p r e f e r r e d r e v i e w e r s :
 |
 |
|
You haven't selected any preferred reviewers. To learn more about customizing your experience, click here.
|
|
|
 |
 |
o t h e r r e v i e w e r s :
|
|
|
olhado [ 5.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Big, green, somnalescent machine
I liked the Hulk. Not so intensely that I'd write a positive review of it, but I liked it. Ang Lee's a terrific director and I'm easily amused enough that his constant use of the panel gimmick enthralled rather than annoyed me. The first part of the film -- the one that dealt entirely with the father's experiments -- was brilliantly shot and engaging. The effects were all around pretty nifty and the concept has always had promise . . .
But emotional connection? Um, except for Hulk-y's girlfriend, who came off as a sensitive and even complex character, no. None at all.
And there were too many moments where the story went from glorious green weirdness to simple confused implausibility.
No, despite the title, I never fell asleep. But there was something tiring about the movie, wrapped up less in its length than in its inability to make me do more than look at all the pretty pictures. There were lots'n'lots of pretty pictures. There was lots'n'lots of pretty plot. It just didn't end up meaning anything.
The Hulk is this young scientist of angst who's emotionally distant and . . . actually, that's about it. Emotionally distant. The end. The rationale is that he's been repressing his id a very long time and is this horrible monster when the id gets out (aided by gamma radiation, naturally), but he could at least be an interesting emotionally distant man. As is, the most interesting about him is that he turns into a Hulk and that there's not a whole lot he can do about it. Don't get me wrong, that's interesting. Everything that happens to the Hulk could have been quite fascinating in a character development sense . . . but it isn't.
There's a fundemental problem with having your protagonist turn into a green monster of pure id all the time. While he's the Hulk, he's not really much of a character. We lose complete track of who he really is and, sadly, he wasn't much to begin with. I really wanted to emphasize with that poor shivering naked man -- I always like caring about people in pain or crisis.
But I didn't. My understanding and empathy for the character was on a solely intellectual level. And even that was a little thin.
Daddy-poo was what, in my eyes, drove the movie over the edge of simple unattachment to occasional sheer non-comprendis. Not a single one of his motives (except trying to kill his monster-child -- only, that was the worst filmed sequence in the film in my view -- too artsy-fartsy, too staged, no real angst -- even considering the scary situation) made any sense. He turned into the super-villain cliche of pure nasty evil who wants the world and la-ti-da and who cares why. A sequence that started out geniunely creepy (his weird powers of melding with other materials) turned into a simple ploy for power and lost its cool.
Sigh.
The whole thing reminded me of an X-Men Evolution episode called Self-Possessed. Same basic story, same basic problems. Lots of pretty stuff, lots of desperate angst . . . but it's really hard to care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sumbich73 [ 8.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
A lot of people are upset that this movie didn't seem like THEIR VISION of how a Hulk movie should be. To understand the method behind Ang Lee's madness you have to realize that first and foremost, the Hulk is an accidental (not by David, I'm talking about from Bruce's perspective) creation and pretty much a tragic hero. If you realize that, then this movie is a competent, borderline excellent version of how Hulk probably should be.
You're supposed to feel sorry for the Hulk. He's a terrifyingly powerful monster but at the same time deep down is Banner's good heart and consciousness. But as good of a person as Banner is, he still has a little piece of his father's lack of control... most obvious when Banner allows his emotions to take over and change into the Hulk.
Nick Nolte was excellent as David Banner and Sam Elliot was outstanding as Thunderbolt Ross. Jennifer Conelly, although I've seen her better, was acceptable enough as Betty Ross. I do agree that Eric Bana was a bit weak in this movie, but his transformation scenes were decent.
The action scenes were awesome, particularly the fight with the dogs.
This movie was by no means perfect, but it was a good try at making a Hulk movie and I'd go see it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gamer27 [ 3.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
I was looking forward to this movie ever since i saw the first trailer. I was just disappointed at the results of the movie. The big problem with it was it was a comic book movie, but it acted like an art house film and the results were terrible.
*/12 out of ****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff_Wilder [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
This is a movie that's easier to admire than truly love. Ang Lee attempts ot inject Shakespearean elements into a comic book based movie. Although this wouldn't truly gel until Christopher Nolan got a hold of Batman, this is a nice try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scottwblack [ 5.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Hulk smash director Lee for putting him in overlong art film. Hulk not understand why he is as big as a mountain one minute and only slightly bigger than an average man the next. Hulk like Jennifer Connelly, though. She pretty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
babyduck [ 7.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Mmmmm. Jennifer Connelly.
Ok so she wasn't the main attraction but having her around didn't hurt.
I liked Ang Lee's treatment of the comic book style. The use of floating squares to depict multiple action made it feel like a comic book. In addition, the story itself was interesting in itself (I did not read the comic book series - I have no idea how closely the movie and the series relates). The Hulk is not a "comic book hero" and how the story plays out is quasi interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DokBrowne [ 8.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
My friend came up with the categories for a movie review power chart. I still think it's missing something that would make it complete, but as I can't figure out what (even after adding the pretty superfluous Visual Style and Entertainment Value), I'm gonna live with it for now. For reference: it's a 1-7 scale, 1 being terrible, 2 below average, 3 average (or in some cases the equivalent of not applicable), 4 above average, 5 really good, 6 excellent/outstanding, and 7 perfect/fully satisfying in every way.
CAST/ACTING: 4 (mostly Nick Nolte and Sam Elliott; Bana was adequate but too subdued, while Connelly was as good as she ever has been, which is to say, good enough without being impressive in any way)
DIRECTING/CINEMATOGRAPHY/ETC: 4 (the incessant comic book homages via the split screens became a real distraction after a while. I can appreciate the ingenuity of such a trick, and it was fun to watch at times, but ultimately it had nothing to do with the story being told, and I usually didn't understand why he even bothered when the effect was merely to show someone flipping a switch from 2 different angles, or of a helicopter flying at 4 different angles. That's not really the point of comic book panels)
SCRIPT: 3 (nothing special)
ORIGINALITY: 3
TECHNICAL WIZARDRY (FX, ETC): 7
VISUAL STYLE: 5
EFFECTIVENESS IN GENRE (comic book adaptation): 6 (I don't think its effectiveness was hurt by the numerous and peculiar changes to Bruce Banner's back story, such as the fact that his father is NOT Absorbing Man, nor was he an integral part of Bruce's transformation in the first place, because I kind of enjoyed the new father-son melodrama that Ang Lee created)
ENDING: 2 (the conclusion to Nolte's arc isn't explained nor fleshed out very well - the movie either should have spent more time developing this tacked-on plot twist throughout its running time, or simply ended right after the desert sequence, with Connelly and Bana in the streets of San Francisco - and the epilogue with Bruce in the jungle is unexpectedly dull and coy, and conflicts with the more serious nature of the movie as a whole)
ENTERTAINMENT VALUE: 5
POINT TOTAL: 39/63
GRADE: B+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff_v [ 5.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Hulk has its moments, but they're few and far between. Most of the film is over-emphasized backstory, which left me two steps ahead of the story at all times. In theory, not showing the monster until later in the movie sounds like a good idea and smart way to develop characters, except that the characters do not develop. They just repeat.
On the plus side, Ang Lee (and/or whoever the film's editor is) does some interesting things with cutting, utilizing a lot of wipes and dissolves and split-frames. There's a great fight scene in the desert with the Hulk and a bunch of tanks, and the special effects are surprisingly good (it doesn't look CGI, more like claymation).
On the minus side, Bana and Connelly lack chemistry. Also, Bana lacks personality (this is the guy who was so charismatic in Chopper?). Nolte has too much personality. And the climax is stupid --why on Earth would they grant Nolte's request to see his son?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tomcat [ 9.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
A masterpiece....seeing this movie once is not enough. I am a Monster fan of the incedible hulk and I thought he looked great. Ang Lee had a great vision and is certainly a very slick film maker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crreig [ 5.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
I really wanted to like this movie. It seemed like a sure thing: Ang Lee having recently made a spectacular and magical movie, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Jennifer Connelly, a stunning, competent actress, included in the cast; a great main character -- The Hulk.
Sadly, this movie falls on its face. The "panel-screen" idea is better left on paper (I'm sure it seemed like a good idea on the story-boards). Comic books utilize panels and overlaps to illustrate the narrative action -- and to create more captivating page compositions -- but Lee uses it only to reference comic books. The effect is self-conscious and pretentious.
Eric Bana's acting is wooden. Connelly delivers the only strong performance but I may be giving her more lee-way because of her beauty and poise. Nolte is funny in that washed-up sort of way; I was painfully aware that I was watching Nick Nolte and not David Banner.
I found the story simplistic and boring. It didn't draw me in. I actually had to fight off sleep; several times I pinched myself to remain awake. I liked some of the filial issues but their resolution was shoddy.
Egh...
A curious last note. The Onion A.V. Club and The New Yorker (both offer thoughtful movie reviews) applaud the movie...at least a little bit. The gist of these reviews: Well, the film fails, but it gets a gold-star for trying to put some pathos in a summer flick.
True, I suppose, though I am less willing to forgive the failures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dancing_P [ 7.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Like everyone else on Earth, I thought that getting Ang Lee behind the camera of a superhero movie was a bad idea. In what way is a director of period drama going to pull off a high-octane superhero movie? Well, I’m not exactly sure how to describe it, but this is the way. Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) is a nerdy scientist working with genetics who is the victim of a bizarre accident in the lab; however, instead of dying, Banner comes out completely unscathed. That is, until he gets mad and transforms into a ten-foot green monster hell-bent on destroying everything in his path. The film works not because of its action scenes (which are relatively few and far between) but because of, wouldn’t you know it, character development. The hulk doesn’t make an apparition until fourty minutes in, leaving the film’s characters plenty of time to develop so that when Banner does become Hulk, you actually feel for him more than you’d expect. The film has lots of style, using split-screens to emphasize the comic-book roots of the film. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn’t. The CG used to create the Hulk is decent as well; it’s not going to win any prizes, but I bought it. Bana’s a good protagonist, Jennifer Connelly makes a decent female lead… but it’s Nick Nolte who shines as the scenery-chewing David Banner, Bruce’s father. The film does get to be somewhat stupid during the last third, but the stuff at the beginning more than evens it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Franc28 [ 9.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
It's getting easier to get worked up about superhero movies, when independent directors get interested in them - including X2 and Spider-Man. And Hulk has Ang Lee - who injected a new cinematographical vision and a new vision of his superhero, made them more interesting instead of standard Hollywood clichés.
The Hulk is Bruce Banner (Eric Bana), scientist, who becomes a green super-powerful hulk when angered. The back story to Banner is much more interesting than most superheroes. His father, David (Nick Nolte), worked for the US government. But when his plans for human experimentation were rejected, he experimented on his own DNA. When he has a son, his scientific curiosity overrules the moral problem of giving birth to a dangerous mutant. A series of not quite specified events lead to David Banner being imprisoned by the US Army for more than thirty years.
Bruce Banner is genetically pushed to research the same areas than his father has. He has an ambiguous relationship with Betty (Jennifer Connelly), his laboratory partner. An evil military corporation in cahoots with the government is trying to acquire their research by all means necessary. But when Bruce is involved in a laboratory accident irradiating him with gamma radiation which prods his mutant genes into action, all hell breaks loose as he becomes Hulk. Betty's father, a high-ranking military officer, eventually gains custody of the green behemoth.
As I wrote before, Hulk is a mix between the movie Invincible and the Hulk character - retaining the Hulk character while telling it in a fable-like manner. Hulk is told like a comic book. In some scenes, the cinematography is arranged like a comic book : there is fast cutting from "picture" to "picture", you see two things happening at once, or two, three, five angles of the same thing at once. A scene melds into another, a backdrop literally drops, a victim stays suspended in the air as he is engulfed in flames. True, the fast cutting can be detrimental sometimes. And the techniques don't always work. But I would say that it never impacts negatively on the movie, and on the whole it works.
The story and themes revolve around the relationship between father and child, especially between Bruce and David Banner. Betty trusts her father compulsively even though he cannot sustain human relationships. David Banner is obsessively concerned with his genetic research, but has a tender, if twisted, concern for his son. Critics have pondered on the Freudian themes of these relationships : I didn't see such themes per se, although it is implied that father and son are ultimately two sides of the same coin. As we see in a climatic ending, David Banner is concerned with destroying their enemies, while Bruce doesn't want to take responsibility for his unwanted powers.
The original Bruce Banner was an intelligent man, but as the green behemoth he seemed to lose all humanity, to become an unthinking brute. The Bruce Banner in "Hulk" is truly an ubermensch, an Objectivist hero. He fights against the military and military agencies - at first to survive and help his girlfriend. He is an intelligent scientist and a powerful being capable of compassion. While during the movie his two sides are not integrated (he ponders that being Hulk is "like a dream" where he has little control), at the end of the movie we see that he is finally integrated and confident in his abilities.
Hulk is a revolutionary, progressist movie in many aspects - it sees genetic research and scientific progress not as a Frankenstein but as a valid means of revolution. It also has anti-imperialist and anti-American overtones. It's quite incredible that this movie even got made, let alone as a major feature. I can't really describe the long climatic ending which ties all this together, because that would be a major spoiler, but be warned that it will force you to re-evaluate the movie in an important way.
There has been a lot of criticism, and some praise, for the Hulk model. From a distance, the model is good, but it's from up close that it really shines. With more than a hundred layers, the model appears realistic, the skin moves with touch, and moves around with more than a thousand independent muscles. Ang Lee's goal was to make people forget they were looking at a computer model and, while I can't say it worked completely, it certainly succeeded to some extent. The other actors are also excellent, especially Connelly, who can always bring intelligence to her roles.
Director Ang Lee is a Buddhist, and inserts a couple of references in the movie through David Banner, which was fun. In the end, what really sells Hulk is not only its heroic themes and its deep character analysis, but that it keeps a total depth of story and character while the cinematography transforms this great movie into a comic book. Truly stunning.
The DVD opens with non-skippable ads (including, ironically, one for Bruce Almighty). That's unfortunate, but unavoidable.
Most of the criticism against Hulk is that it is too sophisticated. Well, if you think that's a bad thing, you shouldn't be watching movies. You should be watching flickering images on screens - well, blockbusters made by formulatic directors. All those critics are idiots.
It's interesting to me that great things happen when more "arthouse" directors deal with more down-to-earth material - Tarkovsky and science-fiction, or Bergman and the Dark Ages, for example. Ang Lee has definitively succeeded in pushing superhero movies to the next level. And it is certainly great science-fiction : while it's supposed to take place in the present, the technologies are superior to our own, and the technology takes an integral part in the plot and themes, and so Hulk is definitively science-fiction in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Weighted Rating | : 6.6 |
| No. Ratings | : 19 | |
| No. Reviews | : 14 | |
|
|
|
|