There's been a wave of revival for the old superhero genre in the past 2 years. We have been presented with exciting comic-strip adaptations such as `X-Men' and `Daredevil'. The fifth in line is `Hulk'. You may have noticed that they changed his name from `The Incredible Hulk' to just plain `Hulk'. I suppose the reason for that is because they didn't want the franchise to seem campy. And `campy' is certainly no way to describe the movie. Those expecting a `Batman Forever' style succession of cheesy jokes and stylish action will be disappointed.
For what lies ahead on screen is something that no one was hoping for or wanted in the first place. If you've seen the TV spots/ teaser trailers, you'll find that they portray it in a good vs. evil style, which is totally misleading. If the producers didn't want audiences to be disappointed, they should have been more truthful in the previews. This is different from most superhero movies, but not in a good way. The main problem is that it lacks the feel of a comic book film.
All is done in such a monotonous `what do we do now?' scientific way, that it's hard to believe this could be compared to `Spiderman', `X2' et al. Ang Lee utilises the split-screen technique to achieve a comic style look, but completely fails. The method was totally overused and not once did it remind me of a paper-ish look. It just seemed like Lee was showing off, using that which was completely irrelevant to begin with.
On the plus side, there are generally good performances all across the board. Aussie Eric Bana is perfectly cast as Bruce Banner/ The Hulk. Just as good is Academy Award winner Jennifer Connelly who is inspired and substantial as counterpart Betty Ross. Nick Nolte is er, Nick Nolte. Not much he can do about that. And there is also generally good support from Josh Lucas and Sam Elliott. Most important is the CG work on the Hulk himself. Initial doubts that he would look unrealistic have departed. The model work/ conceptual art is solid and ultimately synthetic.
The real flaw here is the script. It lacks first view thrills, jump scenes and the overall effect is deadening and unexciting. Stylised action is put on hold for the most part; opting for psychobabble and poorly conceived emotional sequences. The pay-off is good, but with such a long wait it should have been better. At 138 minutes, there are plenty of `technical' scenes that could and should have been excised from the already lengthy script.
The weakest effort in the comic book revival yet, `The Hulk' shares very close resemblance to `King Kong'. Truly a great concept in search of a script to match. A stylish cover isn't matched up with a cold, sterile core. Far from a total disaster, it still should please those who are fans of the original comic. Nevertheless, this is lacklustre filmmaking and a rather bland effort from renowned director Ang Lee. My IMDb rating: 4.8/10.
For what lies ahead on screen is something that no one was hoping for or wanted in the first place. If you've seen the TV spots/ teaser trailers, you'll find that they portray it in a good vs. evil style, which is totally misleading. If the producers didn't want audiences to be disappointed, they should have been more truthful in the previews. This is different from most superhero movies, but not in a good way. The main problem is that it lacks the feel of a comic book film.
All is done in such a monotonous `what do we do now?' scientific way, that it's hard to believe this could be compared to `Spiderman', `X2' et al. Ang Lee utilises the split-screen technique to achieve a comic style look, but completely fails. The method was totally overused and not once did it remind me of a paper-ish look. It just seemed like Lee was showing off, using that which was completely irrelevant to begin with.
On the plus side, there are generally good performances all across the board. Aussie Eric Bana is perfectly cast as Bruce Banner/ The Hulk. Just as good is Academy Award winner Jennifer Connelly who is inspired and substantial as counterpart Betty Ross. Nick Nolte is er, Nick Nolte. Not much he can do about that. And there is also generally good support from Josh Lucas and Sam Elliott. Most important is the CG work on the Hulk himself. Initial doubts that he would look unrealistic have departed. The model work/ conceptual art is solid and ultimately synthetic.
The real flaw here is the script. It lacks first view thrills, jump scenes and the overall effect is deadening and unexciting. Stylised action is put on hold for the most part; opting for psychobabble and poorly conceived emotional sequences. The pay-off is good, but with such a long wait it should have been better. At 138 minutes, there are plenty of `technical' scenes that could and should have been excised from the already lengthy script.
The weakest effort in the comic book revival yet, `The Hulk' shares very close resemblance to `King Kong'. Truly a great concept in search of a script to match. A stylish cover isn't matched up with a cold, sterile core. Far from a total disaster, it still should please those who are fans of the original comic. Nevertheless, this is lacklustre filmmaking and a rather bland effort from renowned director Ang Lee. My IMDb rating: 4.8/10.