Director: Louis Leterrier (Transporter I & II, Danny the Dog)
Writers: Zak Penn, Edward Norton
Producers: Avi Arad, Kevin Feige, Gale Anne Hurd
Starring: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, Tim Blake Nelson, Ty Burrell, William Hurt
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 114 min
How much can really be said about The Incredible Hulk? Bruce Banner’s version of Mr. Hyde is about as brainless as it gets. With sub-par acting, seen-it-before action sequences and cameo/throw-back gimmicks, most of my in-theater time was spent thinking about which movie to sneak into next.
Bruce Banner (Norton) is a man on the run from the military. He hides a secret genetic code within his blood that John Hurt and the rest of the military command want to use as the ultimate biological weapon. Banner, meanwhile, is hiding out in a third world country trying desperately to find a “cure” for the gamma ray induced defect in his blood; which, when his heart rate goes above a certain point, causes Banner to morph into a raging, angry, green beast that can “toss a forklift like it’s a softball.”
The military signs on the best marine they can find (Roth) to capture Banner and bring him in alive. Of course, to be of any sort of match against the “hulk” that banner becomes, they treat this marine with a similar dose of radiation that enables him to regenerate quicker and perform physical feats no normal human could even entertain. Meanwhile Banner searches out his long lost girlfriend for help (who also happens to be the General’s daughter) and a mysterious geneticist known only as Mr. Blue to help with finding a cure. A lot of running, smashing, throwing and fighting ensues.
Despite the opening, hate-filled paragraph above, The Incredible Hulk does a few small things going for it. For starters, it manages to show what it’s trying to show sans confusion and with style. The opening shot flying over a large city in Brazil is quite breathtaking and gives the viewer a gorgeous look at our settings for the next 30 minutes or so. The fight scenes are equally viewable in their texture and perspective – with a lack of the standard shaky cam or quick cuts and a plethora of zoomed out perspective shots.
Also kind of fun are the homages to the original television series of the 1970s. Not the least of which is the use of the familiar, lonely piece of piano score as Banner wanders slowly up a desolate road. A brief mention/joke about the purple shorts is mildly amusing and of course the quintessential Stan Lee cameo appearance. As cute/amusing these small homages are, The Incredible Hulk takes it a bit too far during a couple of scenes with a couple of other inside jokes and brief cameo appearances and it was difficult to keep from rolling my eyes at times.
Norton, Hurt and Roth. Three extremely talented actors all agreeing to sign on here for one hulking paycheck. Roth is underused and frankly misused. Hurt is serviceable and is actually the best of the three, but his character is fairly uninteresting and unagreeable. Norton isn’t quite laughably bad, but it’s just flat enough to make me wonder what happened to the guy who not too long ago was doing class-act work in films such as Down in the Valley, The Painted Veil, or going all the way to the beginning for a rookie of the year performance in Primal Fear. Honestly, what happened!? Oh yeah, and Liv Tyler is in this too as the love interest who looks scared and screams a lot.
The biggest problem facing The Incredible Hulk is it’s similarity to just about every other comic-book, super hero movie ever made. Remember Iron Man from a couple of months ago? Yeah, this is the same movie; but instead of a misunderstood robot fighting a slightly bigger and better robot, this is a misunderstood mutant fighting a slightly bigger and better mutant. They throw each other around for a bit, smashing busses and buildings in their wake in the process. At least Iron Man had Robert Downey Jr to carry the whole thing on it’s back so to speak. Here, it’s just more of the same (complete with the evil, low-frequency voice over from the nemesis).
Sure it looks pretty good, but so what!? This day in age everything CGI looks pretty good and mentioning it almost seems superfluous. With hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget, I expect it to look kind of cool AND have an interesting story thread with decent acting. Nope.
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for The Incredible Hulk
I would disagree that this looks good. Actually, I enjoyed most of the film until the last 20 minutes of destruction which were laughably bad. I also don’t think Norton was awful, he’s just not the Norton we know and love and frankly, I don’t mind that he chooses this type of film to do once in a while, I just hope he doesn’t get sucked into the franchise.
****SPOILER*********
I was surprised that the film’s isn’t wall to wall action – there seemed to be as much action here as in Lee’s film, it’s just a lot bigger here. The other performances were disappointing and I didn’t like the fact that they turned Roth into the bigger monster – I wish they’d kept him as a super strong human because that was actually a lot of fun to watch.
Overall, I didn’t hate it. I like it for different reasons than I like the first, which I loved from the get-go, and though I could do without the last 20 minutes, I generally had a good time.
Actually, I enjoyed most of the film until the last 20 minutes of destruction which were laughably bad.
Heh. That describes perfectly Ang Lee’s version of the film. The ‘energy man’ stuff was not too compelling after the rest of the film (minus hulk dogs) was pretty gripping.
“I wish they’d kept him as a super strong human because that was actually a lot of fun to watch.”
TOTALLY!
@ “I expect it to look kind of cool AND have an interesting story thread with decent acting. Nope.”
hmm. The acting is the element of the film I would defend. I loved what a bastard William Hurt was. Tim Roth was vicious and menacing. I loved Ed Norton as Banner. And Liv Tyler was ok too.
Interesting video interview of Norton talking Hulk:
http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_14865.html
Wow Rusty, you took away a lot more than I did with these performances. Roth has what, eight lines of dialogue before he transforms into “giant, ugly thing guy?” And half of those are, “pissed off and ready for round three!”, “is that all you got”, “bring it on”, and a small conversation with Hurt relating to… gah! I can’t even finish. Look at some other Roth films for his level of menace (Planet of the Apes, Musketeer and the one with Liam Neeson come to mind – Reservoir Dogs even qualifies for that matter). No, he was totally wasted.
And as I said, Hurt was serviceable with what he was supposed to be delivering, but it was nothing overly fantastic. Same with Liv Tyler. She was fine, but basically her character is just there and is pretty much the same role as any other love interest in a super hero movie “no don’t, you’re hurting him! … WAAAAH!…. I love you Bruce… etc.”
If you loved Ed Norton as Banner, more power to you. Again, knowing what he’s capable of, I compare it to other Norton performances and this one was pretty damn hollow.
I enjoyed it much more than Ang Lee’s version. I don’t really connect with the Hulk as one of my favorite Marvel Super Heroes but it was an enjoyable movie to watch. I like a lot of Liv Tyler’s best stuff in the film was when she wasn’t talking and just looking at Hulk.
I don’t know how many lines Tim Roth had but he had a decent amount of screen time.
As for William Hurt he really won me over with a particular line of dialogue at the end. Abomination is destroying the city, a look of resigned defeat comes over him, and he give the order “call in reinforcements and steer the battle to Harlem” What a fantastic bastard! His character is not sympathetic.
Also, “Cut him in half!” Or something to that effect.
I didn’t have any serious problems with this. My biggest criticism is in the pacing of the story, and related character development, or lack of it. It wasn’t a huge problem, but character motivation didn’t have much depth. It’s very simple to understand, which may be why it was dealt with so lightly here. But any movie or story can benefit from stronger connections with both the hero and villain(s).
Andrew, I also disagree with you about the actors. I think they all did fine. I sometimes have a hard time evaluating acting (and maybe all aspects of cinema for that matter) in comic book movies, or lighter action-based movies. There’s the tendency to go easier on one of these movies because of what it is. Obviously we don’t expect Brando; but is that fair? What should we expect? Just some thoughts, but back to the acting thing – Norton, Hurt and Roth all had adequate screen time to display their chops. Sure, Roth may not have spoken much, but I was impressed with the physical menace he brought without the actual physical bulk-up or HULK-up, via months of rigid training leading up to shooting.
Spoilers follow, but I think everyone knows this stuff already – I’m also kind of getting into this universe that Marvel is building. I was not into comic books as a kid, so this isn’t a geek reaction – Marvel is doing some fun crossover stuff. People in my audience were laughing and clapping for the Stark appearance. The quick flashes of Nick Fury and SHIELD on the screen got my attention. I’m looking forward to seeing how Marvel develops this, if they continue producing quality entertainment, or if they decide to push production to meet target dates.
Another criticism of this review – towards the end you state that Hulk and Iron Man are basically the same movie. I disagree – Iron Man isn’t a perfect movie, even for what it strives to be (light, fun action), but it flows much smoother and has a greater energy than Hulk. This goes back to what I was getting at in my previous post, but there’s something about the pacing and/or editing in Hulk that is off; it never really lets up, but in it’s most action packed moments it has a hard time igniting the kind of rush that Iron Man has when Stark wears the suit. Iron Man is almost exactly the kind of comic-book movie I want to see more of – it’s fun, full of action, not too heavy, but still competently directed, edited, shot, acted, etc. Hulk was pretty competently made, but similar to Lee’s version, it feels like it’s a little bogged down by too much attention to Banner’s emotional psyche, though to varying degrees of that psyche in the different versions.
So, in summary, Iron Man=fun but not totally stupid; Hulk=not totally stupid but only a little fun.
@ “Obviously we don’t expect Brando;”
excuse me Stump but I believe Brando was in a superhero movie entitled “Superman”.
But seriously, I agree with your point. Just because this isn’t the deepest role of Tim Roth’s career (although I think he’s better here than in Planet of the Apes) doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate performance worthy of critiquing. It’s easy to say this kind of material is light; but how many times have you seen an actor play a role like this and totally fuck it up? Tommy Lee Jones in Batman III, Kevin Spacy in Superman Returns etc etc [insert your own examples.]
Also, I thought Timothy Blake Nelson was really good. It’s tough to do that kind of hammy acting stuff but I thought he nailed it.
It’s nice to see someone else around here (and Goon of course) who doesn’t have an an grind with movies about radioactive men.
Iron Man = Boring, totally stupid.
The Incredible Hulk = Off my viewing list, officially labeled by me a likely travesty unworthy of monetary investment.
That’s very interesting* Henrik
*interesting = dull and unintelligent.
Hey Stump,
They ARE basically the same movie. As far as IM being better than Hulk, I agree. Hence I gave IM 2.5 stars and Hulk 2 stars.
But c’mon. A guy with superpowers is on the run from the military/corporation and at the end (for about 35 minutes – i.e. 1/3 of the running time of the entire movie) fights another version of himself. Throw in the superficial love story and voila! It’s a Marvel movie.
The only difference is that while Banner is trying to escape his super power, Stark wants to exploit it. And RDJ is a much more competent actor than Norton.
Have you stooped to insulting other people for expressing opinions now Rusty? Get over yourself, you’re allowed to like The Incredible Hulk without getting defensive.
And Rusty, I totally neglected to mention Tim Blake Nelson (both here AND in the Cinecast) – Damn! Because you’re right. He’s the one shiny spot in the acting department. With clues from this film, it’s likely we’ll see him popping up again in a couple of summers from now.
re-Andrew, “A guy with superpowers is on the run from the military/corporation and…”
You seem quick to reduce these movies to their basic premise and take out the cinematic joy.
Henrik, you can’t possibly be scolding me for being insulting. And “I’m not going to go see this movie” is not an opinion, it’s a prediction.
1) Yes.
2) That’s not what I said.
@Stump – I think the problem is that for the first few times these movies are a cinematic joy but after basically the same story is done again and again it becomes tiresome and is no longer a joy. I’m all for comic book movies but I want them to strive to be something more than complete forgettable fluff.
My hope is that they do something really cool with Watchmen and it shows the studios that you do not have to follow the same plot as every other comic book movie.
complete forgettable fluff breaks box office records time and again. Its not the studios, its the film-going public.
From all I have heard about Watchmen it will tank and tank hard. and it will only encourage the Marvelization of the cinematic experience, keep it dumb and colourful.
Every now and again quality or compelling manages to shine through ‘dumb and colourful’ I’ll be there with bells on when that happens. As of right now, I am just skipping most of them. Comic Book flicks simply are not my genre.
Comic Book flicks simply are not my genre.
Liar.
Ghost World
A History of Violence
The Crow
Blade
Blade II
Swamp Thing
Road to Perdition
Sin City
The Incredibles
Hulk
Iron Giant
The Warriors
American Splendor
Kids, super hero comic books I think he meant. I’m in the same boat. And for each of those listed above, there are ten that suck ballz – not that Blade II, Hulk, Incredibles are that great to begin with.
Btw – Road to Perdition and History of Violence are from comics?
Holy Crap Matt! You’re right.
I guess I’m aiming to say that I’m not such a blind fan o f the genre that I’ll plunk down $$ or enjoy it all in a lemming fashion.
I’m definitely fickle, but love all of those films you mentioned. I’ll add UNBREAKABLE and FASTER-PUSSYCAT-KILL-KILL to the list.
Fanatic being used in the most literal sense (all passion, no brains). Any ‘good’ film in the genre, I’m there for though. Marvel simply doesn’t seem to be the production house to do this. And their upcoming slate (Thor, Captain America, The Avengers) simply leaves me coldly indifferent.
I know for a fact History of Violence was originally a comic book, and a good one at that.
And I’m with stump on this one – boiled down these movies all share the same basic premise and in some cases, set-up, but it’s sometimes fun to watch it unfold and I enjoyed seeing this particular story unfold.
Blade II rocks every which way till Sunday. A pure visual and sensory delight. Yum. Yum.
Don’t have much time for Norrington’s Blade I outside of the opening Blood Rave and any scene with UDO KIER in it, but I’m all smiles in Blade II (except for some dodgy CGI at the end…)
The entire Blade franchise is pretty kick-ass and yes, I’m including the third one in there. I fully realize it’s a pretty shitty ending to the trilogy but good god, Ryan Reynolds steals the show and Triple H is pretty funny.
Never saw Blade III. If there was a reason to see it I’d have thought it was Parker Posey. After Del Toro’s visual pallette in the second one, Goyer’s film looked very, very flat and uncompelling.
mmm vampires. Blade I is badass (easily my fav of the three). Kristofersson, Donal Logue and yeah, that Blood Rave is worth the price of admission alone. I even kind of like Dorf in this one. Despite the fact that his last name is Dorf. I like the UV light and the train sequence, etc.
Plus I think it was one of the first movies I remember that explored the science behind the vampirism. I’m sure it’s not the first to do this, but it’s the first one I remember seeing.
Blade Trinity has Ryan Reynolds being pretty funny and Biels looking hot. The climax is pretty ho-hum though if I remember correctly.
PS: find your vampire name:
http://www.emmadavies.net/vampire/
I’m “Armand Darling”
Known in some parts of the world as:
Boreas of Beggars and Lepers
The Great Archives Record:
Amongst the lowest of the low you will find this one travelling.
Bill Bixby would’ve been known as:
Michael du Coudray
Known in some parts of the world as:
Gawain of Delhi
The Great Archives Record:
In India this name strikes fear into the hearts of mortals.
NICE:
Josette le Boursier
Known in some parts of the world as:
Demeter of The Vile
The Great Archives Record:
Vile, foul, filthy and greedy: this creature knows nothing of light.
Armand….*sigh* time to pop in IwtV again…
“…this creature knows nothing of light.”
Awesome.
The Warriors?
Watchmen’s a total wild card and I’ll shocked if it’s successful at the box office. Definitley one of the projects on the horizon that I’m most curious about.
Road to Perdition is a comic. A comic which also is a remake of the incredibly popular Japanese Manga franchise Lone Wolf and Cub.
Hell, I forgot Sky High as well, not to mention Akira. Heck, I could do an impressive list of Anime that originated in comics.
I’m not sure if it was in the original but the anniversary or director’s cut of “The Warriors” actually had comic book transitions that apparently captured the look and feel of the comic. I saw this well after “The Hulk” but the transitions had the same feel and I can’t imagine the film without them.
The Warriors is clearly styled to be viewed as a comic, and director Walter Hill has stated that again and again. With his latest director’s cut he changed every transition to comic book panels.
BTW Andrew, the first vampire movie to explore the science of it would be a film that you watched for The Movie Club Podcast. Only about half a century before Blade.
The Warriors = Bliss. Really fun film.
Oh yeah fuc*
“If you loved Ed Norton as Banner, more power to you. Again, knowing what he’s capable of, I compare it to other Norton performances and this one was pretty damn hollow.”
Well… come on. You can’t compare the role of Bruce Banner to a reformed skinhead neo-Nazi. I thought Norton did just fine. I wish he had focused his time on something more substantial than a Hulk movie, but he didn’t obviously. Also, I’m pretty bummed that they cut a lot of the character-stuff out (that’s the stuff Norton added to the script), such as Banner’s plans of suicide and whatnot.
I liked the movie, I’ve decided, although I had a lot of problems with it. I disagree with a lot of your points, Andrew, but not enough to get into an argument to defend it. I definitely didn’t like it that much. It’s a C-grade movie through and through.
The Warriors isn’t based on a comic. Hill simply added those transitions in an attempt to achieve the tone he wanted when it first released; that of a comic book.
Personally, I can’t stand the director’s cut of the warriors. Hill’s opening narration (originally supposed to have been done by Orson Welle’s) is pretty bad and the comic book transitions look like they were done in photoshop. (Probably because they were) The gritty feel of the originally is completely interrupted by the clean, digital comic transitions. UGH.
Jay – I haven’t seen the original cut of The Warriors but I liked the comic book transitions though you are right, they were obviously added later. Sure, they might not be necessary but I still liked them.
Jonathan, in the Cine-cast I actually praise the movie a little bit more. Still not a great movie and I think my 2 stars (1/2 star less than Iron Man) is just about right.
“There’s a brief moment in the novel where one of the characters is reading a comic book about Xenophon and the march of the ten thousand and that is what inspired me to shoot the movie the way that I did.”
Is this what you’re talking about? It doesn’t sound like he’s actually read a comic.
I’ve managed to avoid the notorious directors cut.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that Road to Perdition is far and away the best thing to come out of comic-book-adaptations.
I like Blade more than Blade 2. Blade was harsh, original, cynical and hardcore. Blade 2 was more elegant, hollywoodish and genremovie-styled. It lacks the underground all-killer-no-filler quality that the first one has, and the love story is pathetic, but it’s still quite the fucking decent movie. At least they introduced a creative new type of villain (even though the main guy was a cliché beyond fucking belief).
Edward Norton seriously hasn’t been as interesting since he grew his hair back. His look in AHX is expressionistic, enthralling and impossible to take your eyes off. When he grows his hair and speaks softly, he becomes completely uninteresting.
Even if the comic Road To Perdition is based on some wack japanese shit property, I don’t anything in the movie pointing towards shallow japanese exploitation. Be it sorrow or violence.
Since Zack Snyder has directed Watchmen, I seriously doubt it will be worthy of adult peoples time. Zack Snyder should not be allowed to make films, but alas, profit is all it takes across the magnificent sea.
Speaking of Warriors, I mentioned somewhere else that the end fight of Hulk with the chain would’ve been awesome if it were liveaction and directed by Walter Hill.
Even if the comic Road To Perdition is based on some wack japanese shit property, I don’t anything in the movie pointing towards shallow japanese exploitation. Be it sorrow or violence.
Henrik, Lone Wolf and Cub is widely regard as one of the greatest comics ever created. Frank Miller’s Sin City and Ronin and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road are heavily influenced by the comic and even your vaunted Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have paid respect to it. You might want to actually try reading the thing before you condemn it as a “shit property”.
Hell, Aronofsky has been trying to back a Lone Wolf and Cub movie for almost a decade.
@ “in the Cine-cast I actually praise the movie a little bit more.”
I listened to a bit of the podcast and I thought it was a little ironic how much you ended up praising the hulk.
I think the hulk is pretty average so I’m not really comfortable defending it. But my problem with this review is it reads more like an attack on the genre than an appraisal of the actual film.
If you’re going to review a film it ipso-facto deserves an honest consideration.
Plus, it’s silly to write off an entire genre of movies.
If you guys are bored with summer super hero movies then I’m bored with hearing about how bored everyone is etc etc. I’m totally over that phase, frankly it seems petty to me.
If Frank Miller’s Sin City is heavily influenced by the japanese comic book, that’s another strike against it (the first strikes being that its targeted towards the japanese market (extremosity) which I share little with, and the anime drawing style which I still don’t understand the need for).
I am not a hardcore Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fan. I have never read a comic book with them, and I hardly remember anything from the storyline of the live-action movies. I like the concept of sympathetic juvenile ninjas named after the renaissance painters, but I will be the first to admit that it’s a “shit property” to base anything off of.
Road to Perdition became a movie for adults. Anime is for adolescents, its violence for adolescents, its sorrow for adolescents, its happiness for adolescents and its art for adolescents.
Rusty: You sound like the ultimate apologetic. Saying that it’s over to be over with boring stuff is ludicrous. We should accept stupidity just because it’s being thrown at us year after year? Come on. There is something to be said for not settling for what the accountants want us to settle for.
Henrik, Road to Perdition is the exact same story as Lone Wolf and Cub, a comic written for adults. If you actually read it you would know this, but instead you seem far more comfortable to rest smugly on your ignorence.
Henrik, what you’re missing is that I’m not conceding that the movie is completely boring or stupid. I am against both those things.
In fact you’re whole post is kind of an odd reading of what I actually wrote.
You’re off your game today.
@ “Rusty: You sound like the ultimate apologetic.”
ha ha. obviously you haven’t heard Andrew and Kurt’s podcast “review” of The Happening.
“You’re off your game today.”
I was drunk.
I totally forgot another big name comic book movie Kurt loves: Oldboy.
I think it is time Kurt stops lying to himself and admits he is a fan of the “genre”.
Heh. I think it is just superhero movies then. OLDBOY does indeed rock. Tragic that the fight-choreographer for the classic hammer-fight scene was killed a couple days ago in a car accident. Sad. The last film he worked on is Kim Jee-Woon’s THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE WEIRD which feels half spag-western, half comic book.
TO RUSTY in response to comment #50…
Yes, Kurt and I have agreed that while it’s good to bash something once in a while, our better shows tend to be the ones in which we remain positive as much as possible. So yeah, I was looking for good things about I,Hulk – -and there are a few as I mentioned there.
“…my problem with this review is it reads more like an attack on the genre than an appraisal of the actual film.”
First of all, where in the review do I criticize an entire genre? No where. I compare it a bit to Iron Man for half a paragraph. But if you think this and Iron Man epitomizes the entire genre in an hour and a half, I would agree with that and I also think it’s then fair game to criticize it as such.
Lastly, it’s summer (super hero) movie season. This is a movie podcast so we’re going to talk about it. And if these mediocre (AT BEST) films keep making $300 million and everyone seems to think they’re so great but never go see “Day Watch,” or “Persepolis” then I’m going to talk about it and how it pisses me off.
“I, Hulk”
ha.
Echo’s “I, Robot” which apparently distills all of Isaac Asimov’s interesting ideas into a product-placement action flick.
Funny slip, or intentional criticism of The Incredible Hulk?
Persepolis is fantastic. Must see viewing for fans of animation, coming-of-age stories, or ‘comic book’-inspired movies, a la Ghost World, American Splendor, etc.
Peresepolis was awesome on so many levels. even the B-movie fan gets a Cartoon Godzilla Cameo! This and Paprika last year proved that I can like animated films!
leeny
High recommendations to 2004′s MIND GAME and 2007′s TEKKON KINKREET both from Studio 4C in Japan which aims to make distinctly different animated works.
Also, word around the campfire from the few advanced screenings of Wall-E is that it absolutely rocks in a retro-sci-fi kind-a way. Which reminds me to mention IRON GIANT as well…
“Anime is for adolescents, its violence for adolescents, its sorrow for adolescents, its happiness for adolescents and its art for adolescents.”
I totally disagree with that. It might be trying to appeal to adolescents as well but I disagree that that’s their only appeal. There much more going on in films like “Paprika”, “Ghost in the Shell” and heck even “Final Fantasy”, even if it is somewhat convoluted at times.
Um. Grave of the Fireflies. Compelling stuff, and absolutely independent of age of the viewer, or the cultural background.
Intentional – though the two movies aren’t comparable, they’re both shit.
From the great mind of Maddoxx:
@Kurt
I am looking forward to Wall-E. When I first saw the trailer, I was sold. that almost never happens with animated fare. It might have something to do with the Earth in ruins at the start of the trailer.
@leeny. “…have something to do with the Earth in ruins at the start of the trailer”
I hope you are a regular reader of QUIET EARTH.
@ Andrew James
“And if these mediocre (AT BEST) films keep making $300 million and everyone seems to think they’re so great but never go see “Day Watch,” or “Persepolis” then I’m going to talk about it and how it pisses me off.”
That is what I’m talking about when I say you’re just attacking the genre not reviewing the film itself.
You say they’re mediocre at best but didn’t you just give 4.5 out 5 to Wanted (from the director of Daywatch).
I’m attacking the genre in the comment section. I never attacked the genre in the review. There’s a difference.
And I’ll say it ONE. LAST. TIME. Wanted is not your typical, mainstream super-hero comic. The average Joe has no idea Wanted is based off of a comic book (very loosely I might add). The average Joe definitely knows who Hulk, Batman, Supermanm, Spider-Man are. So yes, the huge box office giants that everyone goes to see are usually “mediocre at best.” Good comic book films, like Wanted, go largely unseen.
And you watch, no one will go see Wanted. Box office prediction – less than $40 million when it leaves North American theaters.
I don’t know Andrew, it seems like we’re talking past each other.
Stuff about box office predictions (whose significance was lost on me) aside; everything you said above(#69) seemed pretty consistent with my point: that the comic book/super hero genre is basically no different than any other type of film. Most of them are bad but sometimes the right material falls into the right hands. Occassionally we’re pleasantly surprised. In other words; it’s the same as every other type of movie.
I think we should just leave it at that and say we agree.
@ Rusty: “that the comic book/super hero genre is basically no different than any other type of film. Most of them are bad but sometimes the right material falls into the right hands.”
Agreed. Same as it ever was. Maybe it is the pounding marketing budgets that hammer these things home, attempt to make every release an event that makes the failure of most superhero-type flicks seem like wooshing disappointments. Same for Indiana Jones…
Disagree, sci-fi, romance, drama, are genres that have far more range and that invite creative takes… comic book films are deliberately conservative, that appeal to a certain base that demands association with the source material… something like Ang Lee’s The Hulk gets pissed on because of what it does.
I went on about this on the Iron Man post, the comic book films are rigidly dependent on formula in a way that many other genres do not hold to, and this has to do with the fans. Also the level of conservatism is proportional to the popularity of the source material… something like Wanted is not nearly as sacred as Spiderman.
you can count the beats of the formula in a super hero movie by a stopwatch.
perhaps the confusion is saying comic book rather than super hero. I mean if you add in every graphic novel that dilutes the focus…
I cannot speak for Andrew but I am talking about super hero films, quite possibly the most rigidly formulaic that they would make golden age Hollywood films blush.
The franchises that are the most conservative are those that have been around the longest. Things like Superman, Batman, Spider man and so on have all be around for about 50 years or more, so they have very distinctive styles. When those styles aren’t followed, the large fan bases are typically upset. Things like Star Trek and Star Wars face similar fates, as does any long running property. Whether it be in film, comics or wherever.
In comics the smaller properties are often allowed to be re-invented quite frequently, like Swamp Thing and The Sandman, which were throw away charcters that Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman turned into modern masterpieces.
The current trend to use “Super Heroe” movies as the summer tent pole films is no different than past years. Tent pole films tend to be conservative, as to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and to pose the least financial risk. Thus the quality and innovation tends to suffer. I, Robot is an excellent example of quality source material diluted for mass consumption, and it isn’t the first time it has happened to an Asimov property. But you won’t hear people decrying “Asimov films” as a total waste. So while there are plenty of derivative comic book titles, there is also a wealth of “super hero” books that defy convention and push boundaries. Preacher, Top Ten, The Authority and so on are all great books. Their is even a growing number of super hero comics that are entirely based on mocking mainstream comics like Super Fuckers.
And I have totally forgotten where I was going with this.
Gamble, I think you nailed it on the head with this statement:
“The current trend to use ‘Super Hero’ movies as the summer tent pole films… tend to be conservative, as to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and to pose the least financial risk. Thus the quality and innovation tends to suffer.”
No financial risk, and also no cinematic risk. Which is the one indredient you need to make a film really great or really awful. As Serena Whitney said on the cinecast a couple weeks back, this is exactly what you want. You don’t want the “ho-hum, it was alright but we’ve seen it before” kind of movie. You want the ones people absolutely love for their innovation and uniqueness or you want people to rail on your film for being total shit (but at least your tried something different and new).
Hulk suffers from the blasé feel. It’s not horribly atrocious, it’s just a “been there done that a million times” movie which quite frankly I’d rather watch the shit that is “Lady in the Water” again before watching i,Hulk again.
As always, Kermode rules:
“…and literally the minute he turns into Hulk, I go ‘pht, no I don’t care.’ And the minute he turns into Hulk versus Tim Roth, who’s turned into anti-Hulk, I don’t care times two.”
@ “Maybe it is the pounding marketing budgets that hammer these things home,”
The marketing of these movies is hilarious. Millions of dollars spent to convince everyone the movie is AN EARTH SHATTERING EVENT! Two weeks later the film’s lucky to still be in theaters. Indy 4? Was that this year? These movies are the opposite of events and I feel terrible for anyone who buys into the hype.
Ironically it’s the less seen movies that stay in the cultural consiousness. No Country and There Will Be Blood were talked about for months. They’re the true event films.
@ ROT “you can count the beats of the formula in a super hero movie by a stopwatch.”
Yeah, but if memory serves you like Unbreakable (I might be confusing you with someone else. If so I apologize). Unbreakable is an exception to the rule only in the sense that all good films are exceptional. Mediocre is always the standard.
Hulk and Iron Man are both average (maybe you think they’re less than average, whatever). And I feel like people that praise them excessively do so mostly for adhering to formula and not doing anything “wrong”. They’re the definition of conservative, I agree. But the genre is a lot more than just Iron Man and Hulk it includes shinning gems like Spider-man 2, Incredibles, Wanted,(I guess, I haven’t seen it) and bold deviations like Unbreakable and Ang Lee’s Hulk (Which managed to be both a superhero film and a 100 mil+ budget. And was actually more successful critically and comercially than this new one).
But the point Matt Gamble’s been trying to make (and done a really good job of) is that none of us are above this genre. We all like/love at least one (probably several) movie that owes it’s origins to comics / superheroes. Rather than coping a snobby attitude about it we should celebrate the few artists who’ve managed to elevate the genre.
See Comment #71 for me. I’m fully on board with that statement Rusty/Matt. You own me. I fess up. And indeed you are both right on this.
@ Rusty “Ironically it’s the less seen movies that stay in the cultural consciousness. No Country and There Will Be Blood were talked about for months. They’re the true event films.”
Perhaps to the film-lovers. Not sure to the ‘average joe’ who going to the movies isn’t what it was a few generations back, merely one option of many. Will these movies resonate in the culture 50 years from now the way King Kong or The Godfather or Rear Window do now? Not sure.
Obviously to those who go to the movies a lot and comment (or write for) weblogs, it usually is the There Will Be Bloods and No Countrys that resonate, but I guess for me, they are marketed a lot too (in my circles anyway). It’s the commodification of the event pictures (not with the smaller pictures) with cereal boxes and clogging the visual landscape with billboards and whatnot that kill it for me.
And you are also right in that after a few weeks, Pfffft. Gone.
I guess what gets my goat the most is mediocrity hearded as greatness: From big budget IRONMAN to small horror HATCHET, I don’t like it when the cream doesn’t immediately rise to the top. But you are probably right that given enough time (10 years? Well judging from all the folks now praising Ang Lee’s HULK, maybe 5?) things work out.
@Kurt,
you sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
@ “Perhaps to the film-lovers.”
weren’t they both featured in a skit on SNL? I was at some party and everyone was talking about them. It seems to me that they permeated the national conscousness.
Didn’t they both do respectable business? 50-60 million area?
@Rusty, you are right that they both made agreeable coin, and they were parodied on SNL (in the same sketch I believe), but I wonder how many people watching those sketches actually saw those films. Just me, but you could get the joke of the sketched merely by happening on the trailers for each film while going to see TRANSFORMERS.
Maybe.