BURIED IN THE "BASEMENT": When Good Films Go Bad
This Month: Hulk

Matthew Goltz
5 July 2003

(Spoiler Warning: The following article discusses major plot-points and "surprises" within the dramatic structure of the film reviewed. Read at your own risk.)

Once again a summer event movie has come along that throws so much flash and fury across the big screen that some audiences might at first fail to realize what a drag the movie actually is. I’m referring to the megabudget adaptation of the classic Marvel Comics character The Incredible Hulk. Despite the untold millions of people who rush to see it and the untold millions of dollars this particular blockbuster totals by the end of its run - and it will likely be a huge moneymaker - there is no denying that something is missing from the artistic side of the equation. Several somethings actually.

Hulk is directed by Ang Lee, who brought us the martial arts epic Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, the independent dramas Sense and Sensibility and The Ice Storm, and several fine films from Hong Kong. The screenplay by James Schamus, John Turman and Michael France (co-writer of Cliffhanger and Goldeneye) is based on the legendary comic character created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. “Legendary" because most people, whether they are comic fans or not, know about the Hulk. Featured in Saturday morning cartoons and the popular 1970's television drama starring Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno, it's a fair bet that at least 7 out of 10 Americans between the ages of ten and fifty could pick him out of a lineup. After all, lime-green, over-inflated, muscle-bound, growling behemoths tend to stand out in a crowd.

History

The story itself is simple and familiar yet needlessly complicated. Bruce Krenzler (Eric Bana) is a genetic research scientist in Berkeley, California who is working on an important project that could lead to accelerated healing in living organisms. His partner in science is his former love, Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). During an accident in the lab, Bruce saves the life of a colleague by taking a blast of gamma radiation. Miraculously he survives, claiming he feels better than ever. That's when the lab's new janitor (Nick Nolte) introduces himself and reveals that Bruce Banner is the young man's birth name and that he is David Banner - his birth father.

Over the course of the film we learn that while doing research into genetics for the Government many years ago, David secretly experimented with his own DNA. His self-tampering created a genetic defect that was passed to his son Bruce. This defect lay dormant for years until it was struck by the aforementioned gamma radiation. The effect? In times of stress and fear, Bruce Banner changes into that towering titan of unrestrained rage, the Hulk. We also learn of familial battles both physical and psychological between The Banners that are heated enough to rival the Hatfields and McCoys. David Banner’s experiments are discovered and halted by the Government and he goes mad. He destroys his lab and attempts to kill his "monster of a son" Bruce but accidentally kills his wife (Bruce's mother) instead. David is taken and locked away by General Ross (Sam Elliot), who is also the father of Bruce Banner's future former girlfriend and supposed true love, Betty Ross. Whew. Did we get all that?

Now fans of Marvel History already know that little to none of this is based on established comic lore. Yes Bruce Banner was blasted by gamma radiation and does turn into the Hulk at times of extreme pressure; however, the tale as originally written places Bruce in the middle of an atomic bomb test and has nothing to do with genetics. Neither Bruce’s father David or General Ross were part of Banner/Hulk's origin, nor was there a convoluted intermingling of the three character’s cyclical relationships over the course of a generation. From a narrative aspect it's an interesting addition to the myth, but one that’s a little too convenient. If it's true that "the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons" (and "daughters,") then much of the trouble in the lives of poor Bruce Banner and Betty Ross can be boiled down to the foolish pride of a couple of men having a disagreement in the workplace thirty years ago.

Similar to Shanghai Knights, another bad film with a legion of reviewers behind it, critics have fallen over themselves giving Hulk a high amount of undeserved praise. They site it's "depth of character" and it's "far reaching story" of genetic tampering and Oedipal conflict. After deciding to take on this film, Mr. Lee himself reportedly said, "I may not know comic books, but I know Greek Tragedy." However, he has infused the woeful tale of Scientist Bruce Banner with enough sorrow to make an already depressing narrative even more unpleasant. But how? Let's compare the highs and lows of our gamma-rayed good guy.

Momentary Pleasures

If much of science depends on numerical equations, then even Bruce Banner himself would have to agree with this math - is a movie that clocks in with a running time of over two hours and has only 15 or 20 minutes of fun actually a good movie? Not so much. The film has quite a deficiency of excitement with a dull-to-enjoyment ratio of around 8 to 1. However, it’s good points are worth mentioning.

What Works

Eric Bana is quite good as Bruce Banner. Combining quiet reserve with fearful foreboding, his portrayal of the brainy scientist is convincing. His scenes with Ms. Connelly feel natural, making us believe that Bruce still pines for his former love. Ms. Connelly plays soft emotion as well as Mr. Bana, though more emotional fire and intensity would have helped us feel for these characters much more strongly. Nick Nolte, however, amps the intensity to the maximum with his portrayal of the beleaguered mad scientist. He gives the proceedings an unpredictability that the text doesn't. Mr. Nolte is the wild card in the deck, until the conclusion where the narrative simply fails him. And despite what might have been reported in advance, the CGI Hulk character (the film's biggest gamble) works well, particularly in close-up where the CG Hulk convincingly resembles Mr. Bana. In fact, it's the Hulk's incredible display of abilities that fuel the best stretches of the movie. A scene where the Hulk grapples the tail of a speeding fighter jet while being dragged nearly into orbit contains a rare moment of wonder. Sequences involving the Hulk fleeing the Army through the Desert of the U.S.Southwest should also receive special merit as they contain a much needed sense of whimsy and fun that is missing in the heavy handed scenes that proceed them. A battle sequence with several armored vehicles contains fleeting moments of greatness as the Hulk ferociously tears a cannon from the body of a nearby tank. As he spots the next soon-to-be-destroyed tank, he wields the cannon like a baseball bat, "pat-pat-patting" the business-end of it in the palm of his hand with the look of a street tough itching for an alley fight. The casual genius of this moment is easily the best character bit in the film and it's breathtaking in it's celebration of the character and the carnage about to ensue. The movie could have used many more moments like it. Following scenes of the Hulk on the run leaping over miles of beautiful desert landscape accompanied by a typically effective score by Danny Elfman come close to awe.

What Goes Up, Must Come Down

A comic book that's survived for decades certainly has no shortage of well defined characters, but how does a filmmaker successfully wrap so much history into only two hours? Carefully. While directors Sam Raimi, Richard Donner, Bryan Singer and Tim Burton have had great success in translating their respective comic book films from their source material, the video store is cluttered with movies that have failed miserably. This film version of the Hulk is only halfway successful.

Sam Elliot's character, General Ross, is the weakest part of the film. For a main figure and partial villain in a story rich with promise, the General never rises above one-note stoicism and anger. More a caricature than a well-rounded persona, he's far too gung-ho, emotionally controlling, and too unlikable to gain any sympathy from the audience. Though he is the father of Betty Ross, we don't feel any kind of parental compassion from the man. And no matter how gruff and great a soldier the man might be, it's unlikely someone like him would raise to his rank in the modern military without a shred of insight into his enemy or the desire to gain it. He's "all kill" and no introspection. Sam Elliot is a fun actor with a great screen presence who can gain audience sympathy easier than most actors, so it's a pity that his character is not developed enough to meet Elliot's abilities. By the film's end, we want the General to suffer some sort of dark fate. A punishment that never comes.

Other characters are just as poorly developed. While intriguing, Mr. Nolte's David Banner is uneven at best. He is so underwritten that his abilities are wasted, especially in the last moments of the film. He begins as a sort of sympathetic watcher-in-the-dark and dissolves into a raving madman; a cross between the Unabomber and Godzilla. Jennifer Connelly is gorgeous and strong as Betty Ross but a little more emotion would have made her work much more believable ("Um, Betty... Your Dad's trying to kill your friend and former lover... Some emotion would be nice.") And Josh Lucas as Talbot, a schemer wanting to dissect the Hulk, is so hilariously insipid he seems to have wandered in from an Adam Sandler movie. We are more than happy when he is ushered off the screen with a wall of fire; although, the freeze-frame that accompanies his death is soooo terribly cheesy. While this might seem like nit-picking, these character points could have just as easily succeeded as they failed. The presence of stronger characters result in stronger films and is generally what sets good films apart from bad ones, the X-Mens from the Batman and Robins for instance.

Missed Opportunities

There are many moments in the film that are never examined which could have helped the film immensely. In describing the sensation of losing control of the monster inside him, Bruce Banner says, "What scares me most is...I like it." Well don't have the character tell us how he feels, show us. Or cut the line entirely as we never see his enjoyment. Show Banner possibly coming to a small measure of awareness as the Hulk. Show us the Hulk even cracking a smile as he kicks a car down Lombard Street. A moment like that might rewrite Marvel history, but since the filmmakers are doing that anyway why not do it for the sake of entertainment? The filmmakers made plenty of changes which sure as hell weren’t for the better.

Sadly, for a superhero figure, the Hulk has very few heroic moments. Although he battles three dog-monsters to save Betty's life, it's a rather somber event as the poor guy even loses his pants in the process. Also, in a scene where a Jet Fighter tries to blast the Hulk and accidentally ends up on a crash course with the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hulk stops the Jet from crashing by leaping on it and knocking it beneath the bridge with his weight. But it's a short lived moment at best as the Jet Fighter then decides to soar straight up in an attempt to asphyxiate Hulk in the Earth's atmosphere. ("Gee, a thank you would've been much nicer.") More moments like these could have turned the story around and made the movie much stronger. In the end the Hulk isn't even the one who vanquishes the villain. Some sort of Gamma Nuke from General Ross actually does most of the work for him. What always makes for a great moment in a superhero story is their sudden proximity with reality, that is to say their big "coming out scenes." Spider-Man slings into Times Square and whisks Mary Jane out of the chaos of the Green Goblin's Earth Day carnage. Superman soars through Metropolis and takes down one criminal after another. Even Batman rides into battle in his armor-plated Batmobile to face off against Gotham's loudest and most villainous. And the Hulk? He runs around the desert fighting off helicopters like "King Kong in Africa." While it's actually a zippy and enjoyable action sequence, the screenplay should've had more fun and gotten the viewer more up-close and personal with the Hulk. He wrecks a 50 yard stretch of a residential San Francisco avenue and in what should have been a landmark metropolitan rampage scene barely makes the evening news. Poor Hulk. He really needs a better PR team.

Turning Back the Hands of Time

The Oedipal conflict added to the Hulk's origin is unnecessary and unpleasant. Isn’t it enough Banner is the Hulk and alienated from society? Must he have witnessed his mother's murder at his father's hands and then blocked it so that it becomes a suppressed memory? It's as if Mr. Lee and his team decided that Banner's life just wasn't tragic enough and said to themselves, "Batman saw his parents killed as a child, Spider-Man watched Uncle Owen pass away... Hell, Superman's whole home planet blew up!!" This whole section of the film could've been much improved by cutting out a good thirty minutes and relieving some of the pressure from the endless first hour of the film.

Flashbacks might be a literary and cinematic staple but they are overused here. In what may be a conscious attempt to steal Tim Burton's flashback technique from Batman where we see Bruce Wayne’s parents killed, Bruce Banner's buried memories of the events leading up to his mother's death come to him in a series of dreams. And Betty has flashbacks too. While we see where she was at that exact moment of Bruce’s mother’s death, it’s for little purpose. You'd think Ang Lee suddenly decided to channel Brian De Palma, but Mr. Lee also relied heavily on flashbacks in Crouching Tiger. He might love them, but audiences sometimes don't. Give it to us all at once (or twice, at most), so we can figure the mystery out with the character and get the rush of sudden realization. Don't piecemeal things so doggedly. We suspect David Banner killed his wife within the first or second flashback. Give your audience some credit and don't beat us over the head with it. Or better yet use our expectations against us. Pull a bait-and-switch and tell us something that sets us spinning. What if we were suddenly told in the end that David (Nolte) did not kill his wife but General Ross had? Imagine if The General had then locked Nolte up for the 30 years to keep the truth hidden. Then we'd truly understand their intense hate for one another, we'd have real sympathy for Nolte and his descent into madness would be much more understandable. Or, what if we learned that David Banner (Nolte) wasn't really Bruce Banner's father but a Military Officer who, maybe, killed Bruce's mother and father to keep the Project quiet. For this reason he'd be a much more despicable villain and actually worthy of hate instead of such a one-note antagonist. Of course, this is all conjecture. There's no way to tell how any of this might've made the narrative stronger. As things stand, one might think that if only Banner Sr. and Ross could've sat down, shut up, and had a few beers maybe they could have worked their problems out and tossed all the Romeo and Juliet "warring fathers" stuff out the window. This would have saved their children from potential psychological trauma and San Francisco a few million dollars in property damage.

Also, perhaps on a more personal note, there's something inherently wrong with a plot line that requires the elder Banner to hate his son Bruce so much that he ruins his life every chance he gets and tries to kill him on more than one occasion. Analysis of the film's story brings to mind an entire list of negative implications, such as the issues of physical and mental child abuse, society's neglect of those with birth defects, and even abortion as Nolte tells his son "I should have killed you when I had the chance." In a climactic battle between father and son, Bruce Banner just seems to stop fighting his father, who is rapidly absorbing his son's power and presumably ending his life.

In this way, by giving up there is (again) no heroism in the Hulk's final conflict. He doesn't strike his evil father down as a Shakespearean lead might. If it were a death-match, this would be akin to letting your opponent kill you at will which is itself a form of suicide. These notions are just fine when examined with more care and in a more befitting arena. But in a comic book summer adventure movie, they seem extremely heavy handed and potentially harmful when one considers that much of the audience is going to be parents with their children who are expecting pop-entertainment like Spider-Man. Sure, Darth Vader tried to kill his kids too but George Lucas has taken over twenty-five years to tell that story. Of course, one can't fault the filmmakers for audience’s expectations. However, it wouldn't hurt to keep things like that in mind... I'd hate to be the parent who's child asks them "Daddy, if I were born different would you kill me?"

Wrap-up

Finally, there are more minor (but still important) directorial errors in judgment that could've easily been avoided. For the most part, the many night scenes involving the Hulk are barely visible. One might think the effects team was intentionally keeping the scenes dark to hide the CGI work, but as the daytime Desert Scenes showed, the Hulk looked just fine. Also, the film uses a dissolve, superimposition, split-screen effect to show transitions between shots and scenes which is an attempt to take on the look of comic-book art paneling. Often it's a neat trick but just as often it proves to be annoying. Too much visual trickery gets on the nerves. But most disappointing of all is the last act. The psychobabble and pseudo-science ends up boiling down to a pair of whiney titans (the Banner father and son) brawling in the desert... again. When the military steps in and decides to end things once and for all it's like a family fight being broken up by a drunken uncle.

But fear not, True Believers. All is not lost. While Hulk is hardly the rousing summer fun it would like you to think it is, the will of the audiences will be heard by the filmmakers. Chatrooms will hum with the praise of the dummies and the suggestions of the fans. Much is being made that Hulk didn't bring in as much as Universal Pictures had hoped -- only half of Spider-Man's three-day box office take, and still $20 million less than X2: X-Men United. Well, that should be a wake-up to the powers that be. If there ever is a sequel, they'd do well to remember that summer action blockbusters should be narratively strong as well as entertaining on some level. Give us deep meaning, yes, but don't sink it under the weight of pretension. These may be adventure films based on comics, but they should be treated with respect. And if you must play with formula, do it wisely. That's what gets people paying for films two, three, or more times. That's what makes them engaging. And that's what makes them classics.

After all, funny books are no laughing matter.

MG