Place me firmly in the camp of those who think that Ang Lee's Hulk (2003) is almost criminally underrated. Bringing his art house sensibilities to the project, Lee chose to focus on the complex, rage-filled father and son relationship that fueled Bruce Banner's anger management issues.
Giving it an icy counterpoint in the father-daughter relationship between his girlfriend and her dad, the movie dug beyond the superficial gamma radiation explanations of the comic book origin. Instead it showed the underpinnings of Banner's rage to be firmly rooted in real world psychology. And the film managed to tell its tragic story without ever forgetting its graphic heritage, with Lee choosing to frame the images in a dynamic, split-screen effect that replicated the artistic masterworks of a Steranko or an Eisner, masters of the comic book panel layout.
The movie failed to meet expectations at the box office, making only $132.2 million domestically after a rousing opening of $62.1 million in its first weekend. Much of the blame was laid at the feet of Lee, though I feel he was only the scapegoat for Marvel's ambitious plans for the Green Goliath. After all, if there was one franchise where they could afford to be a little riskier, it was this one. The Hulk was a property that was pre-sold even beyond such other Marvel Heroes as Spider-Man or the X-Men. Those characters had been successful on the page, yes. But the Hulk had been successful on TV for five seasons in a popular series with a beloved actor, in Bill Bixby, as its lead. Marvel's directive, however, was to ignore the TV show, and be faithful to the comics. Poor Lee was blasted in the fan community for committing what amounted to an act of heresy (by the same fanboys who lash out at film producers for casting a blond instead of a dark-haired 007), for doing what fans generally prefer in these types of movies, sticking to the established comic book continuity.
When the idea to revisit the character was introduced, great pains were taken to assure its success. The fans were assured this would not be an art house retread of their beloved idol, but rather an action-packed take on the monster. The motivations behind the Jekyll and Hyde metamorphosis would be left unexamined, in favor of getting down to the nitty-gritty hulkouts that were being clamored for. I was holding my breath, unhappy that what was essentially being said was that the movie would be dumbed down for its target audience. Was it really necessary? Especially since comic fans long for the day when their favorite medium will earn the respect of others as a viable and thriving mode of delivering artistic masterpieces on the order of Alan Moore's Watchmen or Maus by Art Spiegelman?
Article comments