leave Hulk Alone!” and often foils plots by aliens, vampires, other monsters, etc.
The problems that arise for Hulk is that he’s dumb. His most dangerous villains are those that persuade him to do things he would not otherwise want to do. Then only BANNER who is smart but physically weak can bail him out.
I’m sure Norton viewed this project as some grand way to criticize the evil awfulness of private military research and investment, a scathing indictment of say, Blackwater (who have probably with their research and development team, saved a lot of GI and Marine lives). No wonder the movie by all accounts sucks.
Hulk is stupid, strong, and good, and Banner often has to think his way out or fight for control with Hulk because of that. That’s the story. Not particularly complex, but entertaining enough to keep millions of kids enthralled in the 1960’s onward to the mid 1990’s when comics fell apart.
David Marcoeon 24 Jun 2008 at 12:39 am 3That last point is important. Comics at their best work as a power-fantasy for the young boys and young men marginalized in popularity and social power, dreaming of what they would want to do. They rarely want to see themselves as villains, rather as heroes. Merely very strange and weird heroes.
First, comics are a medium, not a genre. Superheroes are a particular genre in comics. As to being power-fantasies, yes…and no. Superhero comics, beginning with Superman, started out as a sub-genre of pulp fiction, very much in the mold of characters like Doc Savage or the Phantom. Pulp fiction was itself a throwback to Victorian romance, the genealogy connecting the two being characters like the Scarlet Pimpernel (1903) and Zorro (1919). Thus, the gallivanting hero is a mixture of two prominent Victorian themes: the romance of high adventure and an emphasis upon morality and virtue.
Comics later function as a “power-fantasy” emerged as they emerged to dominate the youth culture, but it was merely vicarious element existent in all fiction. Their main role, beneath that, is that they are morality plays. During the depression, they were a sounding board for social issues dominating the zeitgeist. Even before our entry into WWII, superheroes were smashing Axis powers. During the Cold War, heroes took on a law and order stance and anti-Communist characters like Tony Stark were created. As they entered the sixties, characters like the X-Men, characterized by the backdrop of human/mutant prejudice, reflected the Civil Rights movement. In the transition from the “Silver Age,” in the early to mid-1980s, comics took on an element of psychological drama and postmodernism, attempting to deconstruct and subvert what they saw as hypocrisy, corrupt institutions, and oppressive power structures. Alan Moore and The Watchmen were the beginning of that shift.
So, comics maybe a power-fantasy, but no more so than Achilles, Hercules, Aeneas, Arthur, Charlemagne, or Orlando, all of which emphasize and display heroic virtues, intending their readers/listeners to model them. Indeed, comics, at their best, exceed the simpler child’s morality plays they started out as. Men Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby, writing, would lay much of the groundwork, in art and storytelling, for more complex tales that would follow.
David Marcoeon 24 Jun 2008 at 12:41 am 4correction: Men Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby, *writing in the 1960s*, would lay much of the groundwork, in art and storytelling, for the more complex tales that would follow.
David Marcoeon 24 Jun 2008 at 12:44 am 5To add: Part of Hulk lore is that Banner represents the Id and Hulk the ego. The juxtaposition between the two affords a degree psychological tension as Banner fights to suppress the Hulk.
P.S. - First, comics are a medium, not a genre. Superheroes are a particular genre in comics. is a bit condescending. My apologies.
Kon 24 Jun 2008 at 2:44 am 6We love it when you’re condescending, David. Nice post, reminded me of Philip José Farmer’s books on Tarzan and Doc Savage.
What you’re missing in your cronology, I think, is that comics is a visual medium, so sales dictate that nuances you might find in a Doc Savage novel are superceded by the necessity for having at least two visualizations per issue of huge steroid enhanced men punching each other. This, then becomes the overwhelming method of choice for problem resolution and lends new meaning to the word “Power fantasy”. So, if your going to link this back to the pulps, then I submit that “Conan” should be your primary example. King Arthur, Charlemagne? Not so much.
David Marcoeon 24 Jun 2008 at 3:52 am 7What you’re missing in your chronology, I think, is that comics is a visual medium, so sales dictate that nuances you might find in a Doc Savage novel are superseded by the necessity for having at least two visualizations per issue of huge steroid enhanced men punching each other.
Dick Tracy was a comic strip. The Phantom was a radio show. The Pulp genre crossed many mediums. And the “steroid enhanced men punching each other” was more a product of the eighties. The original Superman was not at all that muscular and his powers were quite modest to what we see today. Batman, a character known for his skills as a strategist and detective, appeared only seven years after Superman.
This, then becomes the overwhelming method of choice for problem resolution and lends new meaning to the word “Power fantasy”. So, if your going to link this back to the pulps, then I submit that “Conan” should be your primary example.
There are problems with this. First, Superman appeared in the same year as Conan. Second, he existed in a low fantasy world. Third, he lacked the tropes of the superhero genre: super-powers/super-skills, a secret identity, a secret lair, etc. Lastly, and most importantly, Conan was an anti-hero. In fact, he was a downright scoundrel. TO call him a “hero,” you have to use the far broader connotation of the term.
King Arthur, Charlemagne? Not so much.
I was using those more as parallel examples–some of the more grandiose legends have Arthur killing enemies by the hundreds in a single battle–though their literary influence does make them distant ancestors. In the case of Arthur, however, I think you could make a case for closer relation. British and Celtic legend had a resurgence in the 19th century and were a part of the romantic melodrama of the period. The Scarlet Pimpernel, often pointed to as a forerunner of the modern superhero, was the product of a British author. The connection their is a bit iffy, but no doubt such grand heroic feats that had been a staple of mythology for thousands of years, were then inherited by superheroes.
David Marcoeon 24 Jun 2008 at 3:53 am 8We love it when you’re condescending, David. Nice post, reminded me of Philip José Farmer’s books on Tarzan and Doc Savage.
Thank you.
Savannah Redon 24 Jun 2008 at 6:02 am 9And what did you think of Iron Man’s appearance at the end with Gen. Ross?
Can’t Raymond (Colin Powell) from In Bruges come back as a superhero?
Bubbaon 24 Jun 2008 at 6:32 am 10David, Batman first appeared only eleven months after Superman, not seven years.
JohnLockeon 24 Jun 2008 at 8:04 am 11“Part of Hulk lore is that Banner represents the Id and Hulk the ego.”
Sorry to interrupt this very strange debate for a little nitpicking, but wouldn’t the Hulk be the Id, since the Id is supposed to represent the savage and primal aspects of the human psyche?
jicon 24 Jun 2008 at 9:12 am 12“Yeah, it’s convoluted, but not a plot hole. They just figured that you would know Marvel lore before seeing the movie.”
It’s still a plot-hole. A movie has to be complete unto itself, it can’t rely on comic geek knowledge. Unless you are saying that there’s a piece of dialog where they talk about the super-soldier serum, there’s simply no excuse.
Full Metal Deer Platoonon 24 Jun 2008 at 10:37 am 13If you’re interested in seeing more of Iron Man killing him some terrorists, I’d recommend the current comic mini-series “Iron Man: Viva Las Vegas,” written by Jon Favreau (writer & director of the movie). The first scene has a terrorist hijacking an international flight, with Iron Man blowing him out of the door. The international passengers are outraged - “He was willing to negotiate, you American war-monger!” Iron Man shakes his head in disgust & goes to Vegas for some R & R.
Kiton 24 Jun 2008 at 10:40 am 14Full Metal Deer Platoon,
Really?
Full Metal Deer Platoonon 24 Jun 2008 at 11:03 am 15Kit,
Yeah. I was laughing out loud. Favreau gets it. Though the main villain seems to be Fing Fang Foom & not more terrorists.
Marvel has a new ongoing Iron Man series “The Invincible Iron Man” which Tony Stark/Iron Man seems to be modeled after the movie version. The opening scene has Iron Man blasting an anti-American propaganda-spewing MODOG into orbit & the main villian is Obidiah Staine’s son, who is suppling suicide bombers with stolen Iron Man technology.
Daniel Crandallon 24 Jun 2008 at 12:42 pm 16FMDP, I read the Favreau Iron Man comic. He didn’t kill the terrorist. He grabbed him and forced him away from the passengers, i.e., outside the flying plane, after the terrorist depresses the bomb’s button. Iron Man’s line, after the bomb goes off and the terrorist is now just so much vapor, is “Well, that was ill advised.” So Iron Man didn’t kill him. The terrorist killed himself. Iron Man just prevented him from killing others.
Regarding the Hulk review. I still think the military, led by Gen. Ross is the film’s villain through 99% of the movie. There isn’t any redemption for Ross until the very last scene with Tony Stark (Downey Jr.).
Regarding Marcoe’s comments, these are some good points. I’ve got Bradford Wright’s “Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America” in my bag and will have to see how Bradford’s views mesh with yours.
At this point I’m inclined toward the view that Marcoe does good history and genre definition, but I think the youth power fantasy idea leaves a lot out. And this goes toward the messages the comics creators are selling. In the case of the Hulk I don’t think anyone can deny that the Hulk became important to college youths during the late 60s & 70s because this was an anti-military, anti-authoritarian character.
David Marcoeon 24 Jun 2008 at 1:06 pm 17David, Batman first appeared only eleven months after Superman, not seven years.
Sorry, my error. Superman was *created* in 1932, but appeared in 1938. Batman then appeared in 1939.
Carolynon 24 Jun 2008 at 1:44 pm 18“The film’s biggest problem is the Hulk himself, so obviously computer-generated…”
You know, I just don’t get it. Last night I popped in the ‘Jurassic Park’ DVD and every single time I hear the HOWL from those jaws, see the dripping teeth, that snort of breath up against the windshield of that car, those terrifying piggy little eyes, etc., I just get goose bumps. That T-Rex wasn’t ‘fake’, it was real, it was terrifying, it scared the willies out of me.
But it was done 15 years ago in 1993! One and a half decades and computer graphics can only have gotten better! So how could the Hulk have gone in the opposite direction and been this cheap, this ‘fake’? I don’t get it.
JohnLockeon 24 Jun 2008 at 2:01 pm 19I couldn’t agree with you more, Carolyn. I was channel surfing the other day and found “Jurassic Park” right at the Tyrannosaur’s big entrance. The near flawless meshing of animatronics and CGI in that film was brilliant, and it gave the dinosaurs a real and visceral feel that only managed to weaken in the subsequent films, as the balance shifted more towards digital. If anyone wants to properly experience (and mourn the loss of) the special-effects genius that was Stan Winston, “Jurassic Park” is the film to watch.
Matt Helmon 24 Jun 2008 at 3:43 pm 20David, that was the super soldier serum that created Captain America (movie in the works). It was great to see them finally creating a Marvel Universe in which their movies will all be interconnected on some level.
The military is the “villain” in this movie, but not a black and white villain. Ross believes he’s doing what’s best for the country. At the end, he comes to terms with his mistakes. I think if the military was supposed to be a villain in black and white terms, then there would have been a different ending.
In some ways I liked this movie better than Iron Man, because it had more of the essence of how you felt reading the comic as a kid, during its action and fight scenes. More so than even the Spider-Man movies which I’m still waiting for them to get right. There might not have been any cinematic moments like Superman and the helicopter to some (which was 90% derived from the great soundtrack), but if we had seen this at age 12 I’m sure most of us would feel differently.
Blancon 24 Jun 2008 at 7:16 pm 21Sorry guys, I’m not as cerebral as most of you. I’m more a ‘Hulk Smash’ I guess. The parts of the movie that worked the best for me was when Hulk was protecting others. I need for him to be a hero, not just a marauding monster. One of the things that I’ve always identified with the character is a childlike innocence and a desire to be left alone. I think we saw some of that during the battle with the Abomination when he gives that world-weary headshake then charges into the battle. I thought they did a lot of things right in this movie but I am curious about why the CGI is so primitive. Back to my Hulk-is-hero rant, I hope some of the ideas I’ve heard about the Avengers coming together to stop the Hulk are not true. I’ll leave it to the writers to figure out how, but he needs to be fighting the good fight (and smashing a lot of stuff while he does it).
Dirty Harry’s Place… » DHP Review: Hancockon 02 Jul 2008 at 2:36 pm 22[…] this summer’s Hulk, Hancock does pass the superhero movie test. It does take off in spots that have you file away a […]