Film Review: The Incredible Hulk - How Universal and Marvel Successfuly Course-Corrected the Struggling Franchise

Place me firmly in the camp of those that think that Ang Lee's Hulk (2003) is almost criminally underrated. Bringing his art house sensibilities to the project, Lee chose to focus on the complex, rage-filled father and son relationship that fueled Bruce Banner's anger management issues.

Giving it an icy counterpoint in the father-daughter relationship between his girlfriend and her dad, the movie dug beyond the superficial gamma radiation explanations of the comic book origin. Instead it showed the underpinnings of Banner's rage to be firmly rooted in real world psychology. And the film managed to tell its tragic story without ever forgetting its graphic heritage, with Lee choosing to frame the images in a dynamic, split-screen effect that replicated the artistic masterworks of a Steranko or an Eisner, masters of the comic book panel layout.

The movie failed to meet expectations at the box-office making only $132.2 million domestically after a rousing opening of $62.1 million in its first weekend. Much of the blame was laid on the feet of Lee, though I feel he was only the scapegoat for Marvel's ambitious plans for the Green Goliath. After all, if there was one franchise where they could afford to be a little riskier, it was this one. The Hulk was a property that was pre-sold even beyond such other Marvel heroes as Spider-Man or the X-Men. Those characters had been successful on the page, yes. But the Hulk had been successful on TV for five seasons in a popular series with a beloved actor, in Bill Bixby, as its lead. Marvel's directive, however, was to ignore the TV show, and be faithful to the comics. Poor Lee was blasted in the fan community for committing what amounted to an act of heresy (by the same fanboys who lash out at film producers for casting a blond instead of a dark-haired 007), for doing what fans generally prefer in these types of movies, sticking to the established comic book continuity.

When the idea to revisit the character was introduced, great pains were taken to assure its success. The fans were assured this would not be an art house retread of their beloved idol, but rather an action-packed take on the monster. The motivations behind the Jekyll and Hyde metamorphosis would be left unexamined, in favor of getting down to the nitty-gritty hulkouts that were being clamored for. I was holding my breath, unhappy that what was essentially being said was that the movie would be dumbed down for its target audience. Was it really necessary? Especially since comic fans long for the day when their favorite medium will earn the respect of others as a viable and thriving mode of delivering artistic masterpieces on the order of Alan Moore's Watchmen or Maus by Art Spiegelman?

The Incredible Hulk opened on June 13th, and guess what? The reviews weren't bad. But they were a bit in the backhanded compliment vein. Glenn Kenny, formerly of Premiere, but now blogging at Some Came Running wrote, "some CGI issues aside, it was a credible (ar ar ar) enough action thriller in the contemporary commercial comic-book-adaptation mode, and that its quality is such that it'll be better received by audiences than its initial and persistent "bad buzz" had indicated." Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman writes that the audience "may not mind that The Incredible Hulk is just a luridly reductive and violent B movie — one that clears a bar that hadn't been set very high." Not bad, but certainly not great reviews.

Here are some ways Universal and Marvel Studios circumvented the fickle fans, and successfully course-corrected their struggling franchise to the tune of $96 million-plus and counting in only its second week at the box-office.

Hire an action film director. I don't know Louis Leterrier. I have never seen a Louis Leterrier film. But I do know this... Louis Leterrier is an action director. All I have to do is see a trailer for The Transporter or Transporter 2 or Unleashed, and I can tell he knows how to direct action. Now, does he know how to direct a performance?

Recast the entire movie with actors who won't let you down. That's not to say that the first cast would have let anyone down. You had Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Josh Lucas, Nick Nolte, and Sam Elliott as the villain, General Ross... wait a sec, Sam Elliott. I like Sam Elliott, but he's not exactly villainous. And Eric Bana is great but he won't open a movie the way Edward Norton does. Okay, Ed Norton it is. and for the villain? William Hurt. Throw in Tim Roth to support him. And Tim Blake Nelson to set up the inevitable sequel's next villain. Love interest? Liv Tyler's kinda hot, and she can act, too. Oh, and by the way, Norton loves the Hulk, so he can help you rewrite the script. He's a smart guy. He'll make it even better. Louis Leterrier (you must always say his entire name)? You worry about the action... these guys have got the performances covered.

Pay homage to the character that got the butts in the seats in the first place, stupid. That character was TV's Incredible Hulk, David Banner, not comic's Hulk, Bruce Banner. Little touches throughout the movie evoke the nostalgia of watching the well loved series. From an appearance by Bill Bixby on TV (in a rerun of another of his series, The Courtship of Eddie's Father) to original Hulk Lou Ferrigno as a security guard, to a cameo by intrepid reporter Jack McGee (here working for a college newspaper), to a blisteringly quick refresher on the Hulk's origin over the credit sequence (complete with blinking red Danger Light) that paraphrases the show more than the last movie, the film is targeted at the core fans of the show. Even the title pays respect to the series.

Hedge your bets by making this movie a reboot AND a sequel. Sure, it's a new movie... I know you didn't like the first one. Oh, you did? Well, it's a sequel. See how Banner ended up in South America at the end of the first one? He's still down there at the beginning of this one. And see how he became the Hulk while working on secret government projects for his girlfriend's dad at a University lab? He returns to the lab to find his girlfriend in this one... just ignore that this one is called Culver University while the original was Berkeley. That's just to throw off the folks who hated the first flick. Ala the 007 series, the films are loosely related and invoked on an as-needed basis only, in order not to load things down with too much continuity.

Remember, it's a comic book... play by comic book rules. Ah, but you like continuity. Well, this movie is for you. Starting with the opening credits, you see documents that belong to Stark Industries, and the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division or SHIELD, both organizations that appear in Marvel's other 2008 film Iron Man. You have Banner seeking help from an expert in gamma radiation, Dr. Samuel Sterns, fated to become one of Hulk's arch-enemies, the Leader, in the comics and presumably the next film. Ex-girlfriend, Betty Ross's new boyfriend? Well, I believe they cut out the explicit reference to his name, Dr. Leonard Samson. A noted psychologist, he later becomes the green-tressed hero, Doc Samson. And Tim Roth's Emil Blonsky is warned by Sterns that he may become an "abomination" if he chooses to test one of Stern's serums in combination with the Super Soldier serum given him by General Ross. The Abomination is Hulk's greatest comic book opponent.

Get an assist from your bona fide, genuinely more successful superhero younger brother. Want to get fanboys into your less than promising new superhero flick? Bring your star hitter to the party. Iron Man is the first film of 2008 to break the $300 million mark. So when Marvel started promoting that Robert Downey, Jr. would appear at the end of this movie as Iron Man Tony Stark, offering to help General Ross with a team he's putting together, the sound of millions of fans simultaneously reaching orgasm echoed throughout the land. Now that Marvel Studios has most of its characters under one roof, it's far easier to cross-pollinate franchises, like they do in comics. Word is, that Thor and War Machine will be spun off into their own films after appearing in Iron Man 2. They'll all be reunited in The Avengers, the story of that super-team Stark and SHIELD's Nick Fury (Samuel Jackson) are putting together to stop the rampage of... you guessed it, the Hulk. Luckily, since the Hulk is CGI you don't really need Edward Norton to return for that one.

Leak info to the press, no matter how untrue it actually is. Apparently, Edward Norton was going to be conspicuously absent from the promotional tour for the film since he was unhappy with a number of his script ideas being ultimately discarded from the film. Nothing like getting a lot of free promotional mileage out of actor vs. studio controversy. And the press was all over it. But wait, who's on Jimmy Kimmel promoting the Hulk on June 12th with a hilarious film making the YouTube rounds? And what about the widely promoted Captain America cameo rumors that circulated for days on the Internet (reported on Cinema Blend and Sci-Fi Wire) with Louis Leterrier only shooting it down after finding a way to flip it into a promo for the inevitable extended-cut DVD?

And given my appreciation for the Ang Lee version of the Hulk, what did I think of The Incredible Hulk? It wasn't bad, and it's an entertaining start to what appears to be a franchise with the potential to thrive for a long, long time.

This entry first appeared on Blogcritics on 6/23/2008.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS.

The Big Sleep: The Current State of Things and a Few Words on Glenn Kenny

So here is the current state of things around here. Got back from Tribeca a week ago when the following proceeded to occur:

• My laptop died. Thought it'd be a simple matter of replacing the hard drive and recovering some data from the old one. Turns out the whole motherboard is fried (or some such shit like that... I'm not the tech-savvy type) and the data is, to quote Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) in Blade Runner, "lost... like tears in rain." Included in that data, pictures of my son's first Christmas. Lesson: Always back everything up.
• My cell phone is dying. Which has made it almost impossible to conduct business while I wait for my new laptop, since my cell was the only way I could answer email. Working on getting that replaced as well.
• My car could go any day now. Scary is hoping your car doesn't die out in Atlanta traffic with an unreliable cell phone to depend on.

The good news is that I've had plenty of time to watch a stack of screeners that was waiting for me when I got back from NYC. So you'll be getting plenty of reviews as soon as I'm back up, including:

• A survey of all the Indiana Jones material available out there as we approach the release of the new chapter: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
• Todd Haynes' look at Bob Dylan, I'm Not There
• Hilary Swank in the romance, P.S. I Love You
• A look at some new Sinatra material, out on DVD tomorrow
• Several documentaries like Surfwise, At the Death House Door, and When the Moors Ruled in Europe

Until then, let's talk about something else that has been on my mind. Premiere Magazine, a film magazine that started in France (and continues to be published there), was first published in the U.S. in 1987. Some have been critical of the American magazine for trivializing the art of film, i.e. concentrating on celebrities and box office tallies, and even putting out an annual list ranking the most powerful people in Hollywood. I was a subscriber from day one, and I can tell you that at fifteen, it was a considerable influence on my approach to analyzing cinema. Sure, if you were looking for scholarly examination of film in the context of world cinema you were probably better served by reading Film Comment (a publication I still enjoy greatly). But there was still room for Premiere's brand of journalism. Because though some would accuse it of trivializing the medium, I found it was honest in covering American film in the grander scheme of things, covering everything from independents to blockbusters, films to home videos, spotlighting actors both famous and obscure, and never letting you forget that though you may love film for its art, it was ultimately the business forces that decided if it would get made or not. Last year, Premiere, in the U.S., succumbed to the erosion of advertisement income now plaguing much of print media in the face of the rising popularity of the internet as news outlet. Many of the staff lost their jobs as it transitioned to a second life on the net, except one.

Glenn Kenny, the mag's resident film critic, continued in that capacity as the magazine became one of many entertainment sites that abound online. His singularly distinctive voice and style was one of the few reasons to continue to visit the site, as he also supplemented his reviews with a fantastic blog, "In the Company of Glenn". Not only does this man have an opinion (which I frequently disagreed with), but he is a master of the English language. You'd be surprised how few of those exist online. Here's an example of his way with words from his post on 4/21/08 entitled Monday Evening Palate Cleanser:

It vexes me. I am terribly vexed.

Why, on this mild Monday evening, do the words of Joaquin Phoenix's Commodus echo through my head?

That's a rhetorical question. I know exactly why. That answer's multi-faceted. Part of my vexation stems from encountering, in this here blogosphere, a putative paean to a particularly distinguished work of cinema, which praises the particular work at the expense of practically every other movie the director of that work ever did, trotting out heavyweight quotes the better to swat at...David Denby, who recently had the temerity to cite said director's "refinement." What such score-settling has to do with the work at hand is, naturally, beyond me. But the score-settler seems to believe he's achieved the ambition of that character in Gass' "In The Heart of The Heart of The Country," which I guess is nice for him, not so nice for those turning to him for some wit or perception. And in thinking about all this, I further think, "Dude, you really want to get into it like this?" "It" being the week, after a weekend of examining some of the other discontents readily available in the film-appraisal corner of our world. And I answer, "No, I do not."

I bring up Mr. Kenny because Premiere just terminated his position. And as NPR reported on a story on the very day Kenny announced his departure, he is but the latest casualty in a long string of critics who've accepted buyouts or have been terminated from magazines and newspapers nationwide. So a site struggling to stand out from all the others just got rid of the one person who had the most potential to help them in doing so. And another veteran film critic loses his job because of ever increasing competition from bloggers who write more often, more incoherently, and often for free.

Though I am thankful for the immediacy, and facility, that the online world affords me in expressing my views on this subject I adore, cinema, I will always defer to journalists with formal training and experience when it comes to writing. Here's hoping that Mr. Kenny will land on his feet quickly, and get on with the business of provoking us to think on cinema from his perspective, no matter how often I may disagree with it.

An archive of Glenn Kenny's blog for Premiere, "In the Company of Glenn", is up, for the moment, under my Recommended Blogs to the left. His new writings may be found under a blog he set up, all by himself, called "Some Came Running", also under my Recommended Blogs.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS.

Film Review: Flawless - Contrivances sink British thriller

Calling a film Flawless is certainly asking for it to live up to a lot. I think it was Glenn Kenny, of Premiere, that recently brought this up in regards to another film with a similar name. He was implying that critics sharpen their knives when confronted with a name like that. And a recent survey of some of the titles of the reviews for this bank heist movie confirms Mr. Kenny's theory. Of course, if you're Michael Radford (Il Postino), the director, wouldn't you do your best to avoid any such attacks by excising any potential pitfalls from your film?

The film follows Laura Quinn (Demi Moore), an American Oxford grad, who has hit the relatively low glass ceiling within the London Diamond Corporation. See, this is 1960s London, and being a woman, she is unlikely to move up any further. Mr. Hobbs (Michael Caine), the night janitor, has quietly observed her frustrations mount as she gets passed up for promotion after promotion. Seeing her work late into the night, obviously going home to a single life, he targets her for a surprising proposal. He approaches her with an opportunity to get revenge by stealing just a few of the diamonds that, together, they have access to. Suffice to say, that there is more to his plan than even Quinn is aware of, with things escalating greatly from there.

Demi Moore is not entirely convincing as Quinn. She is believable enough as a driven executive. Heck, ambition is a quality that distinguishes Moore in real life. But I don't buy her as an Oxford graduate. It seems like an unnecessary contrivance to explain why an American would be working in this British boys' club. I suspect that making Quinn British would have been a hard sell also. Moore's accent comes and goes frequently in the film. Lastly, Moore does not carry "matronly" off very well. It is hard to believe that this stunning woman would live out her life alone given the era she lives in. There is a throwaway scene that implies she gets hit on all the time, but again it seems contrived to reinforce the flimsy notion that this lady has gotten to where she is through sheer perseverance. The part is better suited to an actress such as Charlotte Rampling or Glenn Close, someone who's glamour may have faded just a little bit more.

Michael Caine is great, playing the part for what it is, a typical old everyman except for the few cards he's still got left up his sleeve. He expends minimum effort in creating the role, even reverting to his natural Cockney accent to play Hobbs. You're even convinced he could come up with the plan for the heist all by himself.

But the movie pretends to have one up on you by not fully revealing the execution of the plan until its finale. And then you realize... that's it? That's how this old man, and proper 1960-era lady, pulled off the heist under every one's noses unaided? How fortuitous that the Finch (Lambert Wilson), the insurance investigator, has a soft spot for Laura. What a coincidence that there is political turmoil surrounding South African diamonds at the time of the heist, and that some of the missing diamonds are of South African origin. Does it give the movie some social relevance? Well no it doesn't. There is a lot of "smoke and mirrors" in the plot that could have added some measure of complexity, but ultimately don't lead us anywhere interesting.

And the framing device used to tell the story, an aged Laura Quinn telling a modern-day reporter of her part in the little-known heist? It only seems to serve the purpose of making Quinn's character sympathetic, which doesn't feel necessary. Additionally, it unintentionally sets up a false notion that the story being told is based on real events. It is absolute fiction. The biggest mistake contributed by this modern-day sequence is its depiction of Quinn as Demi Moore in some rather bad old-age makeup. It is distracting and completely takes you out of the film's reality only minutes into its start. It might have been better to save Moore's appearance for a reveal at the end of the film.

I can't say that the film was not mildly entertaining. The period setting is an attractive feature of the movie. And Radford keeps the pace of the film exciting enough to provide for a diverting afternoon matinee. But a few blunders here and there contribute to making the film far from flawless.

Still provided courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS.