Sunday, June 15, 2008

Movie Review(s) Iron Man Vs. The Incredible Hulk

I actually have a slew of movie reviews I've been meaning to post, but haven't gotten around to it, so I'm going to start with a dual review of the first two films from Marvel studios: Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk.

Let's start off with the basics:

Iron Man - Unlike Godzilla movies, when you say "man in suit" you aren't talking about some guy in a rubber suit doing pro wrestling moves through a 5' tall mock up of Tokyo. This is a piece of military hardware built by a savant weapons designer.

Hulk - Move over Barry Bonds, someone else is on the juice! Though in all seriousness, it's not chemicals which alter the Hulk but rather Gamma radiation. However, when his heart rate hits a certain level, chemical changes take place and you've got Kermit singing "It's not easy being green" in the background as Ed Norton experiences 'roid rage on a level previously not thought to be possible.

I'll be the first to admit, I like comic book movies in general. I think the '80's and '90's had some real missteps with Dolph Lundgren as "The Punisher," I don't even remember who played "Captain America" Superman 4 in "the quest for more money" and the less said about the 'Hoff as "Nick Fury" the better.

Still, this most recent decade has brought some decent comic book movies: I liked the first two X-men movies, same with Spiderman's 1 and 2. (Disclaimer, I have yet to see #3 of either series based on some "stay the heck away" recomendations from friends but, now that they are on cable which I'm already paying for I will see them.) The reimaging of "The Punisher" with Thomas Jane was decent on his side, but was a classic example of why John Travolta peaked with "Grease" 30 years ago and would be better off doing voiceovers for Panasonic TV's with Christian Slater. Daredevil had problems, but the Directors cut is actually pretty good. I have similar issues with HellBoy. While I did not universally hate Elektra like most people, I will acknowledge the movie had problems. And, conversely, I did not stand cheering for Batman Begins like most folks. It was an OK movie and I will be the first to admit I am looking forward to the Dark Knight, but I did not think the movie walked on water by any means.

Which brings us back to the two movies in hand:

You don't even need to put a gun to my head for me to pick a preference. I thought Iron Man was the better movie of the two. However, there's a lot to both movies to like and they are, functionally, two very different movies.

To start: Iron Man is an origin story. Hulk seems to acknowledge the Ang Lee movie of about 5 years ago and doesn't retread on what has come before and takes place 5 years post origin story.

From a characterization perspective both Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man) and Bruce Banner (Edward Norton in The Incredible Hulk) are fairly true to what I remember from the comics (though I'm no expert. I'm probably the only Pen and Paper RPG gamer who wasn't obsessed with comics.) From a movie character development perspective, both are stories about people coming to accept their new place in society, but from two different perspectives:

Iron Man is ultimately, (in my opinion) a more complete movie about a person who is drifting through life playing a role that is expected of him within the family business, all the while living a life or priveledge without thought to what damage he's doing in either his personal or professional life. When the reality of the damage he's doing is shoved into his face, like a person with a new religion, he grabs at his chance for redemption with a fervor.

The Incredible Hulk is about a person who is living with the consequences of his actions, all the while trying to reverse the course of those actions. Through actions not of his own making, he has to come to terms with what has happened to him and accept that his difference can be used to help.

And that's the first difference why I prefer Iron Man to the Incredible Hulk. Tony Stark's story is of a man who is very much acting upon his new circumstances. Bruce Banner is running from his.

With character out of the way, let's talk effects and action:

Iron Man doesn't rely on CGI to carry it. Yes, there is CGI throughout, but a lot of the effects were done practically, which makes for a more realistic movie. Hulk relies on CGI for a lot of the movie where it should trust both the actors as well as practical effects folks (read model makers.)

While I appreciate the need for a lot of Mocap for Hulk since finding a 9-10 foot actor with overly large muscles who looks like Ed Norton is pretty impractical, even if you were to scour the WWE, I still felt a lot of the action sequences relied too heavily on CGI.

And that's where the two movies really start to diverge: action. In many ways the Hulk is a very long chase movie where dramtic plot development points are broken up in between chase/fight scenes. Iron Man has it's share of action scenes, but they all seem to be part of a larger plot development sequence with a goal in mind. The Hulk felt forced in a lot of places, as if the director looked at the script and said "for timing purposes, we need to add a fight here, a chase there."

When action sequences occur in Iron Man, they are from a personal perspective. Each sequence is designed to draw you, the viewer into the movie and almost feel as if you have ownership over the way things turn out. The Hulk stands back like an impersonal observer most of the time and has the viewer as an observer. Plus, the director relied on a crutch that many action directors seem to be using these days: slow motion in action scenes.

(rant on)

For all you aspiring directors there should be two schools of thought for action sequences:

1. Kevin Smith and the "I can't direct for shit," method where the action is impersonal and usually from a single, often stationary, "third person" perspective so that we, as the viewer have an almost omnicient view of what's happening.

2. Stephen Spielberg and other directors to whom the view from the camera is the view the audience sees. With full Von Clausewitz "Fog of War," effect. So you may not have the full view of what's hapening in the battle. You see what our hero does and sees and that's got to be enough for right now. You don't need a hand held camera for this as has been become a standard over the last 20 years, but you don't reveal everything.

Although I admire a lot of Stanley Kubrick's work, I will _never_ forgive him for Full Metal Jacket where he took the first person perspective and jacked it up with the "slow motion bullet ripple through flesh," effect. Without that we may never have been inflicted with the Matrix trilogy, all 3 movies which were vastly overrated (and yes, I am aware of how trashed #2 and #3 were in the press. As far as I am concerned, the world would have been much better off if the Wachowski brothers had not smoked a shitload of dope and gotten in a food fight while stoned.)

(rant off)

Secondary characters/story:

Ok, I realize that the academy awards are a big show etc, however, by count, when it comes to actors with Oscar awards and/or nominations, Iron Man wins 4-3. And I also know that the Director has some small share in guiding the actors toward thier vision of what the movie should be, however, here's where we have some division.

For the "romantic interest" Hulk wins hands down. Liv Tyler's character of Betty Ross is much more integral to the story than Gweneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts. And that is a definite weakness to Iron Man - the secondary players in Tony Stark's story are just that; secondary. What he accomplishes as a person he could have done with anyone. From a more rounded story perspective, Hulk wins which helps Liv Tyler over Gweneth.

For the "Villian": each story has both a primary (read "big bad") and secondary villian. In both movies, it's the secondary villian who dictates the main character's initial development within the movie. This is not necessarily a bad thing since it adds a multi-dimensional aspect to influences for the main character's development to both movies (unlike, say the single dimension of Tim Burton's Batman.)

In the case of both movies, I personally felt the "big bad" needed more. In Iron Man, the main villian needed more screen time as an evil entity for us to really feel him in his full villianry. In the case of the Incredible Hulk I wanted more character development of the main villian. I wanted more than just glances into why he was the way he was and I wanted more depth to his reasoning before his actions.

Of the two movies, I personally felt the villian for Iron Man was both more believable as well as more of a villian. the main villian in the Hulk felt more like a vehicle for action than a true "villian."

A mention about sound in both movies. Once again, I felt Iron man had a better use of sound and soundtracks. When there was music in Iron Man, it was incidental music in the background that felt natural (double props to Jon Favreau for using Suicidal Tendancies "Instituionalized" in such a manner that it just felt "right" within the scene,) or very often there was no incidental orchestral score (which added to the "you are there" feel I previously mentioned). While I applaud the director of the Hulk for not falling into my previously ranted about trap of "heavy metal as action movie music video" I thought the orchestral score used throughout was too heavy handed. There are times when less is more and I think Hulk would have been a stronger movie had it not either had a score at all, or, if it was there, then one that was subtle in the background, not pushed to the forefront.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention "The Avengers."

Yes, it's obvious that Marvel studios is building to the Avengers (a tip, wait until the end of the credits of Iron Man for the first hint. The Hulk has it's hints dispersed throughout and it's "Avengers" moment comes right before the credits, so you don't have to wait through them if you don't want to.) It's also pretty clear it's more likely to be along the lines of the Ultimate Avengers rather than the original version. Which is all well and good. Just please, don't forget to make the rest of the movies as real movies.

Overall, I was entertained by the Hulk and went well beyond entertainment for Iron Man