I was a big fan of "The Incredible Hulk," the TV series with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno that ran from the late 1970s to the early 80s. I loved how the character was so different from all of the other superheroes. His "superpower" truly was a curse, not a gift, and I really liked how the show was tragic rather than triumphant and heroic. I didn't know anything about the comic book, though. It wasn't until Tim Burton brought "Batman" to the big screen that I became a true comic book geek. That's when I finally learned about "The Incredible Hulk" comic book, and how the real origin of the character differed from the TV show's origin of the character. That being said, if all you know of the character of "Hulk" is what you know from the TV series, this movie may be a disappointment. It's a lot closer to the comic book than the TV show ever was. Probably the biggest sticking point to the comic book geeks is that the character's real name is "Bruce Banner," not "David Banner," as was used in the TV show. Adding to the confusion is the fact that in the movie, the character's father happens to be named "David Banner." That might have some thinking that this movie should be titled "The Son of Hulk." Uh, no. This movie is actually very faithful to the comic book. It's not 100% exact, mind you, but it's pretty damn close. A lot closer to the TV series, at least.
"Hulk" (I thought the title was "The Hulk," but as it turns out, there is no "The" in the title) is a movie that will probably disappoint a lotta people, and not just purists of the TV show. Critics will like it, I'm sure, but the regular moviegoing public will have issues with it. They'll say it's too long, it's too slow, "Hulk" looks fake, there's too much talking and not enough action... and to be honest with you, those may all be valid complaints. If you walk in expecting to see your typical summer action movie, you're gonna be sorely disappointed. "Hulk" is actually a movie that dares to be about something rather than fill the screen time with mindless action and special effects. DOn't get me wrong, mindless action and special effects isn't always a bad thing. I can be entertained by crap like "2 Fast 2 Furious," and I can be entertained by slow, thought-provoking melodrama like "Magnolia." In a way, "Hulk" is like both of those kinds of movies in one. Or more accurately, it's a slow, thought-provoking melodrama disguised as mindless action and special effects.
I liked "Hulk." It IS too long, and the ending is a letdown, but I did like it. The best thing about it is the way it was made to look like a comic book. With the split-screens, jump cuts, and clever use of wipes, "Hulk" successfully translates comic book panels into the film. As for the character of "Hulk," well, everyone is gonna comment on how fake he looks. The truth is, yes, every time "Hulk" is on the screen, it's obvious that you're looking at a CG character. Computer animation is still not at the stage where human (or near human) characters can seamlessly blend into live-action. I know that people are gonna bring up "Dobby" from "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" and "Gollum" from "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers," but there are significant differences. Though human-like, "Dobby" and "Gollum" are not as close to human as "Hulk" is. And because they're not as human, the audience is much more forgiving when their movements aren't like the movement of humans. Physically speaking, the "Hulk" character looks very human. Sure, his skin is green, and he's at least 15 feet tall, but take those two things away, and you have a very muscular human being (and he'd probably look a lot like professional wrestler Brock Lesner). Character animation is still years away from adding a CG character into a live-action movie, and having the audience believe that they're looking at a real person. So before ripping into the movie because the character looks fake, all of that needs to be taken into consideration. The fact is that the "Hulk" character is a huge technical achievement. He conveys human emotion and facial expressions better than any digitally-created human character I've ever seen. The naysayers can bitch till they're blue in the face, but it can't be denied that the character is a huge leap forward in the creation of digitally-created human characters.
Ang Lee directed the film, and it probably coulda been assumed early on that the man who directed "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," "The Ice Storm," and "Sense and Sensibility" wouldn't make your average comic book movie. I really like Ang Lee's work here, I like it a lot. Universal Pictures took a chance by letting Ang Lee have free reign on this mega-budget movie (though the studio DID get Lee to replace Mychael Danna's original score... afterwards, the director got Danny Elfman to do it, and he did a great job... I hope the DVD includes an option to watch the movie with Danna's score, though). Will it pay off? I dunno. I respect Universal for giving Lee such creative freedom, but I'm not so sure that the movie will make the target audience very happy. I hope I'm wrong, though.
The way the story goes, there have been several "Hulk" scripts out there, and some have been really bad. John Turman and Michael France did a good job with the early drafts, but later drafts by Jonathan Hensleigh and David Hayter were supposedly awful. They weren't true to the comic book, they were silly, and they were just plain bad. That's a matter of opinion, of course, but various sources (including Harry Knowles from the notorious Ain't It Cool News web site) say that the drafts by Jonathan Hensleigh and David Hayter were absolutely horrible. Eventually, Ang Lee was hired as director, and no one knew which draft of the script he would be using. Eventually, he had his longtime collaborator, James Schamus, work on the script. Whatever happened, all I can tell you is that the only writers given onscreen credit are James Schamus (he wrote or helped write all of Ang Lee's movies, except for "Sense and Sensibility"), John Turman (he was a writer in the shameful TV show, "The Crow: Stairway to Heaven") and Michael France (he helped write "Cliffhanger" and "GoldenEye"). The final screenplay is pretty good, but I think that it's too long, and the ending sucks. Well, not the first ending. Without giving anything away, the movie has three endings, and I like the first one the best. Too bad it doesn't REALLY end there. The second ending takes care of unfinished business involving the father of "Bruce Banner," but I think it shoulda been incorporated within the first ending. The third ending is the "epilogue," I suppose, and it really does nothing other than hint at a sequel.
I should mention that the movie is based on the comic book series created by two greats, Jack Kirby and Stan Lee. Oh, and be sure to keep your eyes open for Stan Lee's obligatory cameo (he has a cameo in most of the recent movies based on Marvel Comics). It happens at the exact same time as another very big cameo, a cameo that will make fans of the TV series very happy.
Eric Bana plays "David Banner." He's an unknown here in the United States (though he did have a role in "Black Hawk Down"), but in his native Australia, he's a well known comedian and TV star. He was the main guy in several TV shows, including "The Eric Bana Show Live," "Eric," and "Full Frontal" (not to be confused with the movie directed by Steven Soderbergh). He was also on the writing staff for those shows. In "Hulk," he does a pretty good job with the character, but he's not very exciting to watch. It's not really his fault, though, since his character is somewhat devoid of passion or emotion. It's an admirable acting job. Veteran actor Sam Elliott plays "General Ross" (comic book geeks will know him better as "Thunderbolt Ross," though nobody calls him that in the movie), and he's great. He coulda easily gone over the top with the character, but he plays it surprisingly low-key, which doesn't mean that his character isn't prone to outbursts of anger. I really like how Sam Elliott played the character. By contrast, Nick Nolte is way over the top as "David Banner" (again, this is NOT the character from the TV show). Looking almost as sloppy as he looked in that mugshot he had taken recently, he plays a mad scientist with a very warped idea of what a good father is. I personally coulda done with a quieter performance, his character was annoying at times, but I suppose all mad scientists are like that. Well, unless you're talking about "Dr. Herbert West."
The most memorable performance in the movie is by Jennifer Connelly, who plays "Betty Ross," daughter of "General Ross," and the woman "David Banner" loves. Jennifer Connelly won an Oscar for her role in the overrated film, "A Beautiful Mind," but geeks like me adore her for her roles in films like "Once Upon a Time in America" (her feature film debut), "Labyrinth," "The Rocketeer," "Dark City," and "Requiem for a Dream." She's been in a lotta movies that film geeks like, and "Hulk" is no exception. She's a great choice for the role, and her performance is outstanding. She's the movie's soul, and though many may think that her character is just another "damsel in distress," I completely disagree. She brings as much life to the movie as the "Hulk" character does.
There are some problems I have with "Hulk," but as a whole, it's a solid movie. Like with "The Matrix Reloaded," most will walk in expecting explosions and cool special effects, and they'll walk out saying that there isn't enough, and there's too much talking. Another thing that the two films have in common is that there's a lot going on in the both stories, and they're a lot deeper than most people would probably like. Talented directors tend to make thought-provoking movies that have a point. Unfortunately, many moviegoers just wanna see lotsa explosions and cool special effects. This is a really good movie, but that might not be what people wanna see.
Scale of 1-10: 8