Hulk

The Verdict: Not so incredible. Brainless entertainment for boys.

The rating: 6/10

Ah yes, these days everyone's going green you know. Bruce Banner's case is a bit more literal however, although I'm reliably informed that the original character of 'The Incredible Hulk' was intended to be grey in colour, only for an opportune error at the comic book’s printers…

Growing up, I never read those comics, and my memories of the 'Incredible Hulk' television series are hazy to say the least, but I do remember that, like many of the so-called 'action' tv series of the day, I almost always sat through 25 minutes of boring stuff for the paltry reward of a couple of minutes of action. In this case, the action wasn't Jan Michael Vincent flying Airwolf around the place shooting stuff, or that fella riding Street Hawk around the place shooting stuff, it was Lou Ferrigno going 'graar' and running around the place breaking stuff. What kid couldn't relate to that most simple and appealing of pastimes? However, before the bit where Lou went 'graar', we had 25 minutes of sappy old Dr. Bruce Banner, the human version of 'the Littlest Hobo', travelling from town to town, doing his best to keep a low profile... which is difficult to do when you occasionally turn into a six foot five, four hundred pound green giant in torn shorts.

The movie version of the Hulk is quite similar to the tv series in this way. Watching 'Hulk', we sit through around half an hour of boring preliminaries (character development, dialogue, the usual time-wasting stuff) until Bruce Banner gets struck by lightning or whatever, and then hooray, the Hulk appears. I guess this movie hinges on your impression of the - now CGI - Hulk character, and I thought the film-makers were looking to depict a cartoon Hulk, one that would evoke the comic book and appeal to younger kids, rather than being realistic and possibly a little frightening, like Lou Ferrigno was in the tv show. In parts this effect is successful, but when the hulk character interacts with Jennifer Connelly, for example, there’s no two ways about it, he looks fake. Also, the addition of a reptilian element to the Hulk's DNA has allowed the big green goon to run really fast, but he can also jump great distances and to great heights… Now, this may be faithful to the comic book, but again, the audience will only suspend a certain amount of disbelief before they just laugh, and both the jumping and the high-speed running effects are definitely more laughable than awesome.

So, the Hulk himself was a little disappointing, but what of the rest? Well, the hero, Bruce Banner, is played by Eric Bana, and his lab research assistant is happily played by a certain Jennifer Connelly, so both the leads can certainly be said to have the required pedigree to 'carry' a movie. Also, it's directed by the man responsible for 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' and 'Brokeback Mountain', none other than Ang Lee himself, so you'd be forgiven for renting it after reading the back of the Dvd case...

The thing is, Eric Bana's character is all about emotional repression, so by definition, he's not going to be acting much when on screen as the boring old doctor. Jennifer Connelly does quite well, but she'd be watchable in 'Eastenders', and she manages to 'react' subtly enough to the green screen – sorry I mean Hulk – with the required dose of compassion and fear when she's called upon. Ang Lee has unsurprisingly crafted a film that is beautiful to look at, and I enjoyed the novel editing style, with all manner of innovative cuts and split-screen effects used to create the panel-style view of the comic book, although this may grate with some viewers a little.

The action sequences, when the Hulk goes mental and starts getting all smashy-smashy, are very well done indeed, which you would expect from a movie that cost no less than $137 million dollars to make. Of particular note are the mutant dogs, the tank-breaking scenes and spitting the warhead (is that a euphemism!? – Ed).

However, given the three writing credits, I have the impression that the script went through a few 'treatments' before it was finished, and the extremely confusing last third of the movie reinforces this suspicion. The climactic 'battle' scene in particular, is just bizarre. Also, the lack of a real nemesis for the Hulk is a glaring omission. Where is his 'Joker', his 'Darth Vader', his... 'Nuclear Man'?

This movie managed to break even at the box office, and 2008 will now see a second attempt at putting Stan Lee's franchise on the big screen. The part of Bruce Banner seems perfect for Edward Norton, considering how little effort he seems willing to make these days – The Illusionist notwithstanding. Directed by the man who helmed the bright and breezy 'Transporter' franchise, and with Stan Winston taking on some of the special effects work, it seems like the mistakes made in this version of the Hulk will hopefully not be repeated in the next.

So, is this 'Hulk' recommended? Well, it's brainless entertainment for boys, but ultimately, and despite the presence of Jennifer Connelly, it's unrewarding. Unless you're a diehard Hulk or Jennifer fan, I’d recommend that if you haven't yet seen it, you should instead hang on for Hulk version 2.0, out next year.

Munich

Ah, Steven Spielberg, so fundamentally part of the Hollywood establishment, the modern American archetype of the popcorn auteur, delivering cinema with mature themes and challenging our views on important issues, all packaged in box-office vehicles replete with the required levels of Star Power... what happened to the man who made 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' I ask you?! Gone it seems are the ripping yarns and memorable adventures of unlikely heroes such as Dr. Jones, replaced instead with conflicted concentration camp managers, gore-spattered soldiers storming beaches, and most recently, the existentially motivated, emotionally complicated political assassins of 'Munich'...

Spielberg's segue into cinema of artistic merit is to be applauded, there's no doubt about that. The man is obviously keen to leave behind him a body of work containing more than juvenile fantasies, adolescent adventures and a robotic shark. I have every respect for this change of direction, and Spielberg's own sincere attempt to raise his personal creative bar. However, as movie-goers, we can only evaluate his success based on what we see on-screen.

Schindler's List was very dramatic, but had its flaws. Saving Private Ryan was a great cinematic experience, and probably Spielberg's best movie in the last fifteen years. However, in terms of a movie experience, Munich may have set the bar a little too high for Mr. S.

It is set in the aftermath of the Munich 1972 Olympics, when Palestinian terrorist group 'Black September' orchestrated events resulting in the deaths of 11 Israeli athletes, as well as many of the Black September activists involved in the operation. The event was extensively covered by the world's media, and watched by a global audience - even the terrorists themselves as the German authorities surround the Olympic enclosure in the midst of the siege.

Israel reacts to the tragedy by organising a hit squad of Mossad agents, charged with eliminating the 11 Black September members who pulled the strings behind the disaster. Avner (Eric Bana) is given the undercover mission, with apparently unlimited resources from the Israeli government to aid him in his task. Working for him are an unlikely team, including an inexperienced bomb-maker, an antiques dealer, a member of the ANC (Daniel Craig) and a more mysterious team member, who is evidently more experienced in these matters than the others.

Bana is selected as he has no prior experience of field operations, but has European roots and is good with languages. The Israeli authorities choose him for these reasons, not only because the mission will be based in Europe, but also because he will ideally be able slip in under radar, and track down the Black September members without fear of being identified as a known activist, at least not straight away. So, he leaves behind Israel, his home, and a heavily pregnant wife and travels to Switzerland, to return home when all targets have been eliminated.

However, Bana is a sensitive soul. As his mission progresses, he becomes more and more disillusioned with the knowledge that killing Palestinians only galvanises the supposed enemy, and renews their will to fight for what is their ultimate goal, a homeland. It seems also that as the Black September targets are eliminated, they are replaced in their positions with characters of more violent disposition, prolonging the war even further.

Eric Bana works very well with this role, and is exceptional in the middle third of Munich, for me the most effective section of the film. The supporting players, in particular Ciaràn Hinds and a menacing Daniel Craig, are also well above average, and their interactions and reflections on their mission add impetus to the change in Bana's mental state, which becomes visible before too long. Michael Lonsdale also has a curiously ambiguous supporting role, and adds a welcome, interesting tangent to proceedings.

Munich is a sumptuous film to look at. Speilberg is obviously enjoying himself back in Europe, and although in every country he visits, he seems to delight in displaying national stereotypes to set the scene (garlic in France, canals and bicycles in Holland etc) he makes the most of the locations, and represents them beautifully on screen.

The political side of Munich is handled gently, and never dominates proceedings. Spielberg could have been a lot more heavy-handed in this, but appears to have made an effort to be balanced at every turn. The Palestinians in Munich are not all two-dimensional monsters, like the Nazis from Schindler's List. They are real people who explain their actions, and when Bana is exposed to this, his troubles increase. His personal struggle to complete his mission and return home is pitted against the Palestinian desire for a country of their own to call home, and this contributes to Bana's growing malaise with his grisly project.

There is much to enjoy in Munich, and I hope I've managed to put that across. The thing is, I think Spielberg has slightly overextended the scope of his ambitions for a project obviously very close to his heart. At two hours and forty minutes, the runtime will give you an idea of how much there is in the movie for the audience to digest. With a more ruthless editor, much of the excess weight could have been shed from the story, and the important messages delivered more coherently.

In addition, Spielberg has imprinted some moments of Munich with his more juvenile trademarks, and at times, this jars with what the characters are actually doing. The bomb-maker character uses various gadgets to plant his murderous wares, and the scenes where he unveils his creations evoke moments from more tongue-in-cheek action flicks. These seem genuinely out of place in a context where the central characters are struggling to justify killing in the name of their country.

So is it worth seeing? Well, I wouldn't slate the film, it definitely has a lot going for it. Eric Bana is really staking his claim as a great leading man - at times I could have sworn it was Liam Neeson up there on screen. (I don't know if it's that they're both around seven feet tall, or is it Bana's Israeli accent hitting my ears in some unusal brogue, but there is definitely a likeness!) Daniel Craig, too, is impressive as a threatening henchman, and has a physical presence that will definitely reassure Bond fans of his ability to do well with the role. Also, as a film with political themes at its core, the message in Munich is not gift-wrapped - the script ain't half bad. To be honest though, I was ultimately left a little cold by the last hour of the film, where the pace really lets it down.

The final shot of the movie should leave the audience with little doubt of Spielberg's wish to be relevant, ambitious and politically aware with 'Munich'. He has definitely convinced me of this, I just think that, on balance, he could have made a better movie.


Verdict: confident, well executed, flawed film-making. Political, weighty and a little sluggish. Great performance from Bana.
Rating: 6/10