Hulk (2003) (mini-review++)

hulk(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

acting 6

directing 7

effects 6

editing 6

writing 6

SW SCORE: 31

3.1 out of 5 🐙

++

Even when I first watched this in 2003, the CGI for big green wasn’t good. I get it’s been 16 years since then and serious advances have been made. If you compare Ang Lee’s Hulk to the Russo Brothers’ Hulk, it’s almost embarrassing. But it’s a dick move to compare old effects to current effects. I know they did their best. I think. I’ve watched most of Ang Lee’s films because I think he’s a great director and he’s always trying new genres and kinds of films. That’s not very common in modern directing. And he usually puts his own unique take on whatever genre he is taking on. In Hulk, he actually mimicked actual comic book panels that appeared and shifted based on what the scene required and where he wanted to place emphasis.

The problem with the film is that the Hulk isn’t really that great on his own; particularly the traditional origin story. If you go with the traditional origin story, he’s just an out of control beast when he transforms with some kind of innate sense of right and wrong. Also, his enemies, in general, are just pretty lame. The Leader is ok. Abomination is just another crazy gamma monster. But all that aside, while Ang Lee is generally very creative, he stuck to the very well known origin story and there was no thematic advance or story twist.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)

 

One thought on “Hulk (2003) (mini-review++)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.