The Incredible Hulk [Archive] - ChristianWriters.com

Phy

06-25-2008, 11:55 PM

What did you think of Ang Lee's Hulk from a few years ago? Just for comparison, I'm asking.

I just saw that again over the weekend on cable.

Wow, what a stinker. True, Roger Ebert gave a solid three stars (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030620/REVIEWS/306200304/1023) to the Ang Lee version, raving about the "...two dueling oedipal conflicts are at the heart of "Hulk," and it's touching how in many scenes we are essentially looking at damaged children." He was rather less impressed with the 2008 updated version, and few are as entertaining as Roger when he's dressing something down:
"The Incredible Hulk" is no doubt an ideal version of the Hulk saga for those who found Ang Lee's "Hulk" (2003) too talky, or dare I say, too thoughtful. But not for me. It sidesteps the intriguing aspects of Hulkdom and spends way too much time in, dare I say, noisy and mindless action sequences. By the time the Incredible Hulk had completed his hulk-on-hulk showdown with the Incredible Blonsky, I had been using my Timex with the illuminated dial way too often.

He goes on to observe:
The Ang Lee version was rather brilliant in the way it turned the Hulk story into matching sets of parent-child conflicts: Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) was appalled by her father, the general (Sam Elliott), and Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) suffered at the hands of his father, a scientist who originally created the Hulk genes and passed them along to his child. (Nick Nolte had nice scenes as the elder Dr. Banner.)

The problem is that it may have been a more interesting situation, but it wasn't the Hulk, it was like some alternate universe big green creature. It seems to me that those who liked the first film aren't fans of the source material, and those who like the new film are. That's not to say the first movie wasn't interesting, it just wasn't remotely true to the character. If you went into that theatre in 2003 without any knowledge of the Hulk, you might have been able to enjoy that movie on its own merits. I'm a casual fan at best, but am enough of one to be thoroughly disgusted with the liberties Ang Lee took with the character. That character may be big, green, and conflicted, but it's not the Hulk I know.

Fwiw, Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, and Nick Nolte all turn in very good performances in the Ang Lee film. Nolte, in particular, turned in the role of his life. It's too bad that their film was about a counterfeit Hulk, and I don't lay my extreme dissatisfaction with the film at their feet. They did a great job with the material they were given. I even have a personal favorite line form that film: "We're going to have to watch that temper of yours..."

This new film gets so much 'right' (based, again, on the source material) that I was geeking out a little to see a fresh but faithful rendition of a classic character. This new film isn't perfect, but it's close enough to earn a solid thumbs-up, and kicks the stuffing out of the pretend Hulk because it's actually about the character I read about and watched on TV. It's like seeing Pirates of the Caribbean in the theatre and then finding some cheap knock-off DVD at Wal-Mart a week later called Rogues of the Islands starring Captain Jac Swallow. It may sort of look like a venerable character if you squint at it from a distance, but it's clearly a cheap knock-off that won't bear up under any kind of actual scrutiny.

The thing is this - this new Hulk knew the history of the character from the comics, and was even more aware of the TV series. It managed to tell a truer story that was not at all interested in "dueling oedipal conflicts" or "damaged children," giving us instead the proper Hulk from the source material, working in clever cameos from the series (including

The only thing Roger liked about the new film is Edward Norton, and I likewise liked Ed's performance here, but that's not saying anything, because I've never seen him turn in a bad performance.

So, in summary, if you have no knowledge of the source material and liked the Ang Lee version, I'd give the new one a pass. However, if you're remotely a fan of the Hulk of the comics or TV series, see the new film. I think you'll like it. I know I was very pleasantly surprised. I'd heard enough borderline stuff to have low expectations, and I was blown away at how much fun I had.