The Incredible Hulk

The summer of 2008 proved to be an extremely lucrative one for Marvel with the one-two punch of “Iron Man” followed by “The Incredible Hulk”. Granted in terms of monetary value and profit margin, Marvel gained more from “Iron Man” than their second attempt at adapting the not-so jolly green giant for the big screen. Even so, under their new Marvel Studios filmmaking branch it seems that the self-proclaimed “House of Ideas” is off to a terrific start, and has chosen to make very solid, entertaining film adaptations that hold true to their source material. As some of you may remember, and no doubt many of you did (due to the lower box office totals, I would say it’s safe to say most of you did), Marvel’s previous attempt to adapt their angry jade “hero” didn’t exactly go over very well with comic book fans and general moviegoers, essentially making “Hulk” into Marvel’s first flop of the new comic book movie age.

Which brings us to Marvel’s second, yet first self-produced, remake “The Incredible Hulk” (their first re-do was 2004’s “The Punisher”). To me the film would be more accurately viewed as Marvel’s way of saying, “We are incredibly sorry for stealing away two hours of your life with the psycho-babble in Ang Lee’s whine-fest of an excuse for a movie.” But that tagline for the film would probably be too long and distracting. Thus, we now find ourselves with yet another Hulk movie on our hands, but is this film all that different from what came before? In a word…yes. The difference between the two adaptations is basically as follows: unlike 2003’s “Hulk” (Ang Lee’s version, for those not keeping up) this new film knows what it takes to make the character work for audiences. Although it’s really a shame that this Hulk wasn’t able to smash so much more at the box office (we can all thank Ang Lee for ruining that possibility), after all the character’s potential was fully and spectacularly realized in this adaptation.

“The Incredible Hulk” tells the story of brilliant scientist Bruce Banner, who has been living in secrecy from the prying eyes of the United States government for several years as he attempts to rid himself of a very strong curse…the Hulk that resides within. After some unfortunate events lead to the military discovering his whereabouts, Banner soon discovers that he has no choice but to stand and fight against those who would use the monster within him as a weapon of destruction.

After I watched this film there was only one string of thoughts I had running through my mind, “Now, that is what an Incredible Hulk movie is all about! Intense action, plenty of drama, bits of romance and comedy sprinkled throughout, not to mention a talented cast of actors and actresses, and visual effects that will blow you away. If you haven’t been able to forget about Ang Lee’s travesty, then you haven’t seen this film yet.” Well, maybe my thoughts weren’t exactly like that, but they were similar in nature, I know that for a fact.

Anyways, let’s begin by discussing the actors chosen to bring their respective comic book counterparts to life on the big screen. Each cast member was perfectly chosen, even if the choice didn’t seem that obvious from the get-go. For instance, actor Edward Norton (“American History X”) was not my first choice for Bruce Banner/The Hulk, and even after the initial trailers were released I still wasn’t sure if he could do some of the non-Hulk action that the film was clearly calling for. I do not doubt that Edward could handle the dramatic side of the character, but all the running, jumping, and even some fighting were not things this actor is normally known for in his work. However, I am more than willing to admit that I was mistaken in my uncertainty regarding his abilities, and Norton truly owned the role of Banner. He imbues this tortured soul with such an anxious intensity and passion for finding a cure that the audience fully understands and relates to everything he is going through. Beneath all the angst over his curse, Norton also reveals a man broken down by his lot in life and the sacrifices he’s been forced to make to protect those he loves from himself. Every aspect of Edward’s portrayal was perfectly in keeping with the character’s emotions, motivations, and thought processes in the comic books.

Joining Edward Norton is the talented veteran actor William Hurt (“A History of Violence”) portraying the man hunting Bruce Banner, General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross. This casting choice made perfect sense to me, as William always seems to immerse himself into any character thrown his way, and it’s that very dedication to his craft that made him the prime candidate for this modern day Captain Ahab. William delivers a performance that is rife with an intense hatred that drives him forward on his borderline nihilistic mission to capture Banner and unleash the beast. Assisting Ross in this dangerous endeavor is Tim Roth (TV’s “Lie to Me”) as Emil Blonsky, a military man past his prime, yet still thriving on the thrill of battle. Roth creates in Blonsky a warrior without any sense of remorse, in essence a sociopath whose mindset makes him both the ideal soldier for Ross’ mission and the perfect weapon for the general to throw into the Hulk’s path.

Lastly, actress Liv Tyler (“Armageddon”) as Betty Ross was even more of a maligned pick in my book than Edward Norton. I’ve never been all that taken by Liv in any of her roles, and even after her performance here (which is very good by the way) I still would have preferred Jennifer Connelly (who portrayed Betty in Ang Lee’s “Hulk”), but that is driven more by her appearance than anything else. That being said, Liv does a very good job with Betty, giving her plenty of dimension and depth of character, making her much more than just the damsel in distress. She’s very much an independent woman, and her portrayal is one that is probably more believable, in terms of appearance, than that of Jennifer Connelly, who let’s face it didn’t really look like she would actually be a scientist.

The story for “The Incredible Hulk” was written by Zak Penn (“X-Men: The Last Stand”) and co-written (although not credited) by Edward Norton. This adaptation of the Hulk was much more faithful to the comics that inspired it, no doubt influenced by the fact that Marvel itself was financing the picture. Unlike its predecessor, “The Incredible Hulk” opted for a much more streamlined approach to the origin story, something that other comic book adaptations could take to heart. What took Ang Lee two hours or more to create, this script accomplished in a much more concise, and altogether clearer manner. Gone is all the psycho-babble, daddy issues of “Hulk”, and in their place we have a crystal clear storyline, full of character-driven drama that is both gripping and intriguing, loaded with action and spectacle, plus a flawed hero that is much more believable and charismatic than anything the former could muster. On every single level “The Incredible Hulk” delivers a top-notch story that comic book fans have always hoped for, and all their loyalty and patience has been brilliantly rewarded.

Directing this latest adaptation we have action director Louis Letterier (“Unleashed”). For Ang Lee’s vision of the Hulk’s story, we were treated to some very stylistic, yet questionable choices about the editing and look of the overall film. Louis Letterier wisely chose to avoid over-stylizing the movie, opting for more of a down-and-dirty action film that felt much grittier and even realistic (which is an odd thing to say when discussing a movie that’s subject is a giant green monster). Truly the only stylized element Letterier brought to the film, in my opinion, were his trademark fast-paced, quick cut action scenes that are designed to heighten the intensity of the moment even more than what the story was doing on its own. It’s a gimmick used by many filmmakers today to assist in creating even more powerful action-heavy sequences, and it is probably one that is used far too often as a crutch more than anything else. However, Letterier has mastered the art of the quick cut, and deftly uses it to his advantage in every film he directs, and “The Incredible Hulk” is no exception.

Finally, the visual effects for this incarnation of Hulk is leaps and bounds above anything featured in Ang Lee’s version (this should be the last comparison to that film). The talented people at Rhythm and Hues were responsible for creating the surprisingly lifelike CGI creations of Hulk and Abomination. Truthfully, making an audience believe that a giant green monster is actually present amongst humans cannot be an easy endeavor; however, the stunning visual effects work done in this film (similar to what was done for “King Kong”) is as close to creating a realistic human-esque monster as we can probably get (at least for a little while). Out of all the CGI-intensive films released in 2008, “The Incredible Hulk” boasted the very best the industry had to offer, and it was a shame that the film and its creative geniuses weren’t recognized for it this last award season.

“The Incredible Hulk” is a fast-moving, intense action film that boasts some of the most impressive visuals you will see in a film for quite some time. This movie effectively recreates the film version of the character to be more inline with his comic book counterpart, becoming the definitive Hulk for audiences to enjoy watching for years to come.

“The Incredible Hulk” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief language.

Taken

Who would have ever thought that Hollywood would attempt to include an important topic to serve as the basis for one of its typically generic, yet entertaining action films? Generally these films are created to provide mindless escapism along with a hefty dose of guns and fist-fights, or just to be another brainless vehicle showcasing the action star of the moment. In the case of “Taken”, a much more serious topic, the trafficking of women, serves as the catalyst for all the mayhem that ensues over the course of the film.

“Taken” is the story of a young girl named Kim (Maggie Grace), who takes a trip to France with a friend for the summer; however, what should have been a trip filled with good times and fond memories, turns horribly wrong when they are kidnapped for the sole purpose of being sold into a dark underworld of sex and drugs. What the kidnappers didn’t count on was that Kim’s father, Bryan (Liam Neeson), is a man of rather “special” talents that he learned during his time spent working as a spy for the United States government. With his daughter’s life in jeopardy, Bryan must call upon every deadly skill he’s ever learned to track down those responsible and save his daughter before it’s too late.

Filmmaker and writer Luc Besson (“Transporter” series) has made a career out of delivering to audiences bone crushing, overly stylized and over-the-top action movies that entertain us, but don’t really give us anything new in terms of story or emotional range. With “Taken” Luc Besson, along with co-writer Robert Mark Kamen (“Transporter 2”), imbues the story with a much more serious, emotionally charged backbone. The seedy underworld of kidnapping and trafficking women for sex is one that exists without a whole lot of attention being called to it, thus making this film’s message all the more important. The story is wisely written in such a way that it gives us just enough of a glimpse into this world that we become more enlightened as too some of the new threats out there, but not so graphic that the film is too shocking for most people to see. By handling the subject matter in this somewhat delicate manner, some would say it just glossed over the evil done in this so-called “business”, but the message is able to reach a much broader spectrum of people than a harder edged movie would have been able to. For those feeling that the film didn’t do enough to expose the despicable nature of this world, I do agree, but I understand why it was a better decision not to go too far with it. Because to go too hard and gritty with this movie by being too explicit, you run the risk of limiting and/or alienating your audience, which is not something you want when dealing with such a serious topic.

Even with the much heftier subject matter, “Taken” still could have run the risk of being just a slightly above average action movie if not for the considerable talents of star Liam Neeson. Liam brings to the character of Bryan a gentleness and an obvious love for his daughter in the early portion of the movie, so that when the rubber really hits the road, the actions he takes to find her, and the ferocity in which he acts is completely believable. Regardless of how brutal Bryan may act towards these undeniably deserving adversaries, he never becomes inaccessible to the audience. This is because Liam’s gravitas and at times emotional performance keeps the audience invested in his character and his mission. Sometimes in an action movie, the action can become too front and center that the how’s and why’s of the story (no matter how important and central they may be to the action) get forgotten about until the very end when they are conveniently re-introduced to the audience as a reminder. For “Taken” this is not the case, as Bryan’s love for his daughter and unwillingness to give up on finding her always remains front and center, even during the action sequences.

Other members of the cast included Famke Janssen (“X-Men” trilogy), Maggie Grace (“The Fog”), and Leland Orser (“The Bone Collector”). Each of these supporting actors and actresses do a good job with the little time they do receive onscreen. Primarily this movie belongs solely to Liam Neeson, while the supporting roles are nothing more than glorified cameos, which suits this type of film perfectly. Out of the supporting cast, Maggie Grace probably gives the best performance, because had it not been for her emotional connection with Liam in the film’s early scenes, the audience wouldn’t have been able to connect with him as much later on. Sure, the story would have still impacted us in some way, but by having their relationship feel so realistic, it made our connection to him throughout the remainder of the film all the more palpable.

Lastly, first time director Pierre Morel brings his keen eye for action to the proceedings with great effectiveness. Pierre’s work as Director of Cinematography on the action film “War”, starring Jet Li and Jason Statham, clearly served as great preparation for his work on this film. While I didn’t enjoy the aforementioned film all that much, the action scenes were handled very well, much the same way as they are here. Unlike many of writer Luc Besson’s action films, “Taken” contains none of his trademark over-the-top, overblown action sequences that while incredibly fun to watch, are completely unbelievable. Instead, Pierre opts to keep the action realistic and up-close and personal, while still providing plenty of hard-hitting, fast-paced (somewhat stylized) fight sequences, that don’t really feel all that unbelievable or obviously choreographed.

“Taken” is a great action film that offers plenty of violence for the action junkies, while at the same time providing some solid acting, and a story that shines a light on a dark world that needs to be exposed and put to an end.

“Taken” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and brief sensuality.

Iron Man

Several years ago when rumors really began heating up about the possibility of an actual Iron Man movie coming to the big screen, I thought that there would be no way it would really work. Sure, comic book movies were on the rise, and director Sam Raimi had shown to us that a man really can web-sling and wall-crawl, and Bryan Singer proved that super-powered mutants do exist; however, a man in a metal suit flying around still seemed like an awfully daunting task to make us believe. Now, these weren’t the first rumors of an Iron Man movie coming to the big screen, they were just the most credible. No, rumors of this project have existed since around 1990, when it was being bounced from studio to studio. Even some Hollywood A-listers, such as Nicolas Cage and Tom Cruise, were being tossed around as possible stars for the vehicle, and director Quentin Tarentino was one of the primary contenders for the directing job (who knows what the movie would have ended up like if any of this had actually come true). However, none of that ever came close to fruition, and the project lay dormant for almost 20 years. That was until director Jon Favreau and star Robert Downey, Jr. made the movie into an incredible reality that took the 2008 summer box office by storm.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a rich, powerful, and undeniably brilliant weapons manufacturer, womanizer, and self-centered man who lives the life so many dream of. But that all changes when he finds himself captured by a terrorist organization who want to use him to create weapons solely for their own evil purposes. With his options limited, Stark does the one thing no one ever expected him to do, he becomes a hero. Clad in a metallic suit of his own design, Tony finally knows what his purpose is in life, and as the hero known as “Iron Man” he now has the means by which to protect the people he once put in harm’s way.

Truth be told, the long wait between those first rumors in the 90’s to now, was probably just what the movie needed to become a true success, for several reasons. For starters, the technology necessary to create the obligatory visual effects sequences (of which there are many) involving the metal-clad hero have finally become available, as proven by the smash hit “Transformers”. Prior to that film I don’t believe some of the visuals achieved in this movie would have been nearly as convincing to audiences. Second, the perfect casting choice was made in the form of Robert Downey, Jr., a talented actor who has had his fair share of troubles (many of which are surprisingly similar to Tony Stark’s in the comic books), and one whose star power wasn’t great enough that his private life would outshine anything done on the screen. Lastly, Marvel was finally able to create their own movie studio, allowing them full creative control and ensuring that the character and story were as true to the source material as possible. It’s for all these reasons listed here, and even some that aren’t, that “Iron Man” became such a successful adaptation, and had the film come to fruition sooner, who knows what the outcome would have been.

The story for “Iron Man” is two-fold: on one hand the story is a tale of redemption for a man who has lived a life of self-indulgence and freedom from any sort of consequences to his actions; while on the other, it is a fairly faithful to the source material origin story of a new kind of superhero that was born out of one man’s sheer will-power to live. As a moviegoer and comic book aficionado I love when an adaptation of one of my heroes comes to life on the big screen as both a faithful representation (or as close as one can get to decades of comic history in only a couple of hours), as well as a really strong film that isn’t just a bunch of summer popcorn movie fluff.

The screenplay written by the writing teams of Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby (“Children of Men”) and Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (“Punisher: War Zone”) was surprisingly cohesive given the number of hands stirring the pot, so to speak. Generally, when the number of writers goes beyond two, the chances for the film actually working out all that well dwindle significantly; however, “Iron Man” proved to be one of those rare exceptions to the rule. Filled with plenty of humor, action, drama, and a dash of romance, the story for “Iron Man” is easily one of the best origin adaptations for a superhero that I have ever seen in a movie.

As great as the story was, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a few of the minor problems that crept into the film. These problems aren’t in any way overtly distracting from the end result, but they should be addressed all the same. First, from a purely comic geek standpoint the film’s location was completely wrong, Stark is based out of New York City (as are most of Marvel’s heroes), yet the film takes place predominantly in California. Personally, this alteration to the origin didn’t actually bother me, but I know it did some purists, and I can understand why. Second, the attempted twist involving the film’s villain was poorly executed, and was easily seen from the very beginning; however, I don’t believe the intent was to actually make the primary villain’s reveal all that much of a shocker. But there was obviously some attempt made to surprise the audience, and if it actually succeeded it would only be for those not paying close attention. This problem wasn’t like the first, where I didn’t really care either way, because it did kind of frustrate me that more effort wasn’t put into this twist to make it somewhat surprising. Like I said, in the end these problems weren’t anything major, but they still existed nonetheless.

For this film, fledgling Marvel Studios wisely chose to sort of buck the Hollywood system by going with some truly surprising, yet inspired choices for both cast and crew. Choosing Jon Favreau (“Elf”) as the director was a shock to many, and even caused some to wonder just how good this film could actually be. Sure, Favreau proved he could handle family comedy with “Elf”, and some of his early work is fairly dramatic, and as far as visual effects goes, he did a decent enough job on “Zathura”; yet, would he have what it takes to tackle something as big as a comic book icon’s first major film adaptation? Apparently, the answer was yes, and any questioning of the decision was quickly silenced when Favreau debuted some footage during Comic-Con, much to the vast delight of many a comic geek. The other shocking choice, and arguably the most disputed was that of casting troubled actor Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. Even though he hardly seemed the proper fit for the character, Robert perfectly captured the very nature of Tony Stark right down to his physical appearance, quick-wit, and attitude, for all intents and purposes Downey, Jr. was Tony Stark through and through.

Comprising the supporting cast of characters, were a group of talented actors and actresses whose hiring weren’t nearly as scrutinized. Gwyneth Paltrow (“Shakespeare in Love”), although not my first choice for the role, turned out to be the perfect Pepper Potts, Tony Stark’s personal assistant. It was a decidedly different role for Gwyneth who typically does more dramatic work, and even more surprising, while at the same time a very smart move on her part, was that this was the role she chose as her first project post-pregnancy hiatus. Joining her was Jeff Bridges (“Arlington Road”) as Obadiah Stane, Tony’s mentor and right-hand man in operating the day-to-day activities of Stark Industries. For fans of Jeff’s work, many will be surprised by how different he looks as this character, with his shaved head and full beard, Jeff is almost unrecognizable from his appearances in virtually every other movie he’s ever made. Rounding out the main supporting cast members is Terrence Howard (“Four Brothers”) as James “Rhodey” Rhodes, an Air Force pilot, and close friend to Tony Stark. Terrence was again another terrific choice, and he really played well off of anything Robert Downey, Jr. would throw at him. Their typically light-hearted conversations full of playfully intended put-downs and sarcasm really helped to solidify their close, almost brotherly bond the two men share with one another. All in all, the casting for this film, whether heavily questioned or just unquestionably accepted, couldn’t have been any better as each of the cast members delivered top-notch performances.

“Iron Man” was one of 2008’s biggest blockbusters, second only to “The Dark Knight”, and the film rightfully earns its place amongst the best comic book adaptations ever made. Boasting a strong story, visually stunning special effects, brilliant casting decisions, and just some good old fashioned fun, “Iron Man” is not just a comic book blockbuster, but a great movie that audiences will enjoy over and over again. By the way, be sure to watch after the credits for a bonus scene that offers a hint of things to come.

“Iron Man” is rated PG-13 for violence, brief language, and brief sensuality.

Body of Lies

Following the previous 2008 entry (which was Don Cheadle’s average at best thriller, “Traitor”) into the ever-expanding sub-genre of movies focused either directly or indirectly upon the ongoing War on Terror is Ridley Scott’s latest Russell Crowe collaboration, “Body of Lies”. As so many of these types of films have proven over the last couple of years, audiences don’t really want to pay to watch a fictionalized account of a conflict, or something related to it, that they can watch for free on their televisions. But, does “Body of Lies” manage to side-step this major obstacle that many of its predecessors have fallen prey to, making this one of the rare exceptions, such as “The Kingdom” that actually manages to entertain, rather than simply remind us all (unnecessarily, by the way) of what’s going on over there?

“Body of Lies” is a widespread tale of political intrigue and espionage that follows CIA agent Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), as he and his boss, Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), follow the trail of a deadly terrorist leader throughout the Middle East.

Written by screenwriter William Monahan (“The Departed”), the story for “Body of Lies” works very well during the first half of the film. Monahan keeps the plot moving along at a very comfortable pace that doesn’t rush the story or allow it to become confusing. He gives the audience time to process the information being presented to them, for a moment, before moving on to the next piece of the puzzle (something that other films like this should maybe take note of.) When the story is focused on the espionage and politics of conducting the war from the perspective of those actually doing the legwork the film works extremely well, and is very entertaining; however, approximately halfway through the movie the story hits a massive snag that it never seems to fully recover from.

The snag is a romantic plot development that feels tacked on to appease the female members of the audience who may not be as into the spy stuff that has dominated the majority of the film thus far. I’m not against there being any kind of romance in these films, but this one in particular felt unnecessary and frankly, hard to believe. I mean, Ferris (DiCaprio) is an undercover agent working essentially behind enemy lines, and yet he never really stops to think that perhaps starting a relationship while taking on such high risk assignments might be a bad idea? Give me a break. I will give William Monahan some credit though, because he did still manage to give me some surprises in the latter half of the movie, even though the story’s focus and overall tone seemed to have shifted due to the romance. While the twists were somewhat surprising, the plot points leading up to them in the second hour were far too predictable, and at times frustrating when you stop to think that the first hour was very well crafted and top of the line by comparison. What I wish could be done is have William Monahan go back and re-write the last half of the script, completely removing the uninteresting romantic angle, and just focus on the tension-filled action and intrigue that comprised the far superior first half of the film. Had the film worked out that way, then it would have become the best of its sub-genre; instead of being just barely above average.

To director Ridley Scott’s (“American Gangster”) credit, even though the film’s story stumbles along in the final half, he does manage to keep things interesting thanks in no small part to his fast-paced, kinetically charged style of directing. The use of the handheld camera was a smart choice, allowing the audience a sense that they are right in the middle of all the action; therefore keeping them interested and involved to an extent. It was a very wise move on the director’s part, and one that most likely kept the movie from being completely derailed by a much weaker secondary storyline that become the primary near the end of the film.

Even when this film began to stumble around, stars Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Departed”) and Russell Crowe (“Gladiator”) continued to lend their best efforts to keep the quality of the film elevated as much as possible. DiCaprio continues to impress me as an actor of great range, depth, and talent with his recent crop of dramatic work. Back when he first became a huge star thanks to the extremely overrated mega blockbuster “Titanic”, I thought he was only alright, but not the kind of star that would really have any kind of staying power. However, after his remarkable performance in “The Aviator”, followed by “The Departed”, I am being forced to change my opinion regarding his talents. With Russell Crowe I didn’t really know much of his work prior to the smash hit “Gladiator”, but since then he has consistently remained one of the best actors of his generation, a testament which he has proven true time and again with many classic roles in films, such as: “Cinderella Man”, “A Beautiful Mind”, and “American Gangster”.

DiCaprio’s character of Roger Ferris is a man who is very complicated, and apparently extremely contradictory in his motivations and sense of duty. On one hand he appears unwavering, cold, and calculated towards his duty to protect his country and its interests, which at times calls for rather extreme measures to be taken; however, on the other hand, he conveys a sense of regret for some of his actions and questions whether he is doing the right thing. It is this duality that makes his character appear interesting and more human, yet also makes one wonder about how consistently he has been written. For example, there is an event that occurs in the film which was set in motion by Ferris, yet when completed and some repercussions are dealt, he quickly flounders on whether on not what he did was right and/or necessary (even though at the time he felt it was), and even attempts to pass the buck onto his boss. This type of floundering began to feel distracting, and coincidentally began occurring in the latter half of the film, when Monahan’s screenplay was falling apart for other reasons.

As for Russell Crowe’s performance as the conniving, opportunistic, and morally questionable Ed Hoffman, it is a very different kind of character than many of his more memorable ones from films past. Just as he had done for “The Insider” and “A Beautiful Mind”, Crowe portrays a man noticeably older and grayer than he, and even appeared to add a few extra pounds to “fill out” the character. Even with Crowe’s charismatic performance and dedication to the role, I just don’t believe that this will be one of his most revered performances of his acclaimed career. In my opinion I believe Crowe’s performance did partially suffer from the fact that most of his time onscreen was spent talking on the phone. While plenty of phone conversations have made for some truly exciting and scintillating moments in movie history, I don’t believe a character should be on the phone almost the entire time, it just feels distant and impersonal to the audience.

What started out as a really solid espionage thriller set around the ongoing War on Terror, began to collapse onto itself when an unnecessary romantic plot development caused the film to stumble throughout the latter half of the story.

“Body of Lies” is rated R for violence and language.