Better actors + better direction + less complex plot = successful series re-boot
Yup, I am one of those people who is going to bash Ang Lee's The Hulk (2003); I hated it. Lunanshee and I both hate Eric Bana in the first place, so that was one strike against the film already. Shame on Lee for trying to make the audience think too much (something I am accused of all the time). It was a summer popcorn flick--we weren't there to navel-gaze; we were there to watch the Hulk do his signature thing (smashing, of course). I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but the disgust that I felt still burns after 5 years.
The thing that is hardest for me to believe is that Leterrier's version (2008) is more believable than Lee's (2003). How could the guy who blew The Transporter 2 out of believability deliver when a 'serious director' like Lee could not? I was pretty shocked with the second movie--I really liked it.
So I was cautious when I went on opening weekend. Edward Norton is totally worthy, but the problem is that he is a little too worthy for this film; it's almost as if he is slumming it. All in all, I think he did just fine at being an unassuming scientist. He certainly comes across as smart enough and he is much more believable than that other (alleged) beefcake-looking guy. Even Live Tyler, who is barely worthy (according to me) surprised me with how much the two characters were able to convince me they cared for each other (a chemistry that even the talented Jennifer Connelly, who we adore, was not able to fake). I do wish, however, that she had cleared her throat of that unbearable whispery voice to speak up. Betty Ross should not be a sex-kitten--she is a scientist and is intelligent in her own right. I've never read the comics, however, so maybe my expectations are a little too 'modern'. Heck, I can barely even remember the TV show...
Perhaps the most credit should be laid at the feet of the supporting actors. I feel that William Hurt, Tim Roth, and Tim Blake Nelson (even though he was way too over-the-top) all played their parts perfectly; they were just 'big' enough to keep the scene afloat without stealing it. Ultimately, their excellence in the acting craft is what made the picture work and what sold the action. I hate to use the words "team players", but that is the best way to describe how each actor's contribution melded with the others' to the best effect.
--See 'Comments' for more review--
June 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'll agree with some of the critics that the fight scenes between the Hulk and the Abomination were great. I think I might even call them "almost operatic"; their pitch and escalation of aggression were just right, I thought. The very final moments of the battle scene left me with a few questions, but overall, I thought it was great.
The best part about this movie, though, was the Hulk's constant 9-foot size. I could not suspend my disbelief of Lee's Hulk's increasing size; there are laws of physics, even for superheroes. I will believe in men and women who stretch, become invisible, are magnetic, impervious, able to fly, etc. but a man who blows up like a balloon was something that was not credible at all.
I was particularly tickled by the sharp cameo given by Robert Downey Jr. (and the opening montage shout-out to the Iron Man's Stark Industries). I love cross-overs, particularly by an actor who is suddenly at the top of his game. Even if a Justice League movie never happens, those few seconds of screen-time hit my geek-button squarely. The Hulk is not as clever a movie as Iron Man, but they are the best 'companion pieces' to come out in a long time (I am hard-pressed to think of any that are better, but I welcome your comments if you can).
Yay for a summer movie that is just smart enough not to be condescending, but not too wrapped up in being smart for it's own good! Sign me up for the sequel.
Post a Comment