Ç MIKE MYERS | Main | ANDYTOWN'S FEW MINUTE MOVIE REVIEWS È
June 27, 2008
HULK v. THE INCREDIBLE HULK
Since I had a friend in town with whom I usually go see such movies, and since I was kind of aching for something disposable and entertaining, I bought the bullet and saw THE INCREDIBLE HULK.
Here is where you're confused: In 2003, Academy Award Nominated / Internationally Revered Director Ang Lee made a strange foray into comic book movies with HULK (minus the adjectives); HULK came out in the wake of SPIDERMAN, which was light, fun, visually snappy, and geared more toward a younger audience. HULK was a Freudian exercise in rage, the id (or the superego, I always get them confused), and a revolutionary attempt to mirror the aesthetics of comic books in movies.
The comic book genre survived the commercial failure that was HULK. The film succeeds on many levels - there are few uninteresting scenes, and the film toys with the Promethean idea behind a guy wanting to become a superbeing. And yet it didn't really recognize its place in comic book lore. If anything, it tried to separate itself completely; in an unusually insightful review by Harry Knowles of Aint-it-Cool News, he remarked that Hulk was like taking a classics illustrated and turning it into something more complex, as opposed to what usually happens. I think that's about right. But where SPIDERMAN and the Burton BATMAN recognized the inherent ridiculousness of the Superhero and used it as the basis for the humor of those films, Lee's film is typically a somber and cerebral experience. It didn't play well for the people who liked, for instance, DAREDEVIL.
The Hulk is kind of a ridiculous figure who operates on a couple of really interesting psychological levels: he's what happens when we let our anger control us, a giant beating Id (or Superego, or Uncanny, or something) who represents externally what we do internally. Controlling or fighting the Hulk is, I've always felt, a metaphor for the intellectual's response for feeling ostracized. And then there's also the aspect of the Hulk as the perfect weapon, if he could only be controlled or channeled, but it all depends who is going to do that, and how they're going to use him. So those debates are there for whoever wants them (neither version seems obsessed with this, but the latter is much more interested in the military's desire to harness the power).
Many of the complaints about Lee's HULK was the big CGI green man. Frankly, I don't think he's much more realistic in the new one, but he doesn't bother me as much for some reason. Maybe it's because he doesn't interrupt a lot of scenes featuring Nick Nolte as a kooked-out father who may just rationally explain his son's impulse for anger. The new HULK is the action movie alternative to Lee's curious contemplative approach. Each scene seems rushed to prepare for the next action scene, which is where Frenchie director Louis Leterrier shines: I never saw them, but apparently his TRANSPORTER movies were excuses for car chases and kick-boxing. Here that's about right - the INCREDIBLE HULK is stylish without really calling attention to it's style (where Lee constantly reminded you that he was directing it), and tough and fast where the former was introspective. The unINCREDIBLE movie saw the action scenes as perfunctory, and as such they were absurdly ridiculous, as if to call to attention its own artifice and the inherent ridiculousness of the genre. The new movie is visceral but clean, it assaults you without confusing you and, unlike Ang, there's suspense. And yet both movies are kind of humorless and much of this is because Edward Norton, while occasionally a wonderful actor but recently a very dull one, is kind of humorless. The word that comes to mind when I think of Norton is "intensity," which is about right for a dude who can turn into a giant green man when his heart rate gets too high. (Eric Bana, on the other hand, was pretty bland; it's as if his first foray into big movie-making overwhelmed him.) But this is kind of refreshing in the age of the goofball sidekick whose sole existence is to make wisecracks.
But since I have a lot of respect for the Ang Lee movie, I think we can just look at the new one as a sequel. Lee's movie was the origin story, while Leterrier's is the follow-up. It sets the stage for a sequel that could be pretty cool. Although the ending of this movie is just a retread of the classic arcade game RAMPAGE. Either that or a fight between Blanka and Blanka in STREET FIGHTER II.
Just a side note; I didn't see IRON MAN, but there are way too many big name actors in these movies. It's kind of distracting. Did IRON MAN really need Gwyneth Paltrow? Or Jeff Bridges? On the same note, William Hurt - a wonderful actor - adds nothing to a completely obligatory role, and Tim Roth - also great - seems out of place in this sort of thing. The fans of movies like these don't go see them because of their lifetime fanship for KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN or THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST, so why not cast fresh faces in these roles?
| By Andytown | 2:41 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://memphisblogs.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/544
Comments
Andy, I love you, but you could not be more wrong about Tim Roth as The Abomination. He was convincing in his role and portrayed both a steely intensity as Blanco and hinted towards the madness that slowly overtook him (or was it already there?). I just really thought he shined and played the role better than anyone could have this side of Tony Hale.
Posted by: Harvey at June 27, 2008 3:53 PM
Andy, excellent way to implement the rampage video game into your blog. I have been hoping they will re-release this game for the xbox. Also I would like to see Elevator Action make a comeback but I may be asking for too much.
Posted by: Kevin at June 27, 2008 4:17 PM
Harvey,
Well put. I agree. Now that you say it, I remember thinking that it was cool they cast Roth and not some muscle-bound action star-type like The Rock. He really nailed that Soldier of Fortune type, and it was fitting for that scene when he was like "I was I had the body I had ten years ago" because it suggests that what makes him so good is that he survives.
And now that I think of it, Roth is just awesome, and sadly underused. I rewatched RESERVOIR DOGS the other week: glorious, and he is one of the keys to what makes it so good: i love the way his boy scout nature is what does him in the end.
I guess I just want to see more fresh faces in movies instead of Academy winning/nominated actors in throw-away roles. The second we see William Hurt we have a whole geography to remind us of everything he does, when it might be cool to see someone whose mannerisms aren't so familiar.
Posted by: andytown at June 28, 2008 12:36 PM