Hulk (2003)

2008 #36
Ang Lee | 132 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

HulkWith the Edward Norton-starring (and -penned), Louis Leterrier-directed sequel/re-imagining of the Hulk coming this summer, I decided it was finally time to watch Ang Lee’s much derided 2003 attempt at bringing Marvel’s green monster-hero-thing to the big screen. Much like the lead character — in a Jekyll & Hyde-style, he’s mild-mannered scientist Bruce Banner by day, but the big green monstrous Hulk when angry — this is very much a film of two vastly different sides.

Indeed, the most striking thing about Lee’s interpretation of the Hulk is what a mish-mash of styles it is. On the one hand, it wants to be a drama/thriller, focussed on father-child issues and military cover-ups. On the other, it has comic book action sequences and a bizarre editing style inspired by comics — a compilation of unusual techniques that look like a Media Studies teacher’s wet dream. Not even Spider-Man was that kooky. In the end, it just means the cutting style feel out of place, firstly because for much of the film (at least the first 45 minutes) it’s the only reminder of the film’s comic roots, but especially because Lee’s use of the tricksy techniques is inconsistent — sometimes confusingly overused, sometimes apparently forgotten. Other technical elements also detract. Danny Elfman’s score is blandly uninspired, a carbon copy of his work on similar films. Worst of all is the CGI Hulk — it looks like they used an action figure he’s so plasticky. It gets by OK in early appearances, swathed in moody shadows, but in the glaring desert sunlight he doesn’t stand a chance.

The big, destructive sequences starring the Hulk himself are too little too late. There’s nothing wrong with sneaking drama into blockbusters, but this feels like a blockbuster snuck into a drama. There are fights because there have to be, not because anyone involved in making the film seems to want them. They’re badly placed thanks to the plot structure and the film’s pace topples under their weight. Even the climax wants to be a battle of wills between father and son, but turns into a nonsensical messy CGI splurge. That said, the dramatic moments don’t fare much better. Usually so watchable, Eric Bana can do little with the material offered here. The rest of the cast don’t suffer as much, and there are times when it almost works, but neither the dramatic nor blockbuster sides fully function in themselves, and certainly not when slammed together.

Hulk is not a film anyone could love — even the weakest comic adaptations usually have their fans — and, for a film aimed at a devoted fan base, this is perhaps its biggest flaw. Equally, it retains too much of the superhero genre for anyone to consider admiring it as a purely dramatic film. Hopefully Hulk-fan Norton’s film can marry the two halves better… or if not, at least create some cool destruction-filled action.

2 out of 5

Iron Man (2008)

2008 #31
Jon Favreau | 126 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

This review contains spoilers.

Iron Man“Iron Man, Iron Man, does whatever an iron can. Flattens clothes, nice and smooth; burns a hole if he doesn’t move. Look out! Here comes the Iron Man!”

OK, maybe not…

Irritating ‘humorous’ review intros aside, Iron Man has never been at the forefront of my comics experience. X-Men and Batman, yes yes yes; a few of Alan Moore’s, of course; a solid stab at getting through Preacher; occasional diversions into Spider-Man or Ghost Rider… But never Iron Man (or a slew of others, but they don’t have a surprisingly successful movie currently in cinemas). Whilst he’s obviously a popular character with fans, the film’s phenomenal success — both financially and critically — has rather taken me by surprise, and consequently dragged me to the cinema for the first time in over 10 months.

Tony Stark is, perhaps, Marvel’s answer to Bruce Wayne: the billionaire playboy CEO of a huge technology company who uses his technological know-how to become a superhero in the wake of personal tragedy — but in Stark’s case the company is an amoral weapons manufacturer and the playboy lifestyle isn’t just a front. What this means for the viewer is that, in the title role, Robert Downey Jr gets to shine. He has all the best lines and comedic moments (of which there are plenty) and a couple of cool action bits too (of which there are few). As he’s the hero this would seem just, but you only have to look at earlier entries in the Batman franchise to see how the hero can be sidelined for the villain. Elsewhere in the cast, Gwyneth Paltrow brings humanity to proceedings as the improbably named Pepper Potts, whose biggest flaw is that the filmmakers refuse to have anyone make a joke about her name. Not even one! Jeff Bridges gives a suitably dastardly performance as the eventual villain, but the plot woefully underuses him.

Because this is an origin story, you see, and sadly falls into most of the typical origin story traps: the ‘major’ villain exists only to provide a final act punch-up while the rest of the film explores how Ordinary Man (or Ordinary Rich Man in this case) gained Super Powers (or Built Super Suit) and went on to Save Mankind (or Save Some Foreigners, but I’ll leave deeper debates over the film’s dubious international perspective to others). It used to be the case that superheroes arrived on the screen ready to go — look at Burton’s original Batman, for example — but since the genre’s ’00s revival it’s all about the origins. What this typically means is a decent-enough first film that serves only to introduce the characters for the sake of a fully-formed second entry. One can only hope this will be the case with Iron Man.

The primary exception to this rule is Batman Begins, which succeeds because it’s less about the origin story and more an exploration of Batman’s psychology in general, something only vaguely alluded to in preceding efforts. Where Iron Man falters on this score is in completing Stark’s move from uncaring weapons manufacturer to socially conscious hero relatively early on, from which point he spends ages building his suit and battling, not an evil villain, but off-screen corporate machinations. The final fight, when it arrives, lacks punch (literally) and is over too soon. The amount of time, depth and humour awarded to the characters is to be applauded, but it comes at the expense of some excitement. At least it makes a change, as it’s thoroughly unusual to find the balance skewed that way.

To touch on an exceedingly minor element, the fan-pleasing post-credits scene with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is quite disappointing. While it’s cool to see Jackson as Fury, and a nice lead for the now-confirmed Avengers movie (which will come after Iron Man 2, so you have to wonder why the scene is at the end of this film), it’s too brief. When Fury informs Stark he’s not the only superhero in the world it provides a mixed reaction: on the one hand, we’re all too aware that from the Marvel Universe we’ve had three X-Mens, three Spider-Mans, a Daredevil, an Elektra, a Hulk (and soon another), a Punisher, and even a Ghost Rider — if they all take place in the same filmic universe then Stark ought to have noticed at least a couple of them on the news! And if they’re not in the same universe, one wonders if the cast of The Avengers movie will be padded with second-string heroes who barely warrant their own film. But that’s a debate for another review (one in three years’ time, in fact).

This may all sound a tad harsh on Iron Man, but when a film receives near unrelenting praise from most quarters it’s hard not to spy the faults when coming to it late. What it most resembles is a great TV pilot: at the end you enjoyed what you just saw, but your thoughts lie with what’s to come — “that’s the setup, now what will they do?” Hopefully Iron Man 2, due in two years, can take the many positive elements and run with them.

4 out of 5

Hellboy: Director’s Cut (2004)

2007 #120
Guillermo del Toro | 127 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

Hellboy Director's CutA surprise hit on release, this live action adaptation of the cult comic book is an exciting and entertaining, though flawed, mix of pulp fantasy, gothic style and action.

Surprisingly, it spends more time focused on the characters than the plot; while this is nice, and those scenes are expertly played, they do seem to throw the pacing off kilter somewhat. And, in an amusing reversal of the usual action movie cliche, while the character bits are great the action scenes are a tad underwritten! The score is also pretty lacklustre: it sounds like a typical, appropriate SF/F action score, but one where the cues have all been incorrectly placed.

But these flaws are easily overlooked when the characters are such fun, the dramatic moments suitably poignant, and the action passable enough. Hopefully the forthcoming sequel can see to the faults and be even better.

4 out of 5

I haven’t seen the theatrical cut of Hellboy, hence why this is numbered.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

2007 #54
Sam Raimi | 139 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

Spider-Man 3Spider-Man 3 carries the distinct air of a group of people trying to recapture former glories, and the fun they had achieving them, and failing on both counts. There are hints at the things that made the first two (especially the second) movies so good, but they’re relatively poorly executed.

The pacing is shot to shreds, scenes and plot points need rearranging, the villains are less engaging, Venom is shockingly underused, the climax virtually comes out of the blue, and emo-Parker is just plain embarrassing (at first people at least laughed at him in the street, but then there’s the jazz club sequence…) I also spent much of it wondering where most of the massive budget had gone. Yes, there’s the odd action sequence (often with not-that-impressive CGI, it must be said), but much of the film focuses on the ‘human drama’ side of things, much more so than the first two (which were relatively heavy on it for summer movies) and with much less effect. It’s only really in the finale that the budget shows, as if they saved it all up to pour out then.

I’ve wittered on again, in a way I haven’t since Hidden, and all with complaints… but here’s why: the Spider-Man movies were great and, while this one has a relatively ambiguous ending in some respects, this is in so many ways clearly designed as a trilogy-ender. And it disappoints; and it disappoints in the worst possible way, because there are some great germs of ideas here… it just feels like they’ve filmed the second draft instead of letting it be fully polished. It’s a huge shame.

3 out of 5

Spider-Man 2.1 (2004/2007)

2007 #49a
Sam Raimi | 130 mins | DVD | PG / PG-13

Spider-Man 2.1Shortly before the release of the new threequel, Spider-Man 2 returns to DVD in this newly extended form. What’s there? Not much.

There are bits so little you’ll think “I don’t remember that bit” (and it may just be a bit you’ve forgotten); there’s a new scene with MJ that’s OK but not mind-blowing; some added bits to fights; and an alternate version of The Lift Scene that is funny and (very) notably different, but just not as good as the original.

It’s still a 5-star film because it doesn’t ruin the original — but it’s not at all essential. The DVD has new extras, mind, so if that’s your thing (like me) it may be worth it.

5 out of 5

In retrospect, I probably should have rated this lower. It may still be a good film, but the fact is the original cut’s better — even if just for the superior version of The Lift Scene. I rather doubt I’ll ever watch it again.