Posted
by: Aaron Allen Source:
THN Date: 26th March, 2006
This
week, we take a look at some of the upcoming comic book films coming to a theatre
near you, and I introduce part one of our look at one of the unfairly maligned
superhero movies of recent years - Ang Lee's HULK.
COMIC
ATTRACTIONS
X-Men:
The Last Stand Dir. Brett Ratner Starring: Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman,
Famke Janssen, Kelsey Grammer… Release Date: May 26, 2006
This
year Wolverine, Storm, Cyclops, Professor X, and the rest of the popular cast
of heroic mutants are back. This time they are joined by a few new additions,
such as Kelsey Grammer as the erudite and blue-furred Beast, Ellen Page who walks
through walls as Kitty Pryde, Ben Foster as the angelically winged Warren Worthington
III, and Vinnie Jones as the unstoppable Juggernaut. In what is being billed as
the last installment in the popular movie franchise, the stakes are the highest
they've ever been after the discovery of a cure for the mutant gene threatens
to galvanize the world. What's more, Jean Grey returns from the dead, but possessing
a terrible power and a dark rage. As tensions heighten, battle lines are drawn,
and friends and foes are forced to make tough decisions. As mutant factions polarize
around either Professor X or Magneto's ideologies, who will live and who will
inevitably die?
I'm
really looking forward to this film. I liked both of the X-Men films for balancing
an ensemble cast, action, and the implicit social issues of prejudice and alienation
that the comics had as their subtext. As such, I'm eager to see this next film
which promises to be the culmination of the last two films, setting the climax
on a bigger scale. Now that the characters have been established for fans and
general audiences, the next film will hopefully take advantage of their familiarity
to emphasize those characters that have been pushed to the side (Cyclops and Storm,
for example) or spice-up the story and excite the audiences with new characters
and dramatic twists (an evil Jean!). If this is the last film of the trilogy,
I'm positive we will see some of the key characters we have known die or change
drastically over the course of the film if the filmmakers do a good job and end
on a dramatic note instead of simply producing a brainless action film. But don't
cry, X-Fans, Hollywood promises more from the X-Men franchise in the near future,
including a spin-off about Wolverine and a possible Magneto prequel. And as for
the proclamations that this film will be the last in the series, I would suggest
you all be a bit skeptical. Just as comic book characters have a long history
of dieing but always coming back to life, never say die in Hollywood as long as
there is money to be made.
Finally,
it is interesting to note that there has been a lot of fan outcry at the tapping
of Brett Ratner as director. Many fans see this move as spelling doom for the
film. After Singer declined to direct X3, Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake)
was helmed to direct but left the production for unclear reasons. Fans see this
abrupt switch-up as indicative of inherent problems with the film's production
only compounded by Vaughn's replacement with Ratner. Because Brett Ratner is best
known for Rush Hour 1 and 2, many see him as a talentless action director,
and he was condemned as such by fans who assume he will soil Singer's legacy.
I might remind such naysayers that Ratner was also the director behind the latest
installment of the Hannibal Lecter series, Red Dragon, and seems quite
capable of balancing action with story direction. Also, Brian Singer directed
Apt Pupil, which garnered very little critical interest and was a decent
yet flawed film. Although the stakes are high, I say give Ratner the chance you
gave Singer.
Superman
Returns Dir. Bryan Singer Starring: Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth, Kevin
Spacey, Parker Posey, Frank Langella…
Release
Date: June 30, 2006
Speaking
of Bryan Singer, he now takes his X-Men cred to cut his teeth on the superhero
that started it all - Superman! Neither a franchise reboot like Batman Begins
nor quite a sequel like Spider-Man 3, Superman Returns takes a novel
approach to the franchise system. Going back to the Christopher Reeve Superman
series, Superman Returns ignores Richard Lester's abysmal Superman III
and Sidney J. Furie's incredibly flawed Superman IV: The Quest for Peace,
and explicitly places itself as the sequel to Richard Donner's iconic Superman
and Superman II instead. Superman returns to a Earth after years of mysterious
absence following the events of Superman II, and struggles to find a place
in a world that appears to no longer need him, and find a place in the life of
Lois Lane, the woman he loves, who also seems to have moved on with her life.
Although an implicit sequel, the film also promises to stand alone as its own
self-contained reinvention of the character. In trying to capture the spirit of
Donner's films - Routh has an eerie likeness to Reeve - with the extravagant special
effects of today, how will Superman Returns turn out? Can Singer retain
the Golden Age optimistic spirit of the character with the real-world sensibilities
that made Batman Begins such a hit with critics without devolving into
campy superhero shtick? Based on the awe-aspiring teaser trailer for the film,
my money is on the former. I think Singer will pull a gem of a film out of his
pocket, but only time will tell.
For
comic book fans out there, or those looking to get into comics, DC Comics will
be published a series of books that tie-in to the film. Keep your eyes out for
Superman Returns: Krypton to Earth, Ma Kent, Lois Lane, and
Lex Luthor, a series of four one-shots bridging the gap between Superman
II and Superman Returns!
Spider-Man
3 Dir. Sam Raimi Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kristen Dunst, James Franco,
Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, Bryce Dallas Howard…
Release
Date: May 4, 2007
Coming
back for his third round in the director's chair, Sam Raimi brings us the next
installment in the exploits of our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. The film
has just gone into production, but fans have been buzzing with rumors and speculation
about the film for months. Although little has been confirmed about the plot or
characters, it appears that Thomas Haden Church will be playing Flint Marko, the
Sandman, with the ability to transform into a malleable sand-like substance which
can be hardened, dispersed, or shaped according to his will. Also, it seems that
Howard will be playing Gwen Stacy, who in the comics was Spider-Man's original
love interest but lost her life after Spider-Man failed to save her from the Green
Goblin. Other than that, speculation abounds. With the recent release of promotional
photos showing Spider-Man in a supposedly black costume, fans speculate that we
will see Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom. In the comics, Spider-Man was introduced
to an alien substance that bonded with his body to give him a black-costume and
stronger powers. It could respond to his thoughts and shape shift into different
kinds of clothing, eliminating the embarrassing superhero need to change costumes
quickly. After learning that the costume was actually a living symbiotic parasite
trying to attach itself to his body and mind, Spider-Man was able to reject the
symbiotic. The spurned alien later found its way to a new host, Eddie Brock, a
reporter who blamed Spider-Man for ruining his life. After bonding with the symbiotic,
Brock became Venom, a monstrous double of Spider-Man with a large mouth full of
razor sharp teeth, claws, all the powers of Spider-Man, and the ability to go
undetected by Parker's spider-sense. Whether we will see all these developments
is mere speculation at this point. Furthermore, what role will Harry Osborne now
play after the cliffhanger at the end of the last film. Will we be seeing a new
Green Goblin? So many possibilities!
THE
DOUBLE TAKE: HULK PART ONE
In
looking ahead to the future, I think we should look back to the past as well for
those gems that have been glanced over.
When
Ang Lee won best director at the Oscars for Brokeback Mountain, as far
as I am concerned, his award should have been a retroactive recognition for another
one of his brilliant films - HULK Universal put a huge advertising campaign
behind the 2003 adaptation of the Incredible Hulk starring Eric Bana, Jennifer
Connelly, Sam Elliott, and Nick Nolte, but it smashed into the box-office with
a polarize effect amongst fans and critics. Some called it a mythopoetic, sophisticated,
and artful film that literately combined imaginative and striking cinematographic
and visual effects with a complex and multi-layered action plot that articulates
the struggles between fathers and their children in a post-nuclear world of science-fiction,
defying genre and going well beyond the derogatory or limiting title of "comic
book movie" by injecting substance and depth. On the other hand, it was marketed
as a big, blockbuster, smash-em-up action film about a rampaging green beast,
and when viewers got to the theatres, many were disappointed and many railed against
the dialogue/acting, the drama, "psychobabble", and unconventional visual
editing. Generally, many argue that HULK was an unwieldy construction of
two very different movies, neither of which the audience cared for.
I
fall into the pro-HULK camp. I love this movie. I've been a fan of many
of the various incarnations of the character on film or television, but this film
really struck me as ultimately what the essence of the Hulk is all about.
On a basic level, the comic story is a reworking of the Jekyll/Hyde and Frankenstein
narrative, about a man who creates a monster: Bruce Banner is a mild and meek
military scientist, but after being exposed to an explosion of Gamma Rays after
trying to save a boy who had wandered onto the testing site, whenever Banner becomes
angry, frightened, or panicked, he transforms into a rampaging green monster,
the embodiment of savage rage. Misunderstood and pursued by the military, the
Hulk's life is a struggle to just be left alone while Banner struggles with his
alter ego and the damage he causes.
Although
this is the version of the Hulk most prevalent in the general consciousness, in
the comics the character has been a constantly evolving idea. In the inaugural
issues by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby where he first appeared, the Hulk was not green
but grey, and he only transformed when the sun went down. The Grey Hulk seemed
to possess normal human intelligence, was arrogant, and scornful of humanity,
like Frankenstein's monster.
Later,
Hulk evolved into a green-skinned creature known as the Savage Hulk, with little
intelligence and the temperament of an angry child, but with massive strength
and rage. At other times, Banner could only transform with doses of gamma rays
from a machine; at other times still, Banner could control the transformation
at will. Banner even became a version of the Grey Hulk personality again for a
short time in the mid-80s. This version, which named itself "Joe Fix-It",
possesses a slightly more than average human strength and was of average intelligence,
and was cunning, hedonistic, crafty, arrogant, but with a grudging conscience.
Although all these versions of the character speak to some kind of unstable identity,
there was a point in the comics where they were merged all together into the Smart-Hulk,
which possessed all of Banner's intelligence, Grey Hulk's cunning, and Savage
Hulk's strength.
Although
it is difficult to point to one definitive Hulk in the comics, the one that has
been most attractive the public mind is that of the savage green Hulk, and it
is this version that Ang Lee and his screenwriters adapt and re-figure. Instead
of the nuclear fears of atomic bombs, Ang Lee's Hulk is created from a mixture
of genetics and nanotechnology (the scientific Pandora box of the 21st century),
but catalyzed by gamma rays like the original. In the film, themes of trauma and
abuse are central to explaining the Hulk. During Peter David's run on the Hulk
comics, it was explained that Banner suffered abuse as a child, which fractured
his psyche and, because of his repressed anger, triggered a latent form of multiple
personality disorder that was given an embodied from the gamma rays. I have always
found this the richest contribution to the Hulk character, and one which the film
takes up appropriately. The Hulk is the nexus of mythologizing anger, pain, guilt,
and repression. I have heard some critique the film based on critiques that Bruce
Banner is not very likable. Unlike Bill Bixby, who portrayed the character on
television, Banner is not the wandering, heroic, super-capable good-samaritan
many might have expected. He is a good man - he saves his colleague by sacrificing
his own body to the gamma rays - but he has problems: he is withdrawn, emotionally
distant, has a hard time keeping relationships together, and is a workaholic.
He is infinity more human. What I always found interesting about the film is how
much Banner remains something of a shell for the Hulk, since so much of his emotions
are repressed and given form by the Hulk. The scenes when Banner breaks free and
transforms always make my hair stand on end, and would be less effective Banner
wasn't a bit cold or distant. It is a film about those damaged by life and family;
Bruce believes himself an alienated orphan but is very much the biological and
scientific product of his mad father, whereas Betty Ross suffers daily with the
emotional distance between her and her father. Because Ang Lee's film spends time
developing these characters and their relationships, which symbolically and metaphorically
tie into themes of trauma and science, when Hulk appears, he is a much more relevant
force and a metaphoric warning for the possible misuse of science as much as he
is a warning against the abuse we level against one another every day, even through
neglect.
I
thought the action scenes were great. Far from being a bad product of CGI, the
Hulk is a breakthrough in technology and animation. Ang Lee wore a motion capture
suit to create Hulk's movements, and the animators were able to capture one of
the finest examples of subtle human emotion and body movement in the creature.
Hulk stumbles, slips, and falls in a very human and believable way given his body.
When he picks up something heavy, you can see the inertia and the weight in his
muscles. When he emotes, you can see the subtle eye movements and facial gestures.
Of course a giant green man is going to look weird, so that is one obstacle that
can't be overcome, but I think there is so much subtlety packed into the character
that he really comes alive. Instead of the immaculately choreographed wire-fu
action sequences in other films, Hulk fights with a brutal spontaneity. In the
scene with the mutant dogs, Hulk grapples in the melee like an animal, which is
a refreshing take on the savageness of violence that is sanitized in other films.
But what the action really serves as a supplement to the film, and underscores
the dramatic relationship between Bruce, Betty, and their fathers.
I
enjoy slower paced films about human relationships, but I also love monster movies
when they are well acted and visually inventive. For me, movies are made up of
the little moments, and it is these moments that make the spectacle meaningful.
Although HULK saw a second-weekend box office drop of 70%, I maintain that
the film is a thoughtful and complex action film that balances action, visual
symbolism, and technical effects, with an appropriate and dramatic pacing. Like
Hulk, the film is a monster in that it combines two very different genres, but
unlike the negative sense of monstrosity, this film is also like the Hulk in that
it is simply misunderstood and many people are not willing to embrace the potentials
it offers.
NEXT
WEEK: Part two of my look back at HULK as I focus on the visual inventiveness
of the film, compare and contrast it to other superhero films, and I bring in
a guest who's opinion of Hulk is about as far from mine as you can get. See you
at the movies, or hopefully if I can convince you, also at the comic shop.
