Hulk (2003) - Bernard Ho

Ang Lee’s Hulk presented a strange paradox to movie-going audiences when it was released in 2003.  On the heels of recent successes based on comic books such as X-Men (2000) and Spiderman (2002), Hulk was the first of its kind that tried to fully reconcile the source material with artsy independent film-making.  While many have written this attempt off as foolhardy, myself and a handful of others consider this level of ambition to be one of the film’s hallmarks and strengths, and believe Ang Lee and his creative team deserve applause for trying to think outside the box. 

The usual counterargument that I have heard is that there is a difference between intention and execution.  In other words, to echo another green fictional character “Do or do not.  There is no try.”  True, but I do believe that the execution really works if one can forego preconceptions of what a comic book movie should be, and instead evaluate the film as it is actually presented.

What is presented is a family drama played out on a large canvas afforded by the creativity of Hulk creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, not to mention numerous writers and artists at Marvel Comics.  To play out those family dynamics, Lee cast a solid group of proven actors.  Hulk is really a story about children learning to cope with the trauma that their fathers have unknowingly inflicted upon them.  Jennifer Connelly and Eric Bana portray characters at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of how they cope with the past, with Connelly’s Betty Ross living with a lingering and perpetual pain and Bana’s Bruce Banner repressing memories until they manifest physically during his transformations into the Hulk.
 

Connelly plays a similar role for which she had previously won an Oscar (A Beautiful Mind, 2001), in which she falls in love with a brilliant scientist/mathematician and is compelled by that love to help him overcome his demons.  And she nails the role, yet again.  Bana convincingly portrays the confidence of Banner as a man of science and reason.  He makes no apologies for wearing a bicycle helmet that protects his “very important brain”, nor does he back down from challenges presented by the military-industrial complex, embodied by Josh Lucas’ character, Talbot.  Also convincing is Bana’s portrayal of Banner’s reluctance to deal with his less than scientific emotions. 

In contrast, Sam Elliot, Nick Nolte and the aforementioned Lucas are tasked with playing archetypes:  the military man General Ross, the mad scientist David Banner, and the greedy corporate man Talbot, respectively.  While they have been criticized for over-acting, I find this forgivable and even enjoyable given that they are clearly playing archetypes.  Watching them on the screen, I get the sense that they really enjoyed playing their parts, too.  That is not to say that their portrayals are completely campy.  In fact, Elliot and Nolte occasionally convey genuine pathos that belies two-dimensional characterization.

As for the canvas on which this melodrama unfolds?  Firstly, the use of multiple angles and split screens in action and dialogue scenes mimics and fully embraces the form and function of comic book panels.  The set design is also evocative of Banner’s emotions.  The claustrophobic settings of the lab, home and military bases in which Banner’s frustrations mount are juxtaposed starkly with the expansiveness of the desert where the Hulk roams freely.  And was it ever cathartic for the character and audience to finally see the Hulk let loose, sprinting and leaping without limits, an overwhelming sense of freedom.

And now for the green elephant in the room.  The special effects have definitely not aged well, but movies that eventually stand the test of time are the ones with thought-provoking, well developed stories and characters that we care about.  The special effects become less relevant.  That this will be true of Hulk is questionable.  However, in the 9 years that have passed since Hulk’s release, I have talked to several people who appreciate it more now than they did when they first viewed it.  Hardly a representative sample, but hopefully this is a sign of changing perceptions of this underappreciated film.

Hulk may have been a victim of its time.  In the early 2000s, superhero movies were only starting to come into their own as a genre and the conventions for success were being established.  Hulk threw convention (along with helicopters and tanks) out the window, and set its own ambitious path, one that filmgoers were not quite ready to follow.  While it is true that convention done well is still entertaining (Iron Man, Spiderman 2), the sustainability of the superhero genre will depend on creators such as Lee and his team to push the envelope of what the genre can achieve on film.  I honestly believe that this film would be much more readily embraced by today’s movie-going public, which has experienced the heights of The Dark Knight (2008) and the nadir of The Green Lantern (2011).

 Score: 8/10