Hulk.

Review #2039: Hulk.

Cast: 

Eric Bana (Bruce Banner), Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross), Sam Elliott (Thaddeus Ross), Josh Lucas (Talbot), Nick Nolte (David Banner), Cara Buono (Edith Banner), Kevin Rankin (Harper), and Celia Weston (Mrs. Krensler) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and #1564 - Life of Pi)

Review: 

"[The Hulk represents] the true self we are all hiding in the dark. When the audience sees it they will be dealing with their own Hulk, the unknown, the truthful self we try to cover up."

In the spring of 1962, the first issue of The Incredible Hulk was published by Marvel Comics. As created by artist Jack Kirby and Stan Lee; both were inspired by different things, with Kirby having witnessed a mother lift a car off her trapped child and Lee being influenced by Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The result was a character in Bruce Banner, scientist and man who turns into a large green monster when subjected to emotional stress (like anger). In 1977, the character was first adapted to live-action television, as devised by Kenneth Johnson that had Bill Bixby as Banner and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk, which ran from 1977 to 1982 with a handful of television movies (1988-90) that has served as the iconic interpretation of the character in some eyes. Production for a film about the Hulk ran for a decade, as organized by Avi Arad and Gale Anne Hurd, who produced the film for Universal Pictures. A handful of writers came and went (stay with me on this), starting with Michael France, which then led to John Turman, then back to France again, then back to Turman, then re-writes by writers not given credit in the final result like Zak Penn, J. J. Abrams, Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, then to Jonathan Hensleigh to try to write and direct, then back to France, then to Michael Tolkin and David Hayter, then to James Schamus (a frequent partner with Lee in writing and producing), and I think you get the point. Schamus, France, and Turman were given credit for the screenplay while Schamus was listed as the sole writer of story. At the helm as director would be Ang Lee, fresh off the success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) who once told his star in Eric Bana that he was shooting the film as if it was a Greek tragedy (which would be in contrast to the Hulk aspects created by Industrial Light & Magic). While the film was a modest success with audiences, the next Hulk film would instead be a "reboot", which had Edward Norton as the star that resulted in The Incredible Hulk (2008).

Maybe the timing just wasn't right for a mega-popular Hulk film. Schamus has been quoted as stating his fears about the potential of the film when it came time for the release of Spider-Man (2002) and the idea of the Marvel brand becoming a genre of itself. Honestly, I'm more surprised that he didn't take into account that Hulk was the third of three features released in 2003 that were based on Marvel characters, following in the wake of Daredevil and X2 (no points to which film is the better of those three). Of course, the real progenitor of making Marvel films goes first with Blade (1998), but that's another argument entirely (and yes, one shouldn't forget Blade is something I will argue in perpetuity); hell, it wasn't long after that Batman Begins (2005) came to give audiences a refined origin story to a familiar comic character. Honestly, the one film that I was reminded of when it came to certain techniques used to reach for a comic atmosphere was Dick Tracy (1990), although obviously the split-screen technique and psychodrama involving "the green monster in us" aren't exactly a clear match for the latter's attempt at style. The 138-minute runtime signifies two things: a movie that is somehow a bit too long and yet seems a bit lacking in the expectations department. It is a quality feature, because how could it not be with that level of casting and commitment, but it doesn't thread the needle on making its title character any more interesting than mild melodrama. Bana actually does make a quality presence to balance out this tragedy of man and beast, one who is vulnerable to the world in emotional distance in all of the facets that matter in viewing drama. He doesn't wash away from our mind when it comes to pass to actually see the motion capture Hulk (as voiced by Lee). Your milage may vary on how much of it you need to really see, but one thing I can say is that it certainly looks "interesting" when compared from day vs. night, which translates to "fine, just don't show me the Hulk fighting dogs again". I wish I could say Connelly and Elliott make the best of such mild roles, but that would be window-dressing for folks that are trying to sleepwalk through mildly involving dialogue. You could almost put anyone there and it might be the same result in mild lingering drama. Lucas at least seems venal enough to merit a ridiculous end-fate. It probably speaks something about expectations when the most interesting supporting presence is seeing Nolte chew all the scenery possible in power-mad haggard beardman of traumatic chaos. Oh sure, the climax is going to be a CG-muddle, but the buildup to Nolte deciding, yes, he can just chew on this little wire, is at least something to give me a smile (oh hell, you can play the angle of a man wanting to see his "real son", but the underlying curiosity of seeing Nolte engage in the role is always apparent, abuse or not). At any rate, the film is okay. Whether it is thought of as ahead of its time or a missed opportunity, it can be certainly be said that it is the perpetual misfit, one that is fated to stand out in its distinct stylings from other features of its time that cannot be tied down so easily as being any one thing. Being an average misfit isn't always a bad thing, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Life of Pi.

Review #1564: Life of Pi.

Cast:
Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Ayush Tandon & Gautam Belur (Piscine "Pi" Patel - age 16-17, adult, age 11-12, age 5), Rafe Spall (The Writer), Tabu (Gita Patel), Adil Hussain (Santosh Patel), Ayaan Khan, Mohamed Abbas Khaleeli & Vibish Sivakumar (Ravi Patel - age 7, 13-14, and 18-19), Gérard Depardieu (The Cook), Wang Po-chieh (Sailor), Jag Huang (Sailor), Andrea Di Stefano (The Priest), Shravanthi Sainath & Mythili Prakash (Anandi - age 17 and adult), and Raj Patel (Ravi) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)

Review:
"I thought this was a pretty impossible movie to make technically. It's so expensive for what it is. You sort of have to disguise a philosophical book as an adventure story. I thought of 3-D half a year before 'Avatar' was on the screen. I thought water, with its transparency and reflection, the way it comes out to you in 3-D, would create a new theatrical experience and maybe the audience or the studio would open up their minds a little bit to accept something different."

This is the 12th feature film of Ang Lee, who certainly could be found doing distinct experiences that captivate an audience with distinct layers, whether that involved his Taiwanese "Father Knows Best" trilogy or the wuxia classic Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) or varying levels of Hollywood filmmaking in dramas like Brokeback Mountain (2005) or Lust, Caution (2007), with this also happening to serve as an adaptation of a previous work. This is based on the 2001 novel of the same name by Yann Martel (a Canadian author of French Canadian descent), one that he stated was important in finding direction in his life (which he once described as equally being not finite like pi) that dealt with faith within a tale involving man and tiger together on a lifeboat for several months together; David Magee served as the writer to bring the novel onto the screen. There had been plans to develop the novel into a feature for nearly a decade, with directors such as M. Night Shyamalan and Jean-Pierre Jeunet thought at separate times to direct the film before Lee was brought in to do the film, and he found it suitable to direct the film in 3-D with the fact that most of it would take place in water that could help in reaching audiences by disguising philosophy into an adventure story. The effects sure help in that regard, in the sense that one could probably believe there really was a tiger on a boat with someone in the ocean (imagine the film in any different time and there might be a big pane of glass between them), complete with a big water tank on a soundstage. Rhythm & Hues Studios (R&H) surely did a well-done achievement for themselves and certain members of their crew, although an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects did not help the crew from being let go when the company filed for bankruptcy after the release of the film (as is the case with such competition around the world for generating visual effects for films that desire it).

At any rate, I was fine with the film. It isn't too much of a shaggy tiger story, mostly because it does try to make a case for itself in inspiration with the human spirit in devotion beyond oneself, storytelling, and beyond. Whether the film achieves that is up to the viewer in how much ultimately resonates with them in the end, particularly with its last little turn of the screw after the climax involving the story as a whole (ambiguity can only go so far when we are talking man vs. nature). There are three distinct parts of the film that work differently in effectiveness in building itself to usefulness within something wrangled in spectacle and thoughts about what makes a person who they are in nature with belief and survival. To some it could provide a building block towards understanding said beliefs and the will of higher power, while others might just see it as Cast Away (2000) on the sea. At least there isn't a sense of preening on the pulpit to the choir because one could wonder themselves about how they would be when faced with immeasurable tests of oneself or when faced with the company of the wilderness - this is likely the most strange time in life to think about a film that makes you face the facts of life with only yourself to reflect upon for 127 minutes, really. One starts with the initial set-up duo between distinguished Hindi/British/American cinema presence in Khan, who is useful for what is needed in careful story settling to go with a useful bounce-off man in curiosity - in other words, good folks to follow with storytelling. Sharma proves dutiful as the man for oneself, generating interest in self-growth and curiosity in solitude with a tank of water and surrounding effects that runs the gamut in fear and search for enrichment that is worthwhile for those who follow into it. Others do fine in small presence, such as with Tabu and Hussain in useful parental influences. In any case, the star of the show is what the effects can provide with intrigue to go with a mostly effective story in finding one's persistence in spirit for life that works for those who enjoy said goals without finding it overextended or vague in its lasting words about deciding between reality and what is not in terms of truth, perception and belief that Martel found suitable that makes this a fair achievement in Lee's career.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Review #1525: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Cast: 
Chow Yun-fat (Li Mu Bai), Michelle Yeoh (Yu Shu Lien), Zhang Ziyi (Jen Yu), Chang Chen (Lo 'Dark Cloud' / Luo Xiao Hu), Cheng Pei-pei (Jade Fox), Sihung Lung (Sir Te), Li Fazeng (Governor Yu), Gao Xi'an (Bo), Hai Yan (Madam Yu), and Wang Deming (Police inspector Tsai / Prefect Cai Qiu) Directed by Ang Lee.

Review: 
"Nothing stands still. That's important in my movies. People want to believe in something, want to hang on to something to get security and want to trust each other. But things change. Given enough time, nothing stands still. I think seeking for security and lack of security is another thing in my movies."

It always helps to broaden your horizons when it comes to movies. Ang Lee cultivated a place for himself as a respected international director through a long road from his birth in Taiwan to studying at both the National Taiwan University of Arts and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His studies at each resulted in an interest for drama and arts (with a degree in theater to show for it at the latter), and study at New York University Tisch School of the Arts carried him into film (including an acclaimed thesis film). Despite all of this work in school, it took several years for him to find work in the film industry (where he wrote ideas and screenplays while being a house husband). He was given a chance to write and direct after submitting his work for a competition by the Government Information Office of Taiwan. The result was the martial arts comedy-drama Pushing Hands (1991), a Taiwan-United States production which he would direct and co-write. This was the first of six films he would do in the 1990s, which generally received positive notices from critics and fair audience returns with work such as The Wedding Banquet (1993, which finished second in the submission contest) and Sense and Sensibility (1995).

You don't need me to tell you that this was a great international success, because it most definitely made an impression on audiences in 2000, with over half of its $213 million box office earnings coming in America, resulting in it being known as the most successful non-English language film produced abroad in America (alongside numerous accolades, including an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film). This was a massive co-production that needed four countries and multiple production companies that ranged from Taiwanese Zoom Hunt International Productions Company to China Film Co-Production Corporation to EDKO Film (Hong Kong) to Sony Pictures Classics. This was adapted from the novel of the same name by Wang Dulu, who had written it as the fourth in his five-novel Crane-Iron Series (which were serialized from 1938 to 1944) for which Kuo Jung Tsai, Hui-Ling Wang and James Schamus (involved in Lee's films as writer or producer since Lee's first) were tasked to write a screenplay of. Lee had wanted to make a film like this ever since he was a child, and he had read the story in 1994 and was grabbed by the lead character of Jen and her story alongside its abundance of Chinese history and textures. Each country has their own cinema for which to hang their laurels on, but the wuxia genre (which translates to martial heroes) is very much tied to Taiwan, China, and Hong Kong in entertainment.

The diversity of accomplishment in such a production also serves to the cast, which has a majority of its main actors born from those three countries for a Mandarin language film (Yeoh was born in Malaysia and had to train for a year to learn Mandarin). Lee pitched the film to Yeoh as "Sense and Sensibility with martial arts", and it would seem each are perfect for each other in the film. What we have here is a fairly poetic movie in its sensibility that Lee wanted to present (in his own words) as "China of the imagination" that makes for a film of hidden strengths in its mix of Eastern and Western filmmaking that certainly makes for a fascinating experience of destiny and art. Hong Kong film icon Chow does a tremendous job here, having a great composure of integrity and stature that we see quite well in interest without needing platitudes to speak through. Yeoh (also a Hong Kong icon within action) has clearly worked just as hard in fitting with what is needed in strength and conviction in an role bound by loyalty and regret that is terrific. Zhang (a model-turned-actress in her third role at age 20) does wonders in wandering vulnerability that weaves in desire and arrogance with useful spirit that matters in generating meaningful drama between her and Yeoh in the differences that shape them in their lives and what they share in their obligations to society. Chang proves just as reliable in brimming charisma that go well enough when paired with Zhang. Cheng pulls in a soothingly bitter turn as the last main focus, doing well with her little story of counter reactiveness to her own history of repressed desires with others.

The diversity of accomplishment in such a production also serves to the cast, which has a majority of its main actors born from those three countries for a Mandarin language film (Yeoh was born in Malaysia and had to train for a year to learn Mandarin). Lee pitched the film to Yeoh as "Sense and Sensibility with martial arts", and it would seem each are perfect for each other in the film. What we have here is a fairly poetic movie in its sensibility that Lee wanted to present (in his own words) as "China of the imagination" that makes for a film of hidden strengths in its mix of Eastern and Western filmmaking that certainly makes for a fascinating experience of destiny and art. Hong Kong film icon Chow does a tremendous job here, having a great composure of integrity and stature that we see quite well in interest without needing platitudes to speak through. Yeoh (also a Hong Kong icon within action) has clearly worked just as hard in fitting with what is needed in strength and conviction in an role bound by loyalty and regret that is terrific. Zhang (a model-turned-actress in her third role at age 20) does wonders in wandering vulnerability that weaves in desire and arrogance with useful spirit that matters in generating meaningful drama between her and Yeoh in the differences that shape them in their lives and what they share in their obligations to society. Chang proves just as reliable in brimming charisma that go well enough when paired with Zhang. Cheng pulls in a soothingly bitter turn as the last main focus, doing well with her little story of counter reactiveness to her own history of repressed desires with others.

Any film that could have a fight high up into the trees and not seem reliant on CGI or tricks is clearly on the right track for greatness. Great hands of fighting need great choreographers, so enter Yuen Woo-ping, who is known for his direction as fight advisor and his own films since the 1970s that shifted from primarily working in Hong Kong (such as Snake in the Eagle's Shadow in 1978) to work in Hollywood with films such as The Matrix (1999); coincidentally, he would direct the sequel to this film sixteen years later (with Sword of Destiny adapting the fifth book). Its best sequence is likely the scene in the restaurant, one that showcases a display of fury against a whole group with great focus and action. It proves more than a martial arts film made to express a childhood goal, accomplishing a sweeping epic in what one sees and feels with its story that make its fights in the air all the more worthwhile to go along the rest. However one interprets its ending in where it leaps to close out a tale of poetry, it makes for a satisfactory closure of the circle that works in delivering tragedy on the scale of an epic without becoming bogged down in scope. With a pace of two hours, the film shuffles itself along with great air for engaging entertainment through a suitable cast, sweeping fights and music (through Tan Dun and occasional cello work from accomplished cellist Yo-Yo Ma), and an awareness for what makes a great epic come through with focus.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.