Playing Catch-Up

So, have I mentioned Superman turned 70 in June?

KIDDING!  (sorry, I couldn't resist).  After last month's wall-to-wall Superman@70 marathon, we now return to regular Comic Coverage programming...which translates to "anything but Superman" (to the collective cheers of comicdom).

During that month of super-centric posting, there were a number of things that I'd normally talk about, but had to take a back seat to You-Know-Who.  So, l think I'll get back into the swing of things by catching up on some of those belated blatherings. First up:

The Incredible Hulk movie: I'm sure you've all spent many a sleepless night wondering what I thought of the new Hulk movie since it hit theatres back on June 13^th. The verdict?

"HULK SMASH EXPECTATIONS!" 

Really, nobody was more pleasantly surprised at how good this movie was than me.  Or maybe it's because my expectations were steadily lowered leading up to opening day...but whatever the reason, this thing rocked.

The highlight of the film? The HULK himself, of course!

I was concerned about the somewhat plastic-looking CGI from the previews, but as I'd hoped, they did a great job of working out the kinks during the intervening months.  The man-monster was a great amalgamation of several comic book looks from over the years, though the versions of both classic Marvel artists John Romita Sr. and Sal Buscema seemed to dominate. Unlike the green "gumby" from the previous Hulk film, this Hulk had a convincing range of motion and well-played facial emotion (though I was more partial to the "rage" end of the emotional spectrum).  

Sure, the comic book proportions of his body still fight my mind's resistance to such exaggeration in a realistic context, but the CGI wizards managed to pull it off, especially when aided by techniques that subtly masked CGI's vulnerabilities (such as using creative shadowing for quieter scenes or shaky-camera effects during battle scenes). Of course, my giddy laughter during the pure chaos of Hulk's rampages is testament that these guys did a fantastic job of bringing the Jolly Green Giant to life.

The other performances were generally pretty good. Ed Norton did a great job of playing Bruce Banner...giving him enough pathos to feel for him, but not wallowing in it to the point of boredom (like the Ang Lee snoozer). Tim Roth did well as Emil Blonski, though I have to say I've about had my fill of psycho special-ops characters. I wasn't as impressed with both General and Betty Ross, though.  William Hurt and (especially) Liv Tyler seemed ill-suited for their roles, and not terribly convincing (Tyler a biology professor? Really?) But who cares.  Their non-entity status was easily overlooked with the movie's great pacing and generous amounts of Hulk action.  Add the nifty cameo appearances of Stan Lee, Lou Ferrigno, and a certain Mr. Stark, and you've got yourself a smashing addition to Marvel's growing roster of comic-to-film successes. Not quite as good as Iron-Man (the new Gold Standard for superhero films), but definitely worthy of

4 out of 5 Ferrignos!

Comments

[Wes C]

My wife and I saw the Hulk a couple of days ago. I was also pleasantly surprised at how good it turned out to be. It felt like a Hulk story.

I really liked how they tied several parts of the Marvel Universe together. It was exciting to see the pieces of the M.U. falling into place in such a casual manner.

I didn't think the Ang Lee movie was bad, just too long and boring for a Hulk movie.

And yes the Hulk looked fantastic! Very Sal Buscema-ish.

BTW: Congrats on the Superman month. I didn't comment on any of the entries, but they were all very enjoyable post. Your affection for Superman is contagious.

I really like the look you designed for the Kryptonite posts.

I can't wait to see how you celebrate the Fantastic Four's 50th anniversary in 2011 ;)

[John Nowak]

I don't think the Hulk looked quite right in bright light -- I still don't think they can do a truly convincing human face in CGI -- but overall, I enjoyed the film, but I probably won't watch it again. I agree with you about Liv Tyler, and it's a shame the script put more emphasis on the love story than the "Blonski cracks up" subplot, which was a lot more interesting.

I ended up seeing "Iron Man" three times, mostly because I got a call offering me a job, and it seemed prudent to leave the theater instead of saying, "I'm sorry, but can you call me again after Iron Man liberates this village?"