Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > June > 13 > Entry
The Hulk - 2003 review
The new Hulk film comes out Friday, but for perspective’s sake, here’s what I wrote about the 2003 version - which I maintain is much better than the new one.
Forget Batman. Forget X-Men. Forget Daredevil. Forget even Spider-Man. The Hulk smashes them all.
“Hulk” (there’s no “the” in the title) is the best superhero movie since “Superman II,” and it’s also the most visually spectacular. Just watching this movie is thrilling in and of itself.
Wait a minute, you might be asking. How can that be when I’ve heard the Hulk looks fake?
Let’s get that burning question out of the way now. Yes, the Hulk does look a little fake — in some places. The long shots sometimes have kind of a jerky video game quality to them, but that’s the same problem that hampered “Spider-Man.”
However, the closer shots of the Hulk and his interactions with real objects and people are very convincing, and that’s not a surprise considering the effects are by Dennis Muren, the visionary who came up with the liquid metal in “Terminator 2” and the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park,” among others.
His work in this movie isn’t as seamless as the work on Gollum in “The Two Towers,” but Muren still makes the Hulk amazingly expressive, and that’s important in a movie as character-driven as “Hulk.”
Director Ang Lee, who turned the martial arts genre on its head with “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” has done the same for the superhero movie by not actually making a superhero movie per se. He’s made a drama that just happens to have a big green guy as the lead.
In the comic book, scientist Bruce Banner saved a kid from a bomb filled with gamma radiation, which turned Bruce into the Hulk whenever he got mad. The movie, written by Lee’s longtime collaborator, James Schamus, along with Michael France and John Turman, changes the origin for the better, strengthening its emotional impact.
In the movie, Bruce’s father David, also a scientist, performs experiments on himself, trying to find a way to make creatures able to heal wounds instantly. He passes on the genetic mutation to his son. This leads to trauma so terrible that Bruce as an adult (Eric Bana) can’t remember much about his childhood. Even so, the emotional turmoil makes Bruce sullen and withdrawn, much to the dismay of fellow scientist Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly), who has broken up with him.
Bruce unwittingly continues his father’s experiments, but one day, an accident forces Bruce to shield a co-worker from a massive dose of gamma radiation. The hit Bruce takes should have killed him, but Bruce says he actually feels better than ever — not knowing of the creature soon to emerge.
Complicating matters is the reappearance of Bruce’s deranged father (Nick Nolte, looking much like he did in his infamous mug shot) and Betty’s estranged father, a military general (Sam Elliott) who locked Bruce’s dad away.
It’s pretty heady stuff for a superhero movie, and “Hulk” may disappoint viewers expecting wall-to-wall action, especially in the slower, almost meditative first half. But it’s during this part of the movie that the script sets up situations which pay off powerfully later.
“Hulk” has been criticized for not being playful like most superhero movies, but that argument completely misses the point. The story of the Hulk isn’t playful, it’s a tragedy. The story of a man who turns into a monster should not be played just for thrills. This is an emotionally complex superhero movie.
That’s not to say the film isn’t any fun. It’s still a kick to see the Hulk toss tanks around like toys, bend a gun turret so it’s facing the soldier trying to aim it, and throw a rocket back at the helicopter that fired it. The film shows how being the Hulk is liberating and frightening all at once, and that’s a large part of what makes the film so memorable.
But the movie’s ace in the hole is its visual style, especially its editing. Director Lee and editor Tim Squyres visualize some scenes with multiple frames so that the screen looks like a comic book.
But this is more than just picture-in-picture. The frames multiply and glide across the screen, and there are inventive transitions like helicopter blades “wiping” into a different scene. The effect is so mesmerizing it’s almost hypnotic at times. I haven’t seen editing this innovative since “JFK.” If “Hulk” does not win the editing Oscar, it will have been robbed.
The performances are uniformly solid, too. Bana, who played one of the soldiers in “Black Hawk Down,” movingly conveys the bottled-up rage inside a tortured man. Connelly gives Betty Ross intelligence and soul, providing a calming counterpoint to an unstable scientist, much as she did for her Oscar-winning role in “A Beautiful Mind.” Nolte is sometimes a bit of a ham playing the deranged dad, but there’s no denying the intensity he brings to the part.
With so much going on, “Hulk,” like “X2,” doesn’t know when to quit. The climax has so many ideas that it has too many endings, draining the energy and me in the process.
Still, I’d much rather watch a film that suffers from too many ideas than not enough of them. “Hulk,” naturally, leaves the door open for a sequel, and this movie is so fascinating and exciting, I, for one, am anxious to see what the Hulk does next.
GRADE: A
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By Thomas
February 10, 2009 5:31 AM | Link to this
I have only just recently seen the 2003 version (after watching the 2008) and my first reaction was “WOW, this is much more comic book like with a great plot”. I see this as a much better jumping point to the Avengers - Hulk saves innocent bystanders (redirecting the F15 from the Golden Gate), not killing the tank soldiers, just their kit, a reluctant warrior. Banner is both afraid and liberatied / enjoys the power. Great stuff. 2008 was good, 2003 GREAT, AHHHHHHHH…….By Thomas
February 10, 2009 12:02 AM | Link to this
Been a huge HULK fan since I was a child (I’m 43). I missed the 2003 version when it was released and only recently got the DVD after having seen the 2008 version. Although I enjoyed the ‘08 Edward Norton vehicle, I see the 2003 version as far superior - The ‘03 HULK is much more consistent with the comics - grows larger and stronger as his temper elevates, protects innocent bystanders as they appear (i.e. leaping onto the F15 so that the out of control plan does not hit the Golden Gate, not killing the atttacking soliders, etc, etc), Banner enjoying and fearing at the same time - 2003 rules in a meaningful way. however unlikely, I hope this iteration appears in the Avenger and other forward vehicles - for the record, the 2003 Box Office was not all that much less than the 2008, especially considering the lousey press 2003 received.By missus hulk
July 5, 2008 7:45 PM | Link to this
This 2003 version with eric bana was much more intelligent than the recent 2008 edward norton variant (eric bana in 2003 version is best known for the movie Chopper, and soon to be bad guy in star trek 2009). The 2008 hulk strangely has an even worse computer generated hulk, who walks a bit oddly in comparison, lol, although they both look fake even with todays technology. This eric bana version is easily the intelligent mans hulk, with less mindless action than the 2008 hulk. Both films are flawed in their own way (2003 was too long) but hardly awful, so watch them both and decide for yourself!By SRCputt
June 13, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
I would vote this as the best editing of the decade. The comic book effect was that good. Speed Racer had some clever editing, too (and it got rejected much worse than Hulk).