The Incredible Hulk [Review]
Jun. 23rd, 2008 10:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyYou might have noticed by now that I only really write reviews of films which I don't like. This is largely because reviews of films which are good and enjoyable tend to be quite short and a good deal less fun to write than a invective-filled dissections of a complete turket. I could say that This is England is great and you should see it, but that's a one line post without any jokes in it and I tend not to do those. It's why I didn't review iron Man, which I thoroughly enjoyed. It's a fairly generic action/superhero film, but lit up by a witty script and hugely charismatic turns by the leads, especially Robert Downey, jr. as Tony Stark.
It's unsurprising, then, that probably the single best scene in The Incredible Hulk is a 30-second crowd-pleasing cameo by Downey fulfilling much the same role as Sam Jackson in Iron Man. Much of the rest of the film is a charisma and emotion free block of sturdy cardboard which couldn't have been made much more wooden by the inclusion of Hayden Christensen.
It actually starts pretty well, with Ed Norton as Bruce Banner hiding out in a Brazilian barrio (the original accident which made him the Hulk is covered in montage in the opening credits) and learning Capoeira to help him control his anger in order to avoid Hulking out. The first quarter is well-paced and cerebrally reminscent of Ang Lee's take on the character five years ago, only with a bit more of the green punching which is what we've come to see. Alas, it really starts going downhill about 30 minutes in when Banner goes back to the USA to seek a cure for his condition.
It's odd; as observed in Dork Tower last week, the plot structure to Hulk is very similar to that of Iron Man but where Iron man had an infectious joie di vivre that carried it, Hulk is just plain leaden. For an film with so much slam-bang action, it's a film with an almost absolute lack of emotion and Ed Norton, William Hurt and Liv Tyler seem like they're just reciting their lines. A running subplot means Banner has to keep his heart rate below 200* to avoid turning into the Hulk, but it's difficult to imagine his heart ever getting above resting. Couple this lack of emotion with soume decidedly ropey special effects (it's saying something that Ang Lee, by making his Hulk more cartoonish, made it more believable) and you've got a film that ticks the boxes but never gets above the mediocre.
Tim Roth's performance as a man going skidding down the slippery slope into insanity is just about the only standout amongst the leads for much of the film (although sterling supporting turns by Ty Burrel and Tim Blake Nelson are also worthwhile), but it all just ends up with a predictable 'Clash of the CGI Titans', which wasn't interesting when I first saw it in Mortal Combat: Annhilation in 1997. Iron Man carried it off because the foregoing two hours had resulted in me emotionally engaging with a likable and fun cast. The Incredible Hulk failed because it assumes that CGI monsters themselves are inherently interesting, and things like humanity are less important to the telling of a story.
Except when Tony Stark shows up, obviously, but that's not worth a tenner of your money to see.
* A ridiculously high number. I don't think my heart rate has ever hit 200 in my entire life, but Banners does on a regular basis including whilst just getting involved in some heavy petting with Liv Tyler. Speaking as a boy, unless you're 14 that's just not going to heppen. Ever. I mean, when I'm showing some lucky lady some hot David lovin' I doubt my heart rate goes above resting, like Hannibal Lecter.
It's unsurprising, then, that probably the single best scene in The Incredible Hulk is a 30-second crowd-pleasing cameo by Downey fulfilling much the same role as Sam Jackson in Iron Man. Much of the rest of the film is a charisma and emotion free block of sturdy cardboard which couldn't have been made much more wooden by the inclusion of Hayden Christensen.
It actually starts pretty well, with Ed Norton as Bruce Banner hiding out in a Brazilian barrio (the original accident which made him the Hulk is covered in montage in the opening credits) and learning Capoeira to help him control his anger in order to avoid Hulking out. The first quarter is well-paced and cerebrally reminscent of Ang Lee's take on the character five years ago, only with a bit more of the green punching which is what we've come to see. Alas, it really starts going downhill about 30 minutes in when Banner goes back to the USA to seek a cure for his condition.
It's odd; as observed in Dork Tower last week, the plot structure to Hulk is very similar to that of Iron Man but where Iron man had an infectious joie di vivre that carried it, Hulk is just plain leaden. For an film with so much slam-bang action, it's a film with an almost absolute lack of emotion and Ed Norton, William Hurt and Liv Tyler seem like they're just reciting their lines. A running subplot means Banner has to keep his heart rate below 200* to avoid turning into the Hulk, but it's difficult to imagine his heart ever getting above resting. Couple this lack of emotion with soume decidedly ropey special effects (it's saying something that Ang Lee, by making his Hulk more cartoonish, made it more believable) and you've got a film that ticks the boxes but never gets above the mediocre.
Tim Roth's performance as a man going skidding down the slippery slope into insanity is just about the only standout amongst the leads for much of the film (although sterling supporting turns by Ty Burrel and Tim Blake Nelson are also worthwhile), but it all just ends up with a predictable 'Clash of the CGI Titans', which wasn't interesting when I first saw it in Mortal Combat: Annhilation in 1997. Iron Man carried it off because the foregoing two hours had resulted in me emotionally engaging with a likable and fun cast. The Incredible Hulk failed because it assumes that CGI monsters themselves are inherently interesting, and things like humanity are less important to the telling of a story.
Except when Tony Stark shows up, obviously, but that's not worth a tenner of your money to see.
* A ridiculously high number. I don't think my heart rate has ever hit 200 in my entire life, but Banners does on a regular basis including whilst just getting involved in some heavy petting with Liv Tyler. Speaking as a boy, unless you're 14 that's just not going to heppen. Ever. I mean, when I'm showing some lucky lady some hot David lovin' I doubt my heart rate goes above resting, like Hannibal Lecter.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-23 10:06 am (UTC)I think he's likely to get a bit more enthused than most when he realizes his hands are inside Liv Tyler's knickers.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-23 10:10 am (UTC)And how come it gets that high within moments of getting his clammy hands round some hot knockers, but it takes about ten minutes when he's being chased by men with guns?
And another thing...
Date: 2008-06-23 10:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-23 10:13 am (UTC)I'm guessing it's 'turn into hulk or put her through the wall with the hosepipe like effect caused by 5 years of not gettting laid'. Esp if he's being avoiding masturbation, just to keep the Hulk under control, as well.
Re: And another thing...
Date: 2008-06-23 10:14 am (UTC)Re: And another thing...
Date: 2008-06-23 10:20 am (UTC)It's always been a source of disappointment (and some surprise, considering) to me that my love life doesn't have a comedy soundtrack.
Re: And another thing...
Date: 2008-06-23 10:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-25 08:20 am (UTC)As for it being less bouncy than Iron Man - one had a genius playboy deciding to fight crime, the other had a genius scientist afflicted with a body and mind altering medical condition. In a similar note to yours Philadelphia had less laughs in it than Prescilla, Queen of the Desert, so what exactly where you expecting?
Anyway I saw it and enjoyed it. I'll be honest and say I didn't enjoy it as much as Iron Man but I still thought it was well worth going and seeing. I didn't think the acting was half as bad as you make out nor that the plot or story were lacking, and the end sequences were rather enjoyable (but then I also enjoy monster movies).
Re: And another thing...
Date: 2008-06-26 12:00 am (UTC)Re: And another thing...
Date: 2008-06-26 10:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-27 11:53 am (UTC)I found Banner and both Ross' emotionally unengaging. I understand why this should be so; Banner cannot be charismatic. Charismatic people tend to be people who enjoy what they do; Tony Stark is charismatic because you know he'd be great fun to be with, likewise Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins in the 'having fun' scene. Superman is charismatic because he's aspirational.
Banner can't be charismatic because he is none of those things; as a result of this our conventions of narrative structure mean that no other main character can be more charismatic than the hero - Tim Roth's character would have been much better if he'd been allowed to really enjoy his new-found power, but making the villain a great deal more fun than the hero is a mistake that Hollywood learned not to make in Prince of Theives.
I understand why the film is structured as it is, but if your narrative structure mneas that you cannot show me a character who is charismatic in a big-budget blockbuster pop-corn cinema filling funfest, don't be surprised when I complain about that. The Philadelphia comparison is an unfair one; I go to see films about AIDS victims for one thing, I go to see superhero films for quite another and the emotional state I epxect to get from those films is similarly different.
When I go tot see a Superhero film I go in expecting to be entertained. The failure of Incredible Hulk to Entertain is the problem of the filmakers, not me, and the dramatic falloff in audiences since opening (something which iron man didn't experience) suggests that the audience agree with me.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-27 05:33 pm (UTC)I thought of him as gloomy and focused rather than uncharismatic, different reads on it.
Re "The Philadelphia comparison is an unfair one", I did not compare an aids movie to a super hero movie. I compared a drama AIDS movie (Phili) to a comedy AIDS movie (Prescilla), thus attempting to compare a angsty SuperHero movie (Hulk) to a more boys adventure SuperHero movie (Iron Man). Sorry if I didn't make the comparison clear enough.
I'm not suggesting there is a problem with you, I'm just pointing out what I think are a couple of points you either missed or that I read differently. I already said I didn't enjoy it as much as Iron Man and I'm not surprised that its not doing as well as its not as good as it was. I just liked it more than you did :-)
Re: And another thing...
Date: 2008-07-01 08:12 am (UTC)Re: And another thing...
Date: 2008-07-04 03:19 pm (UTC)