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.

Hell or High Water.

Review #1949: Hell or High Water.

Cast: 

Jeff Bridges (Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton), Chris Pine (Toby Howard), Ben Foster (Tanner Howard), Gil Birmingham (Texas Ranger Alberto Parker), Marin Ireland (Debbie Howard), Katy Mixon (Jenny Ann), Dale Dickey (Elsie), Kevin Rankin (Billy Rayburn), Melanie Papalia (Hooker), Amber Midthunder (Vernon Teller), Taylor Sheridan (Cowboy), and Margaret Bowman (T-Bone Waitress) Directed by David Mackenzie.

Review: 

"I find myself relating to stories that feel like they’re about characters who are struggling to deal with themselves in some way or another, more than I am about necessarily the worlds. In order for a story to kind of hit me, it’s much more about the people than it is of necessarily about the world."

Unsurprisingly, this is a film where more than one voice is crucial to how it came to pass as a memorable film of its time. David Mackenzie became a filmmaker after his study at Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design in his native Scotland. He made a couple of short films while being inspired by Danish cinema, specifically the Dogme 95 movement (another time). He made his debut in features with The Last Great Wilderness (2002). His films were either dramas or comedies, which ranged from work such as the erotic drama Young Adam (2003) or the prison feature Starred Up (2013). Hell or High Water is his ninth feature film and second American film. The movie was written by Taylor Sheridan, an actor-turned-writer. Under the working title of "Comancheria", it was his second film script, but it was his first sold. However, it was his first script in Sicario that ended up being made first, which was done in 2015 to general success. These films, alongside his later feature Wind River (2017), which he wrote and directed, is part of what he called a trilogy of "the modern-day American frontier." He has stated that the key influences in his writing were the Coen brothers along with Cormac McCarthy and Larry McMurtry. When Mackenzie was sent the spec script as a spec project, he fell for it right away, admiring the "freewheeling vibe to it that I love in 70s movies"; of course, one would not be surprised to notice touches of the outlaw stories from the 1930s present here.

There is something quite interesting about the desolate eloquence that Mackenzie and Sheridan try to accomplish with such an easygoing crime thriller. It rides most of its strength on interesting characters and actors to inhibit these folks that seem as worthwhile to view that rolls its beat in mannerisms similar to No Country for Old Men (2007), although each film have their own approaches to the chase. Arguably, it outclasses that movie when it comes to overall execution from start to finish to earn its final resting spot that finds a worthy resolution to hang its hat on. It isn't a perfect movie, but it surely makes a captivating case for a suitable neo-Western in the eyes of those familiar with the frontier it reaches in its haunting elegy that has wide landscapes of West Texas and the folks that accompany it. The main drawing point is the dual storylines involves Pine with Foster to go alongside Bridges and Birmingham; no matter how one treats films by how much they need a clear-cut "hero" or "villain", it should work out pretty well regardless of one's patience for material such as this. Pine and Foster share a great rapport with each other as on-screen siblings that never seems inauthentic, with each actor managing to share the stage in terms of highlights. Pine is far more than the perception of low-key that one might think early on from him, mostly because he proves the most endearing figure in the long run. Foster and his volatile charisma prove just as watchable in terms of showing the other side of trying to commit what you might call the "perfect crime": the challenge of not becoming fully absorbed by the thrill of it all. Within the other side of the chase is Bridges, wracked in melancholy and withering strength that makes for quite a pairing with Birmingham, one that sees them insult each other in ways familiar with bonds formed through work (which results in a bit of humor before a sobering climax). There are numerous sequences one can highlight in the film as being effective beyond the heist, such as the opening robbery sequences, which each involve quiet settings being disrupted by sudden action. Or one could highlight a sequence in the diner that sees a makeshift robbery and a small scene of warmth between Pine and Mixon. Of course, the porch sequence in the end of the film is a good one in simmering tension and fateful finishing that works exactly to what Sheridan intended when it comes to endurance, as reflected by the grisly handling of the climax. It is ultimately a movie about how much a bond between people can take them depending on the circumstances, whether that means the bond between a parent to do better for their children, a sibling doing something out of affection for their sibling or more. 

The 102-minute runtime is handled effectively in the elements that matter within its genres of crime drama and neo-Western, utilizing familiar beats within each genre involving characters that seem quite real and useful to the landscape of story and setting. In the end, it is a heist movie, but it is a heist movie with the story of the ones doing it and (eventually) why being at the forefront, which works splendidly. It is a crackerjack type of thriller - the outcome never seems to be drawn out to the point of absurdity nor is it too reliant on complexity to make the proceedings irrelevant. In short, it is a mature kind of thriller, one with grizzled characters that matter to us with enough action and general charm to make it a surefire classic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to New Directors Month: Volume II. January 2022 will attempt to cover ground not covered in January 2022, which spotlighted thirteen directors not covered by Movie Night before, which has featured over 1,000 directors as we enter Season XIII - that January started with Erich von Stroheim and closed with Alejandro Jodorowsky. The next film up will certainly cover new ground...in world cinema.