Where to start? I guess I'll just start typing and see what comes out!

To call the Incredible Hulk, Incredible is far from accurate for this movie. What I'd see as a pretty basic story of Dr. Jekyl Mr Hyde meets Frankenstein's monster smashing everything in the vicinity, was turned into an attempted look at repressed young scientist who has some serious family issues to deal with. At it's core, the story of the Hulk character is both of these elements in perfect mixture.

The story of a repressed scientist coming to grips with his alter ego, as he demolishes everything around him is the movie I wanted to see. Maybe I can put what I wanted to see in Hulk's language. "Hulk get angry. Hulk smash everything around him. Hulk gets less angry. Hulk turning back into Bruce Banner." That's the movie I wanted to see. What I got was "My name is Bruce Banner esquire, esteemed scientist who comes from the most peculiar of families. If I get angry, dear sir, please stand back because I have some serious personal issues that I need to deal with by transforming my vessel of flesh into a vessel of destruction."

I have always thought that Ang Lee was a very good director at presenting really personal stories about people and how their personal issues affect the world around them. "The Ice Storm," "Sense and Sensibilities," and "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragons" are all really good individual stories about people as they come to grips with the issues and conflicts that rage both around them and inside of themselves. Ang Lee decided that he'd like to turn what is normally one of the funnest of comic book stories, and turn it into this really dark personal drama. Of all the comic book heroes out there, the one that probably deserves the least personal treatment is Bruce Banner and the Hulk. I've always seen the characters in X-Men, Batman, and even Superman as having the most personal stories to tell. All of those characters have these really personal conflicts about helping people who are also out to get them. They all have really conflicted views of not only the world around them, but also the worlds within themselves. The mutants of X-Men struggle between being human and mutant and reconciling the two. Batman struggles with his darkened past and how no matter how many baddies he bags, the more conflicted he gets. Superman struggles between walking the line of solving all of the world's problems and letting humans make their own mistakes to learn from.

But I feel that both Spiderman and the Hulk, there really isn't as much conflict. Like Superman, Peter Parker has to deal with the line of doing too much and doing too little. But his main struggle is the struggle of being a teenage, younger adult wunderkind. Bruce Banner's conflict is somewhat profound too in that he's this nerdy little scientist who doesn't like to get angry, yet secretly loves the thrill of lashing out at a world that is powerless to stop him.

But in Ang Lee's hand, this basic story of a repressed scientist turned destructive monster gets completely overshadowed and bogged down by this story about how the sins of those who came before you will ultimately come back to haunt you in one way or another. What should have been a story about a man who dreads getting angry, but secretly loves it at the same time, turned into a story of a father and son who are at eternal odds with one another because of a tragic past that's been repressed by Bruce for some time.

I thought that "The Hulk" was a really solid movie. It's a really good movie. Though this may sound slightly weird, I'd say that "The Hulk" is too good a film for it's own good. Because in the process of this really deep story of repressed feelings and sins of the father, Ang Lee forgets the most basic rule of comic book films; that being that it's supposed to be fun. That's the overall reason why people go to see movies, especially summer comic book movies in the first place, is that they're fun. And the best directors know how to walk the line between making a crowd pleasing comic book movie that everyone's going to like and making a movie that delves into slightly deep emotional material so that the audience is able to connect with the action on screen. "Batman," "Superman," "Spiderman," and "X-Men" knew how to connect the two dots of making a movie that is action oriented in nature, and turning it into a personal story that the young and old audiences could relate to.

Ang Lee seemed to not have received that lesson of filmmaking 101, which led him to make a movie that is a bit condascending to his target audience; the comic book fan. And instead of seeing the Hulk for what it really is, he thought that he had to take this really basic story and take it into his personal canvass of deeply tragic figures. I like greek tragedy as much as the next English major, but does the Hulk really warrant a tragedy? Does the basicness of the Hulk story really need to be taken to the extreme of father-son conflicts mixed with daughter-father conflicts mixed with inner-family conflicts mixed with the story of a dorky scientist coming to grips with monster-human conflicts? Isn't that a bit much for one movie? Couldn't they have cut some of that out and instead put their efforts into seeing the Hulk for what it really is?

I have to give Ang credit in the directing actors department. All of the leads gave anywhere from good to great to outstanding performances. I'd say that the best acting performances in the movie were done by Jennifer Connelly, Nick Nolte, and Sam Shepard. Jennifer Connelly is such a good actress that she makes it seem so easy. She gave her all in the performance and made the most out of a pretty well rounded character. Nick Nolte is a good enough actor and was aware enough of the material to know when to act it straight, and when to really let it rip. It rarely turned into a Nick Nolte overacting, shout show. Not saying it didn't happen, but not as much as I thought it was going to happen. Sam Shepard was surprisingly really good in his role as "Mad Dog Ross." He too never turned it into a lesson at overacting school. Eric Bana was "okay" in the role. He played the role of repressed scientist really well. For my tastes, he wasn't near wimpy or nerdy enough to be scientist. When he was riding around on his bike with his dorky helmet on, or walking through the halls of Berkley with his scientist threads on, it always came off to me as this hunky looking actor trying to play dorky instead of a dorky guy playing dorky. They could have done worse I guess. At times, it did appear that all he had were three expressions; stoic scientist, smiling scientist, and of course the veins bulging out of the forehead turning into the Hulk. In a movie like this, if you can't empathise with the lead like I could in X-Men, Batman, Superman, or Spiderman, you're in big trouble. I'd say that in the Hulk, I was almost there a couple of times. It's hard not to associate with the crap that Bruce had gone through by nothing more than association alone.

It's kinda odd that Ang Lee tried to make such an artistic "film" and also managed to put some incredibly cheesy moments into a movie as well. Once again, it's as if Ang didn't know which kind of movie he wanted to make. For every deep emotional moment that was on screen, there was also a scene of complete lunacy a few scenes later. Take for example the discussion of the father and son after Bruce has been caught. There's this really great scene of dialogue, followed by the most idiotic and confusing scenes of his father turning into this giant green/electric monster. Or there's a scene where the Hulk is rampaging through the desert followed by a scene where the Hulk goes to the house of his birth and contemplates the hurt that his life has endured. Puhlease.

One cool think that Ang tried to do, that for the most part worked, was to put split screens into his movie. "The Hulk" was one of the few comic book movies that I've seen that actually felt like I was reading a comic because of this split screen effect. On a different movie like "Spiderman" or "Superman," it would have been even MORE effective because unlike "The Hulk," they didn't take themselves so damn seriously. It's almost as if Ang realized that he was making his movie too good (and it still pains me to fault a movie for being too good) that he needed to add in some pulpy cinematic maneuvers to remind his audience that it was a comic book movie. Cool effect, but for the most part it was wasted.

I don't think that Ang has the timing sense that a movie like this needed. There are times when the movie builds and builds, and you think that you're about to be rewarded with a great Hulk smashing shit moment. But it usually ended up fizzing out. Then it'd happen again. It'd build and build and you'd think that something cool is going to happen. Then nothing. And then when the Hulk finally does come out and destroy things, it's a bit anti-climatic because the audience had been burnt a few times prior. It's like when a director in a thriller puts in a scene where the bad guy is getting ready to jump out, and he keeps teasin ya. It never happens. You think it's coming nothing. When it finally does happen, it's not that surprising because the tension that had been built up is already gone.

The one complaint that I thought I was going to have going into "The Hulk" turned out to be one of my biggest compliments of the movie. The CGI for lack of a better word is pretty awesome. There were of course times when the Hulk looked like Gumby on steroids, but for the most part, he's pretty believable. It's no Gollum, but they're different characters. Gollum was mainly a dramatic character while Hulk was more or less there to destroy as much property as possible. ILM didn't always blend the real surroundings with the Hulk in a believable way, but it was certainly better than the blending done in "Spiderman."

There were of course times in the Hulk when I was as happy as a little boy. Some of the fights were really creative in their execution. I liked the bit of the Hulk running around in the desert, demolishing tanks in his path, tossing away fired missiles as if they were flies, and leaping onto helocopters. I'd have personally liked to have seen more Hulk carnage. The fight with the Hulk dogs was okay. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it was really hokey. I liked seeing the Hulk smash stuff. I admit it. I like simple pleasures. Seeing the Hulk rampage through the military base was pretty sweet. I have absolutely no complaints with any scene where he was demolishing things. It's fun. Carnage on the movie screen is fun. Admit it. You know you love it. ;-)

Some people complain about the ending being cheesy. I kind of liked the ending. That's the movie I wanted to see. I wanted to see this renegade scientist out on his own, helping the good guy defeat the bad guy buy turning into the most incredible monster ever constructed. That's fun to me. I like personal subplots in movies like this. They give comic movies their weight. But I don't agree with the extent that Ang Lee took it. It was too much for my taste. And apparently, according to the first weekend grosses and how they've dropped off considerably each day, I'm not alone.

It's a shame that the movie turned out the way it did. It's about 1 hour and 45 minutes of dull, boring "film" mixed with about 45 mins of relatively cool carnage scenes. It's a shame. The Hulk didn't need to be a greek tragedy. They didn't need Ang Lee. He could stick to making boring art house films instead of making boring summer action movies. In different hands, this movie would have completely rocked hard core. It would have been a pretty awesome story of a nerdy scientist who's pushed too far, instead of this attempted Greek tragedy about repressed emotions compounded with father son issues. I liked the movie overall but I'd like to have seen more Hulk destruction as opposed to more family destruction.

HULK NO LIKE. HULK SMASH. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH