Skip to main content

Angry man is unsecure.

Hulk
(2003)

(SPOILERS) I’m not a Hulk apologist. I unreservedly consider it one of the superior superhero adaptations, admittedly more for the visual acumen Ang Lee brings to the material than James Schamus, Michael France and John Turman’s screenplay. But even then, if the movie gets bogged down in unnecessarily overwrought father-son origins and dynamic, overlaid on a perfectly good and straightforward core story (one might suggest it was change for the sake of change), once those alterations are in place, much of the follow through, and the paralleling of wayward parents and upright children, or vice versa, translates effectively to the screen, even if the realisation of the big green fella is somewhat variable.


Lee’s eventual movie, relatively quickly – and unjustly – rebooted by Marvel, who wanted something a little more homogenous (and less tinged by the smell of failure, albeit it wasn’t a flop and The Incredible Hulk failed to do appreciably better at the box office), was the distillation of thirteen years of development hell, numerous writers and several attached directors (a first-timer bullet was dodged when Jonathan Hensleigh exited; studios still aren’t getting wise to this, hence the past year’s The Mummy and Geostorm). The crediting of France and Turman with Hulk’s regular writer Schamus reflects the extent of their contributions (including Turman’s focus on Hulk vs General Ross, dad Brian – here David – Banner deriving from the comics, and France’s attention to the father-son theme, including David’s self-experimentation).


Bruce Banner: The gamma just unleashed what was already there. Me.

Arguably, Bruce gets short shrift in Hulk, but it’s both a symptom of intent (overshadowed by his alter-ego and his dad, and his girlfriend’s dad, the nerd must turn) and failing to give Eric Bana enough to work with within those restrictions. To the extent that the Bruce-Betty (Jennifer Connelly) relationship travels, it’s down to Connelly’s performance, with Bruce made into a passive, cycle helmet-wearing geek; he’s like Beaker, but less ginger, and there needs to be more revealing to us what Betty sees in him, rather than having to assume it.


I think Bana’s actually pretty good in the role, but he’s put on a back foot by what he described as Lee’s “morbid” approach (the director saw the movie as a Greek tragedy). The result is that, after several hours of wresting with his demons, when dad yells “Stop your bawling!” during the final act, we can’t help but concur. There are glimmers of a more engaging inner/outer struggle (“When I totally lose control, I like it”) but it isn’t remotely approaching the level of Jeff Goldblum in The Fly (knowing something terrible has happened, but find its lure irresistible, both for protagonist and audience).


But that’s a drawback, not a deal-breaker. Likewise, the sedate pacing. I have no problem with the relative shortfall in action, as Hulk only ever feels like a drama first to me (which is what Lee clearly intended), “punched up” visually and with the occasional set piece. The CGI creation of the over-sized, irate fellow himself has its problems – the one-shot transformation(s) just plain doesn’t work, he’s surely a touch too big, and Hulk clenching fists and raging on the spot, his lack of neck bulging, is unintentionally funny rather than impressive – but in key sequences, which I’ll come to, it still works like gangbusters today. Danny Elfman’s score is pretty distinctive and appropriately different too, evidently a consequence of being brought into replace Mychael Danna but liking what he heard and incorporating it accordingly.


I could quite see the David Banner plotline floundering completely. Certainly, if they had continued in the vein of his younger self, as per flashbacks. This element doesn’t fully compute to my mind; certainly, his decision to kill his son, drawn as it is from Brian in the 1980s comics, comes across as a plot contingency rather than fully thought out and integrated. 


Once Banner Sr has become old man Nolte, though, the actor is able to carry Brian’s inconsistencies by sheer dint of his shambling, dishevelled wreck of a man. It’s a great performance, and the actor more than delivers, be it exulting in the potential of science unbound (“To improve on nature. To go beyond limitations, give men the power to go beyond God’s boundaries”) or describing the fateful moment of his wife’s death, expounding as he does a kind of queasy poetry (“It was as if she and the knife merged”) that foretells his own mutated form, and peaks in wracked acknowledgement of the irreversibility of his act (“You cannot imagine the unbearable finality of it”).


David Banner: I didn’t come here to see my you. I came here to see my son. My real son. The one inside of you. You’re only but a superficial shell, a husk of flimsy consciousness ready to be torn off at a moment’s notice.

Mostly, though, Nolte is fantastically unhinged, assuming he has more knowledge, more insight, more awareness of the bigger picture than anyone else, and he kind of does (“My son is unique. That’s why you can’t relate to him” he says, mocking Betty with kindness, as a prelude to unleashing his hulk hounds on her). His dismissal of his son’s angst-ridden state even seemingly pre-empts, in meta-fashion, the criticisms of Bana’s Bruce. This sequence, in which he reveals the mind of one who sees life, and people generally, as disposable stepping stones on the path of his greater quest, is as cold and brutal as they come, provocatively stating that the Hulk is his real offspring and Bruce is a mere vessel.


David’s willingness to self-medicate may, in this version, be the seed of Bruce’s metamorphosis – or perhaps it was the ignominy of having to grow up with prominently protruding ears –  but it’s also the most compelling change of form here. You can feel it, tangibly, whereas the green pixels of the virtual Hulk are only ever pixels. When David doses himself with gamma radiation in an attempt to replicate the effect it had on his son, the result is deliriously trippy and has just that right air of “What has gone wrong/happened to me?” absent from 99% of superhero material, where mutation only has positive, strengthening results.


If the transformation he undergoes includes elements of the comics’ Absorbing Man (taking on the properties of the material he comes into contact with, although, why then doesn’t he also turn into air in that case?) and Zzzax (becoming an electricity being), the effects have the grim inevitability of Cronenberg as David changes form, merging and coalescing (blood from a cut in his hand balloons forth and is reabsorbed), with a hint of the T1000. Much of what we see in Hulk is more Altered States than classic Marvel (complete with flotation tank).


Betty: He also saved my life.
Colonel Ross: Yeah, from a mutant French poodle.

Another thing Nolte has going for him here, besides chops, is that he’s also very funny.  In an antic fashion, sure, but funny nonetheless. Entertainment Weekly’s review at the time called Hulkhumourless and intellectually defensive about its own pulpy roots” (the critic must have loved Nolan’s Batman). And sure, at its core, this is an undeniably serious telling of the comic book, but it’s clearly not without a sense of humour. Look at the sequence where Bruce and Betty contemplatively revisit his childhood haunt and Lee pulls back to reveal a whole squad of military goons keeping pace with them and tell me he doesn’t have a firmly installed funny bone; admittedly, one he’s calling on rarely and judiciously.


Bruce: Talbot, you’re making me angry.

Josh Lucas’ Talbot is so gleefully rotten he makes Nolte’s mad rants look positively restrained. Lee clearly relishes getting right in there on every malignant contortion of Lucas’ face as Talbot revels in torturing poor Bruce. Indeed, so comic book is his villainy that Lee steps up to provide a patently ridiculous freeze frame death that turns into a comic book centre piece.


In contrast, Sam Elliott’s Ross initially seems like a blustering blowhard, and to some extent he is, but there’s enough protracted, dissenting point-of-view conversations with Betty that, eventually, his reasoning come across (“I’m sorry Betty. I am so sorry”; “I know you are” she replies, conciliatorily).


Military personage: Angry Man is unsecure.

The tour de force of Hulk, though, the main reason it deserves to be revisited and reappraised, is the third act. Essentially from the point where Bruce (or rather, Hulk) escapes the desert base and goes on an onwards rampage. Indeed, this might be my favourite finale of any superhero adaptation. Not only does Lee’s split screen, De Palma-esque but with comic book presentation in mind, come into its own, but he also creates moments of true visual awe and splendour, the like of which are so rarely given head of steam in the comic book adaptation world. The recent Dr Strange went all out with the trippy factor as Stephen encountered hidden realms, and I really rated that movie, but its rendition of such points was essential very functional, very grounded.


Here, as a giant green man races across the desert floor like an express train, leaping far into the air and eventually coming back down to ground before leaping once again, the imagery carries a wonderfully woozy, dream logic and sense of euphoria, of uncontained release. The “action” of this section is no slouch either, with Hulk throwing tanks about (and, in the humour stakes, bending barrels back to the surprise of a crewman and biting off and spitting out the explosive nose cones of missiles). The far-out culmination of this sequence finds Hulk on a jet ride to top of the world where, finally rendered insensible, he plummets. It’s a magnificent moment.


David Banner: The more you fight the more of you I take.

Hulk’s subsequent fight with his father, who has chowed down on a cable in a moment strangely reminiscent of Joe Don Baker striking together two sticks of plutonium at the end of Edge of Darkness, can’t equal this for dazzle, but it is still appropriately abstract, as Hulk leaps through clouds, his imprint left on each successively as his father fights/illuminates him before coming to land, where the latter mutates into first a rock man and then raging waters. The difficulty Marvel has encountered with their finales is that they feel the need to up the ante in spectacle while generally failing to realise emotional stakes and payoffs are more powerful. Perhaps Hulk put them off, but you just have to compare the mass destruction of The Incredible Hulk’s finale to the more personal struggle here to identify which is streets ahead.


Hulk doesn’t speak in Lee’s movie, except in a dream sequence before Banner is sentenced to execution. Looking in a mirror, Bruce finds his alter ego staring back at him, before the latter reaches a huge mitt through and grabs the scientist, uttering the immortal “Puny human”. As visual metaphors go, it isn’t subtle, but it’s one of the effects sequences here that entirely succeeds, and it neatly sums up the picture to boot. Lee leaves Bruce in the jungles of South America, tossing off lines from the TV show (with a frog on his hat; presumably symbolising he has made some kind of peace with himself, an exploding frog featuring in one of his failed experiments – we should remember that Bruce the scientist is no friend to the animals), and it’s in the jungle that the Ed Norton reboot begins.


James Schamus’ had an idea for a sequel set on a Native American reservation that was “all about radioactivity and it was really political and like, that would have been awesome”. Yeaaassss…. I think we’re probably best with just the one offering from Lee and Schamus, but it’s a shame the deemed lead balloon of experimentation with form here has discouraged further such forays subsequently. I don’t doubt there’ll be more off-kilter superhero movies going forward, but they seem much more likely to come from the DC stable’s throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks free for all than Marvel’s rigorously conservative approach. For now, then, appreciate Ang Lee’s Hulk for what we got, as we might not see it’s like again for some time.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.