john-quel

There is nothing wrong with this version of the "Incredible Hulk." Everything from the actors to the production values feels right. In brief, the story gets the job done and there are enough human moments to carry the viewer through the action sequences that on occasion have a little too much action. The effects are fine, though most of them are standard issue things-blow-up-real-good stuff and sophisticated viewers will no doubt "see the wires" in some of the shots. (I must mention that the effect involving the Sound Cannons is new and very well done -- such a weapon is I believe feasible and readers of "Atlas Shrugged" will not doubt appreciate the possible reference to the "Thompson Harmonizer.")

I liked the movie in other words and I think most people will too, but leaving the theater, keeping in mind all that the movie had going for it, I had to wonder why I didn't like it as much as "Iron Man." It's hard to pin down but I think the gist of it is that Tony Stark the hero of "Iron Man" is always engaging the world, positively or negatively, and there is a pronounced character arc to his story. We get a real sense, thanks to Downey's remarkable performance, that his transformation could really happen. That it does happen in movie time, of course, means they happens way too fast for real life, but Downey makes us believe it. We like and cheer for him no matter what he does. There is never a trace of self-pity in him. Banner on the other hand is always on the run and his determined refusal to come to grips with his world distances himself from us throughout the movie. Likely his particular plight works better on television then on the large screen, especially in a movie as over the top as this one. Plenty of us can feel sympathy for Banner, I certainly can, but on the whole most of us aren't that compelled to watch a movie about it.

Another complaint I had was his relationship with Betty. Since we see nothing of what transpired before the laboratory episode between them, I had strong doubts that she would pitch aside her current relationship in an instant when Banner makes an appearance. I kept waiting for the "I love you Bruce but I'm not in love with you" scene, but it never came. Tiresome as that scene is, it is credible, and what I was seeing on the screen was not. Even Spiderman II handled that situation better, though admittedly not by much.

The final problem is this: what is really going on inside the Hulk's mind? Banner dismisses the notion but the transformation from raw, unstoppable force, to caring super-beast is strongly implied but we have no idea why, let alone how, it took place. Iron man inside his suit is still Tony Stark, but Banner inside the Hulk we are told is nothing, a zero, gone. We don't believe it, we can't believe it on the basis of what is happening on the screen, yet we are given nothing to work with to resolve the conflict.

So the film is a good beginning to the series and the way these stories interlock in future films should be quite interesting. "The Incredible Hulk" is not "Iron Man" but by the very nature of the material it was probably impossible that it would be.

I am going to try, but it is difficult to add anything to what has already been written about the film. Critical commentary has been all over the map and while the overall consensus is positive there have been strong dissents and an overall feeling that something is missing. In terms of sheer action and pace the movie certainly works. One critic complained that she found it boring and came close to falling asleep. If so, having a history of sleep problems myself, I must say I envy her. The film is so frenetic, so non-stop in it's rush to achieve whatever the goal is that it is after, that my eyes were never off the screen, even when I wished at times they were. Certainly the first hour of the film is the best. The lead-up to the quest is very well done and some of the imagery -- you will know it when you see it -- is startling, mind-bending in one instance. The introduction of the characters is well-done and the overall context -- a very intense cold-war conflict being played out in America is credible given the times. Moreover, the use of Russians ("Soviets" be precise) as the bad guys, very bad guys, is wonderfully refreshing -- I am so tired of movie Nazis monopolizing cinematic evil. And just to see Harrison Ford in full Indy get-up is a joy beyond words.

Let's start with the characters. Indy is old. The film makers make absolutely no bones about it, almost rubbing it in. His punches seem slower probably because they really are. Like Rocky, however, he can absorb tremendous punishment and just keeps coming at you no matter how many times you punch him down. Shia leBeouf is quite good and for all those who worried he was going to be the human Jar Jar Binx of the picture, can relax. He does just fine. And Karen Allen, in contrast to Indy, is ageless. And unlike Ford's mostly dour performance, her's is best described as giddy. She is obviously so delighted to be back in an Indy film that it comes across probably too well. And Cate Blanchett does a great villain, utterly convincing.

Technically the film is a marvel. The depiction of the 50's is so well-done that you half expect Marty McFly to show up. Everything works, which is why I give the first half four stars. But after the first half, Crystal Skull is pretty much one over the top action sequence after another. If you like that kind of thing (and mostly I do), this is the kind of thing you will like. The problem is that you start to see the influences and they creak even worse than Indy: George has once again raided ideas from his stack of Uncle Scrooge comics and this time I really felt the late, great Carl Barks was robbed. Everything from the ants (nasty, hideous, horrifyingly gross ants) to the jungle clearing Paul Bunyon machine come from those comics. If you think of the Russians/Soviets in the second half of the film as crazed Beagle Boys led by Magica de Spel, you know all you have to know.

All that is forgivable, however. What I think what was really missing was a McGuffin that we cared about, which in the best Indy pictures has been something possessing a culturally religious connection. The substitute, the "Crystal Skull" is just not that interesting. Lucas is on record stating he felt bad about using the Ark of the Covenant in the classic, never to be equaled first film, because it had upset and offended people (we live in time when the act of breathing upsets and offends some people), and did not want to do that again. Both the Ark and the Grail are objects that are direct links ("Radio transmitter," was the phrase used in the first movie) to God. Whether you believe that or not, these artifacts are a core part of our culture, and the quest for these sacred objects has tremendously dramatic potential. You know at once why people would go crazy to find and possess them. Which is why the first and third Indy films worked so much better than the second (remember the magic rocks?).

So while I liked the film, this is why I give the second half of the movie two stars. The fourth and the second have to be marked up as mostly fun failures.

I did not go into "I am Legend" expecting much. I liked the Charleton Heston version and there was also one other I have not seen. To be fair, there was some good stuff in the movie, here and there: the numerous shots of NYC devoid of people are impressive and though one soon feels the profusion of such shots is unnecessary (only the dimmest would not have gotten the point early on), it was understandable that the producers are eager to share their accomplishment. The movie must have cost a bundle. Better use it all.

Moreover, Will Smith has a few effective scenes, and it was not his fault that he was upstaged by his canine co-star, who deserves some kind of animal Oscar (I believe there actually is such a thing). Finally, the myth of "I Am Legend" is a powerful one. It's a strong story, the kind of story it would take considerable effort to mess up. Who has not felt at times that he is among the last of humanity, struggling to survive while surrounded by vampires (figurative vampires) -- perhaps at a family gathering or company picnic? Yet the movie can be barely said to work. It is one of those films in which any given scene is either good, but we've seen it before, many times before, or bad, and we really don't want to see it now at all. A film in which drama is repeatedly sacrificed to special effects and big scenes. One leaves the film not so much hating it, but wondering what was the point? To the screen writers of this travesty here is a clue: without drama, there can be no point. This is terribly lazy screen writing. For example, the credits reference the work of both prior screenplays. Did the currently screen writers somehow find the original source material weak and insufficient? If so, why even make the movie? This is what we call a bad sign.

Here is an example of how bad it is, one of many. Since nothing substantive follows from the scene, I think I can describe it without spoiling anything.

The scene is a flashback. It shows a huge, panicking crowd trying to escape. People are being given eye scans to see if they have contracted the virus (what the virus turns the infected into will be noted shortly.) A soldier who is doing the scanning, first gets a bad (positive) reading on the hero's wife. Now remember, Smith's character is a medical doctor. One of the Army's highest ranking in fact. Here's what happens. Smith starts yelling at the soldier, screaming out his rank and demanding the man scan his wife again. The soldier complies (why would he be reluctant to give a second scan?). This time the reading is negative. End of scene.

What is wrong here? For one thing, a real doctor would know at once that either the instrument is defective or the soldier does not know how to use it. Since the procedure is quite simple, the latter possibility can be ignored. There's not much time. The first, however, cannot. There is a grave risk that the instrument is defective. Which means infected people have likely been allowed through. His wife may be now become of them. Remember, Smith is a top ranking military doctor. He must be aware of that risk. He must be aware of his responsibilities. What to do? What a real doctor would do is stop everything, use another detector, and perform the scan again.

The situation now is quite tense. If his wife passes this scan, at least we can be confident that she is free of the disease. But if she fails… He tests her again. Either way, the danger of infected people having gotten through is considerable. The terror on Smith's face should show the decisions he has to make and at once.

This alternative scene would also, btw, tie directly with a later scene, the best in the film, so the audience would be prepared for it.

But the variant scene, the one with that thing we call drama, is not in the movie. Instead we get explosions, helicopters spinning out of control, and a chance for Smith to bawl out a white guy for no reason whatever. The whole screen play is like that.

It gets worse. Smith talks along with an entire sequence in Shrek (I) to tell us how much he loves that movie? Why? What does this add? He gives us a lecture on how much he likes Bob Marley's music. I like it too, but why are these scenes here? What is the point? (I suspect, cynically no doubt, the company that made "I Am Legend" has financial interests in both).

There is also something vaguely racist about the whole business. If you imagine a movie about a white doctor being besieged… Well, this film piles it on. New York is perhaps the most diverse city on earth. Why, when the plague hits does it turn the victims into incredibly buff, twenty-something, white people (who would be killers on a basketball court)? Smith really hates them. One long action scene demonstrates the full degree of that hatred -- but they are his patients, for god's sake! Why in that scene would he risk throwing his life away for the sheer joy of killing them? And wouldn't you think that Smith, who is himself is immune to the plague, as a doctor would find that fact an incredibly important clue? Nope. He does nothing with it.

Ebert has written about the offensive stranger on the bus. The smelly, boring, crude, and obnoxious individual, always too close for comfort and who is impossible to ignore. Now imagine a two hour bus ride with that individual. That is what this movie and its screen play is like.

For shame on all concerned.

Except, Sam the dog.