Interesting article from Boston Globe regarding "The Hulk "

[comicartfan]

I saw this article and I think that it is a good opinion as to why the "Hulk" isn't doing "Spider-man " business.....or even "X men " biz....I found the movie brillant in that "Jeckyl and Hyde" kind of way that makes Batman so cool. The inner struggle of a person battling with his inner demons and yet, loving the power that comes with being "out of control". - Batman hides behind the mask and cowl and although it could be argued that he is in control, he is unleashing that incorrigable side of him that he has to keep in check when he's Bruce Wayne...yet in the costume, he is annonymous. He can pretty much get away with almost anything...yet he has his "limits". There is a scene in the "Hulk" that I find highlights this point - After he rips those hulk-dogs apart, he transforms back into Banner , he says to Betty that he knows that his father had sent them, (dogs) and yet he "got them" - all the while, grabbing Betty's neck and relishing the rage and loss of control that we all want to do on occassions. Anyway, read the article and let me know what you guys think:

 

`The Hulk' is about more than the green

 

 

By Wesley Morris, Globe Staff, 7/4/2003

 

he box-office scuttlebutt on Ang Lee's ''The Hulk'' is that -- $62 million opening-weekend take aside -- it's tanking. That's too bad because I'm in a small minority of people who think it's pretty good.

 

 

 

Actually, by current summer-movie standards, it's awesome. A many-sided psychodrama about kids and their fathers, ''The Hulk'' goes out of its way to be more substantial than a mere popcorn flick.

 

Yes, it cost $150 million, and yes, it features a 15-foot-tall green computer-generated monster who appears whenever its hero Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) is ticked off. But need it be silly, too?

 

Unseasonal as this may be in summertime, ''The Hulk'' neither smirks at its audience nor pokes holes in its own grandiosity. Director Lee and his longtime screenwriter James Schamus (one of four writers credited for the -script) give the project the serious treatment -- refusing to mock, undermine, or overlook the intrinsic cinematic power in comic books.

 

The movie doesn't merely acknowledge this. It tries to literalize and animate the comic-book experience. Panels and frames slide up and down, back and forth across the screen like gathering clouds. The screen is seamlessly split when estranged characters speak, implying an intimacy that otherwise does not exist. The rich, reflective photography is by Frederick Elmes, who shot Lee's ''The Ice Storm'' and David Lynch's ''Blue Velvet.'' Tim Squyres did the painstakingly handsome comic-book-panel editing.

 

When he turns into the Hulk, Banner becomes a musclebound rageaholic as indestructible as a tank. Yet this Hulk leaps through the air like the folks in Lee's ''Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'' (2000). And, eventually, he weeps the way nobody could in the director's 1997 ''The Ice Storm.''

 

That a lot of ''The Hulk'' explores toxic human relationships automatically makes it a downer. Banner senior (played by Nick Nolte) experimented on his boy, killed his wife, and reappears years later eager to continue his ''research,'' while the son has no idea what his father has done to him. He thinks his passivity and emotional inaccessibility are, well, normal.

 

Those who dislike the film observe that what Bruce becomes is not quite monstrous enough. If Bruce's alter ego seems boyish, that speaks to the fact that it was in boyhood that the source of his trauma began. As an adult he seems boring, tamped down. But he's also a scientist, which predisposes him, as I've discovered through my own science friends, to a certain sort of social strangeness.

 

The disappointed seem to want King Kong or Frankenstein's monster, forgetting that both creations were just as unstable and terrified as this Hulk appears to be. Surely, he must be a metaphor for something deeper than a man's repressed fury; and when he is angry, could he at least cut a more electrifying path of destruction?

 

But why is his sudden self-access to years of missing memories not metaphor enough? Who were people expecting him to become -- Godzilla? Unlike most comic-book action movies, there is no world for Bana to save, no revenge to exact. The movie takes an appealing alternate direction. What hangs in the balance is simply Bruce Banner's sanity.

 

While the -script doesn't fully hold together, Lee finds formal ways to bring the material off, culminating in some truly weird sequences. Among them: the father-son showdown, in which Bana and Nolte sit in a dark, almost spotlit space, and emote. Bana screams at Nolte, who reciprocates with a kind of gonzo opera. With its stark staging and minimal cuts, the scene serves as an explosive human interlude in an otherwise synthetic wonderland.

 

We see what we want in these movies. But I felt something at ''The Hulk'' that I haven't felt in any other major movie I've seen this summer -- not anything that's been in the box-office top 10 anyway. I saw this sadly nerdy, suddenly petulant white guy as a metaphor for anybody born to be something they didn't ask to be, and persecuted for it anyway. The moment most critics say the picture comes around -- during a desert chase sequence -- is around the time Bruce has embraced the benefits of his freakish condition. He's hopping glad.

 

That's what is so thrilling for him when he finally hulks out. He barely recognizes himself. Who knows, though, maybe he'll grow up in the sequel.

 

Wesley Morris can be reached at wmorris@globe.com.

 

[500Club]

the father-son showdown, in which Bana and Nolte sit in a dark, almost spotlit space, and emote. Bana screams at Nolte, who reciprocates with a kind of gonzo opera. With its stark staging and minimal cuts, the scene serves as an explosive human interlude in an otherwise synthetic wonderland.

 

The true strength of the 'repressed anger' take on the Hulk is Banner not being able to cathartically release his anger. By having the father as part of the movie storyline, this confrontation can take place. In the comics, the situation is handled much more realistically, with Banner never having the chance to confront the emotional issues that his father left him with.

[comicartfan]

I think that the confortation between Banner and his old man is to get the "neat little explantion" that Hollywood is concerned about....they want the average movie goer who most likely isn't a comic fan to feel as if the rage that Banner goes into can make sense.....does that make sense ?? - I find the father angle was handled very well, giving substance and depth to Banner and helping explore his inner demons.....as to why they are there. I saw the movie twice (so far) and I found it just as good the second time. I only hope that the dipping box office reciepts don't kill any chances of a sequel. I have done some research and the Hulk isn't killing box office records overseas. But, the sequels on these kind of movies have done much better than the former....(X men 2, Matrix 2, Austion powers, terminator 2, etc.....) -

 

And I was reading that Ang Lee was saying that he might be giving up on movie making...it's too physically draining he says...

[Kevin76]

Josh from Comlink said that the charcters were poorly developed and it lacked a plot but the F/X were great but then again Josh also lacks a personality...My guess is that he didn't understand it?

[HooDeeDoo]

I found that the real problem was in its structure. Alot goes on in the movie but nothing happens.

 

Without trying to sounds too pedantic, there are three elements that make up a good story: Action, Conflict and Event.

 

Action = what does the character want?

Conflict = what is keeping the character from getting what he wants?

Event = when the character ultimately gets (or doesn't get) what he wants.

 

The central character is undeniably the Hulk and not Bruce Banner, otherwise the title would be "Bruce Banner". So, what does the Hulk want? You got me. One could say he wants to get away from everyone which is why there are all the chase scenes. Well if that's the case then it's not emotionally satisfying - it's like watching a video game over and over again. It may be fun to watch but it's not very dramatic.

 

The only scene in the movie that was a clear example of Action/Conflict/Event was the fight scene with the dogs.

 

Action = the Hulk wants Betty to be safe

Conflict = the dogs want to tear her to shreads

Event = the Hulk kills the dogs

 

After leaving the theatre I kept trying to figure out what the "action" of the overall movie was and couldn't come up with one. There's the whole father subplot, but that's inactive because Banner thinks his father is dead so it's not like he's looking for him (ergo, no Action). Betty has an action (sorta), she's trying to save Bruce and protect the Hulk. However, the central character is always REACTIVE and not active.

 

I think the one of the biggest mistakes they made was to not have the Hulk talk. He stormed around the entire movie with a stupid expression on his face. Yawn.

 

They did alot of cool and interesting things with the movie but in the rush to be artsy they forgot the basics of drama - and it shows at the box office.