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.

Top Gun: Maverick.

Review #1844: Top Gun: Maverick.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Miles Teller (Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw), Jennifer Connelly (Penelope "Penny" Benjamin), Jon Hamm (Beau "Cyclone" Simpson), Glen Powell (Jake "Hangman" Seresin), Lewis Pullman (Robert "Bob" Floyd), Ed Harris (Chester "Hammer" Cain), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Monica Barbaro (Natasha "Phoenix" Trace), Charles Parnell (Solomon "Warlock" Bates), Jay Ellis (Reuben "Payback" Fitch), Danny Ramirez (Lieutenant Mickey "Fanboy" Garcia), Greg Tarzan Davis (Lieutenant Javy "Coyote" Machado), Manny Jacinto (Lieutenant Billy "Fritz" Avalone), Jack Schumacher (Lieutenant Neil "Omaha" Vikander), and Bashir Salahuddin (Bernie "Hondo" Coleman) Directed by Joseph Kosinski (#343 - Tron: Legacy)

Review: 

"With Top Gun: Maverick I hope it shows people why we make movies for theaters. The film was designed to be enjoyed on the biggest screen with a packed audience."

Admittedly, the original Top Gun (1986) was a film of its time in terms of spectacle and flavor. It was a movie made by committee with the efforts of director Tony Scott, star Tom Cruise and producers Jerry Bruckheimer & Don Simpson. It was a quality movie that lived and died on the heights of its aerial sequences with enough instinct and style. The idea of doing a sequel started in 2010 with Paramount Pictures offering each of the main core of Bruckheimer, Scott, and Cruise to return, although the suicide of Scott in 2012 obviously changed things (as such, the film has a dedication to him in the credits). The screenplay was done by Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer, and Christopher McQuarrie (who has collaborated with Cruise on the most recent Mission: Impossible films) while the story was done by Peter Craig and Justin Marks (the two had first finished a screenplay draft in 2012 after writers like Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz were approached in 2011). Joseph Kosinski had worked with Cruise on Oblivion (2013) and Teller with Only the Brave (2017). He ended up becoming director when he made his pitch to Cruise on what his approach would be to making the film (i.e. the relationship between Cruise and Teller's characters and also the "Darkstar" sequence), complete with shooting practically with a camera system in the cockpit. The crew had to work for months with cooperation from the Navy to get "six IMAX-quality cameras" in the cockpit and also train the actors in pilot training (keep in mind, they also did underwater training before being allowed in a F-18). Shooting was done from 2018 to 2019, but the film ended up being delayed multiple times: once because of needing more time to shoot complex action sequences, another time because of the pandemic and finally because of scheduling conflicts.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. It's funny how the movie is in all aspects better than the original feature despite the fact (or perhaps because of it) that it really takes several of the same beats from the previous one, from its opening sequence where a chewing off of the  lead character for recklessness before getting sent somewhere he wants to go right down to its own sequence of playing on the beach (complete with a nameless enemy once again, although you can argue over if that is because it isn't necessary or because the movie doesn't want to fearmonger people). You thought Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) copied previous movies? Try this one for size. It does handle the balance of spectacle and sentiment better in that it actually tries this time to really make riveting drama as a rite-of-passage of movie rather where it bumbled before. Of course, the chemistry between Cruise and the leading woman is better this time around by the simple act of it looking like they care to build a script with one level of depth rather than the script of vague-ness that occurred before. Cruise doesn't seem to have missed much of a beat from before, one filled with confidence in the air to go alongside a semblance of lingering doubt over things in the ground. In other words: it finds a way to let go without becoming cheap about it. Teller is okay, one with collected calmness that matches well with Cruise in simmering tension that at least makes sure he doesn't get lost in the shuffle of playing the pilot angle like a sports movie, only with a bit more chuckles that are on purpose. At least Powell seems to enjoy the role of overconfidence and chuckles, since Pullman and the others exist on the margins for moderate engagement on par with a high school movie. At least the movie utilizes the only other actor to return from the first film to poignant effect. Kilmer had his voice altered due to treatments for throat cancer in recent years (an AI program was developed to mimic what he sounded like), and the movie shows him for a brief time for a useful sendoff that is both the most inevitable part of the movie and yet the least cheesy. Harris and Hamm play the stand-in foils that are basically the equivalent of the characters played by James Tolkan and Tom Skerritt, and they do okay (of course, an over 90-year-old Tolkan might have made me crack of a smile rather than Harris, but that's just me). 

The action choreography is nearly what one would expect from a movie in 2022: something good to look at, but this time without as much evident CG to think about, if only because if Cruise is a showman who prefers to do his stunts, then heaven help the idea of trying to cheapen out on putting people in planes with IMAX cameras and let them fly. The level of inevitability could not be higher here, because to me I never really thought there was a semblance of danger present, which seems fitting to match the first film in making one not really think about the danger for just enjoying the ride (in other words, you know damn well Cruise is not going to die). In essence, the product from 1986 has been updated with useful updates that don't make one want to demand a recall. If the violence is going to seem bloodless to the point where war only seems to be the next level of a board game, then at least the movie wings it all the way to the most natural conclusion. Would I want another one of these? No, of course not, but at least as an attempt to hone back to the adventurous spirit of the first film, it at least does a suitable job in exceeding the standards set by the original without losing sight of what mattered most. In other words: it has the showmanship of the original with a degree of intelligence this time around. I don't think it quite elevates the material past "fine", but it will probably age a bit more gracefully in legacy because of its coherence in the face of adventure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Alita: Battle Angel.

Review #1193: Alita: Battle Angel.

Cast: 
Rosa Salazar (Alita), Christoph Waltz (Dr. Dyson Ido), Keean Johnson (Hugo), Mahershala Ali (Vector), Jennifer Connelly (Dr. Chiren), Ed Skrein (Zapan), Jackie Earle Haley (Grewishka), Jorge Lendeborg Jr. (Tanji), Lana Condor (Koyomi), Eiza González (Nyssiana), Idara Victor (Nurse Gerhad), Jeff Fahey (McTeague), and Rick Yune (Master Clive Lee) Directed by Robert Rodriguez.

Review: 
It is astonishing to see the amount of time that it took for a film to progress from concept to product. James Cameron was attracted to the idea and wanted to write and direct a film adaptation (with a domain name for the film being registered as early as 2000), although he held off doing the film for other projects such as Dark Angel and Avatar (2009) before deciding to focus his energy on making sequels to the latter. Cameron wrote a screenplay that was accompanied by hundreds of pages of notes, and he shared the script (which he co-wrote with Laeta Kalogridis) with Robert Rodriguez (director of films such as Desperado and Sin City) in order to see if he could help condense it into a working shooting script. Satisfied with his result, Cameron hired Rodriguez to direct the film, while serving as producer (along with Jon Landau). The film is based off the cyberpunk manga series Gunnm (also known as Battle Angel Alita) that was created by Yukito Kishiro that was run in Business Jump magazine from 1990 to 1995. I suppose the enjoyment level is much like when watching a comic book movie, complete with story beats that will occasionally feel familiar but still manages to generate excitement and entertainment. Sometimes you just need a movie with cyborgs beating each other to shreds (including one fighting with a legendary martial arts style), bounty hunters named Hunter-Warriors, and a gladiator sport in Motorball that feels like a hyper version of Rollerball (1975). It's a fun piece of spectacle that never really stumbles in its aspirations, even when its attempts at setting up further adventures can seem a bit clumsy. It feels just fine at 122 minutes, having a fine pace and balance.

Salazar (utilizing a motion-capture suit alongside big CG eyes) delivers a capable performance, being an interesting hero to follow in her journey, and she pulls off a well-done job in showing the growth of her character throughout the film without testing the audience's patience or feeling too sudden. Waltz, essentially playing the wise old man type, does fine with dealing with tech-spewing and such. Johnson is fairly effective in keeping up with the quickness of the film while also having a bit of chemistry of Salazar alongside some offbeat moments that eventually prove itself for its climax. Ali and Connelly play their conniving parts with relish when needed; Skrein and Haley are quite entertaining in their menace when playing off against Salazar that makes for some well-done action sequences together. Undeniably, the film is a winner in the visual department, with Weta Digital doing a great job in engineering a product that manages to balance itself into not abusing CGI into a crutch or being too glossy. The Motorball sequence is a clear fun example of that, being dazzling without feeling like a distraction or an excuse to show off without reason. The punches that the film tries to pull within its climax (or more specifically where it is trying to go) work just fine, particularly if you are into what the movie is trying to sell you on (again, much like a superhero movie trying to do some world-building). The film certainly has enough action to go around, with plenty of (blue) blood being spilled in its cyborg showdowns that prove one can really do anything with cyberpunk action if the budget (roughly over $150 million dollars) is right. On the whole, I wasn't at all familiar with the material that the film is based on, but it didn't interfere with what I found to be a pretty entertaining experience, filled with action and spectacle to go along with a neat little story that will prove a winner for people looking for something packing with action and science fiction in one package. Whether there is further adventures about Alita coming or not, I can say that it is one that certainly will merit an audience that appreciates the effort to bring itself on screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: 9.

Review #321: 9.

Cast
Elijah Wood (9), Jennifer Connelly (7), John C. Reilly (5), Crispin Glover (6), Christopher Plummer (1), Fred Tatasciore (8), Martin Landau (2), and Alan Oppenheimer (The Scientist) Directed by Shane Acker.

Review
This is an unusual film, with a different kind of animation than usual and a decent set of characters. While it does feel shorter than it could've been (Seems to be a cliche that some animated films don't last longer than 79-90 minutes), it is imaginative and very deep in its intended roots of being a dark tale not just for kids (at least I hope that is the intention), and it makes sure not to be a disappointment. The voice acting is fine, not being embarrassingly odd, just doing a fine job of establishing the characters (though odd they may be), which is a benefit. I like the fact that the film manages to have some sort of pace, always keeping you in check and making sure not to be slowed down. In the end, it's a decent film, with some sort of focus and imagination, and I'm mostly glad I watched (and reviewed) it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.