"The Sokovia Accords: A Narrative Blunder"

"THE SOKOVIA ACCORDS: A NARRATIVE BLUNDER"

Three years ago, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), along with Marvel Films and the Disney Studios, introduced to the world the thirteenth entry of the movie franchise, "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". Although the movie is officially regarded as a Captain America solo film, many moviegoers and critics tend to view it as an unofficial Avengers film. The film also introduced a new story arc to the franchise called the Sokovia Accords.

In reality, the Sokovia Accords is supposed to be a cinematic version of the Marvel Comics legislative law called the Mutant Registration Act and was the main focus behind the famous 2006-2007 seven-issue story arc known as "Civil War". In this story, the U.S. government passed a Superhero Registration Act, ostensibly designed to have super powered individuals act under official regulation, somewhat akin to law enforcement. Those superheroes opposed to the act, led by Captain America, found themselves in conflict with those like Iron Man and Ms. Marvel who supported the act. Spider-Man found himself caught in the middle and the X-Men took a neutral stance.

About a decade later, the MCU released "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" and introduced the world to the Sokovia Accords. For a while, I had wondered why Kevin Feige had allowed this story arc to be introduced in the middle of the franchise's on-going Infinity Stones arc. Then I had stumbled across an ARTICLE in which directors Anthony and Joe Russo had claimed the plot for the third Captain America movie was changed to compete against the DCEU's 2016 movie, "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". In this film, the U.S. government and the United Nations created the Sokovia Accords to regulate the actions of the Avengers and other enhanced beings in the wake of a deadly incident in Lagos, Nigeria; after Captain America and his team prevented a group of HYDRA terrorists from stealing biological weapons. Some of the Avengers - including Iron Man, War Machine, Black Panther and the Black Widow - supported the Accords for their own personal reasons. And some of them - the Falcon, Scarlet Witch and Captain America - refused to sign it. This schism between the Avengers, along with a bombing incident at the document's ratification in Vienna, widened the schism between the former teammates. Especially when Captain America's former best friend, Bucky Barnes aka the Winter Soldier, became the number one suspect behind the bombing.

"CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" managed to successfully compete against "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". The MCU proved to be more financially successful. And it managed to acquire critical acclaim from most film critics, unlike the DCEU movie, which had received a good deal of negative review. And yet . . . the movie had failed to succeed with me. I found this surprising back in 2016, considering that I was more of a MCU fan than one of the D.C. Comics franchise. At least before I saw "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". Whereas I found myself harboring a low opinion of "CIVIL WAR", I became a fervent fan of the Zack Snyder film. And over the next three years, I have found it increasingly difficult to maintain my high opinion of the MCU. And a major factor of my burgeoning disappointment with the franchise proved to be the Sokovia Accords.

 

Ever since 2016, I have harbored many misgivings about the Sokovia Accords arc. My first misgiving proved to be its portrayal in "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". I had assumed that the document would be the main factor to divide the Avengers. Instead, screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely included another subplot regarding the hunt for Bucky Barnes to divide the Avengers even further - especially Captain America and Iron Man - in the most contrived manner. One of the first advocates of the Sokovia Accords was King T'Chaka of Wakanda (father of the current Black Panther). Why? When the Avengers had prevented Brock Rumlow and other HYDRA operatives from stealing from that biological weapons lab in Nigeria, Scarlet Witch had used her telekinesis to divert the explosion from Rumlow's suicide bomb to another building that contained several Wakandan humanitarian workers. The problem with is scenario is that the 2018 movie, "BLACK PANTHER" made it clear that Wakanda was an isolationist country around the time of "CIVIL WAR" that did NOT involve itself in the affairs of other countries - including those on the African continent. Great. "BLACK PANTHER" managed to contradict certain plot points of "CIVIL WAR" and no one realized this. More importantly, King T'Chaka no longer had a reason to be an advocate of the Sokovia Accords. And the mistakes kept on going.



A major blooper regarding the Sokovia Accords had manifested in the 2018 movie, "ANT-MAN & THE WASP". In this film, Scott Lang aka Ant-Man found himself near the end of his house arrest, which manifested from his involvement with Captain America in "CIVIL WAR" and his violation of the Sokovia Accords. While incarcerated in the Raft (U.S. underwater prison for enhanced beings), Scott had mentioned Dr. Hank Pym, the first Ant-Man and creator of the Ant-Man suit. After being rescued from the Raft by Captain America; both Ant-Man and Clint Burton aka Hawkeye made a deal with the Federal courts and settled for two years of house arrest for violating the Accords. Both Hank Pym and his daughter Hope van Dyne became Federal fugitives because Hank had failed to register the Ant-Man suit. This proved to be problematic in so many ways. One, the Accords had not been ratified by the United Nations around the time of Scott's arrest, due to the bombing in Vienna. Two, Hank had first created the Ant-Man suit back in the 1980s and had been unaware of Scott’s use of the suit during the Avengers' battle at the airport in Berlin. After being freed by Steve, Scott had shrunken the suit and mailed it to his daughter Cassie, while declaring that it had been destroyed. If the suit was officially considered destroyed, why was Scott arrested anyway without the crucial evidence any prosecutor would need to convict him? Why were Hank and Hope declared as fugitives for failing to register a suit that officially no longer existed? Why did they become fugitives in the first place? Scott had used the Ant-Man suit without Hank's permission, something that he could or may have easily pointed out. The latter had created the suit some thirty years ago. And the Federal authorities remained unaware of Hank's creation of the Wasp suit and Hope's use of it. And she had played no role in the creation of the Ant-Man suit. Also, the writers did not need the Sokovia Accords as a reason for Scott to face conviction and house arrest. He had violated his parole when he left the United States to help Captain America, the Falcon, the Winter Soldier and others to deal with the potential threat of other HYDRA-created "Winter Soldiers".



Ever since I first saw "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR", I found myself wondering about Thaddeus Ross' role in this story arc. By the time of the 2016 movie, he was no longer a general in the U.S. Army. He had become the new Secretary of State. It was Ross who had delivered the news of the Sokovia Accords to the Avengers. In his argument, he had pointed out the collateral damage caused - in his eyes and the eyes of others - by the Avengers. I found this idea ridiculous . . . to a certain extent. Asgardian Loki and a Chitauri army were mainly responsible for the damage inflicted upon downtown Manhattan in 2012's "THE AVENGERS". Malekith and the Dark Elves were responsible for the damage inflicted upon Greenwich, England in 2013's "THOR: THE DARK ELVES". The Royal Air Force had contributed to the damage . . . along with Thor. Obadiah Stane and his armored suit was responsible for the damage inflicted in downtown Los Angeles in 2008's "IRON MAN". As for the events in "THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON" . . . only two Avengers were responsible, Tony Stark (Iron Man) and Dr. Bruce Banner (the Hulk). They were the ones who had created the artificial intelligence (A.I.) known Ultron. The other Avengers were forced to help them clean up their mess. I noticed that no one had bothered to point this out. I also noticed that Ross had failed to bring up the Harlem battle between the Hulk and Abomination (Emil Blonsky) in 2008's "THE INCREDIBLE HULK". It seemed only natural that he would avoid the topic, considering that he played a major role in the creation of both the Hulk and Abomination. Also, the U.S. Army had managed to inflict a good deal of damage upon Harlem, while battling Abomination. I found it odd that neither Tony Stark and Natasha Romanoff, who both knew about Ross' role in the event, had said a word. Then again, I found it odd that Ross had become President Matthew Ellis's new Secretary of State in the first place. Why on earth did President Ellis select Ross to be his Secretary of State? Why did he think that a narrow-minded, uber-aggressive personality like Ross’ would be the right man for that particular position? Why did the MCU writers?



There is another aspect of the MCU's portrayal of the Sokovia Accords that I found mind boggling is that it was barely mentioned in the franchise's films between "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" and "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". I could understand that the document was not mentioned in films like "GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOL. 2" and "THOR: RAGNAROK". Both were set on worlds other than Earth. Well, Manhattan appeared briefly in the third film, but not long enough for the topic of the Accords to be brought up. However, I found it odd that Sokovia Accords were never mentioned in films like "DOCTOR STRANGE", "SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING" and "BLACK PANTHER", especially since these films were set on Earth. Considering that King T'Chaka's role in the creation of the Sokovia Accords had inadvertently led to his death, I found it odd that the document was never brought up in the 2018 movie. Did Wakanda drop its advocacy of the document, considering that the new King T'Challa gave refuge to Bucky Barnes? If not, why?



Even most of the MCU television shows had failed to mention the Sokovia Accords. In fact, I can only mention one that did - "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." - and one that vaguely referenced the document - "JESSICA JONES". Most or all of the characters in Season Four of "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.", including then former Director Philip J. Coulson, seemed to support the document. And I found this disappointing. Coulson and his team were willing to protect Inhumans and other enhanced people from xenophobic bigots like the organization called the Watchdogs. Season Four began with Inhuman Daisy Johnson aka Quake being on the run for her vigilante activities after leaving S.H.I.E.L.D. Seven episodes later, then S.H.I.E.L.D. Director Jeffrey Mace had cleared her name of past crimes . . . after she had agreed to sign the Sokovia Accords and re-join the agency. Everyone seemed fine with that, including Coulson. I found that disturbing. Season Two of the Marvel Netflix series, "JESSICA JONES", the Raft was mentioned as a possible destination for the title character's mother, another enhanced being who was proving to be dangerous to New York City's citizens and her adoptive sister, a talk-show host-turned dangerous vigilante. And yet . . . not one character managed to express disapproval of the Accords or that damn Raft. The Marvel Netflix franchise had featured three attorneys as major characters - Matt Murdock aka Daredevil, Franklin "Foggy" Nelson and Jeri Hogarth. and not one of them had discussed the legal ramifications of the Accords.



Ironically, only one person had ended up questioning the Sokovia Accords after "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". That person was Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes, USAF aka War Machine. What I find disturbing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that only one person has expressed disapproval of the Sokovia Accords since "CIVIL WAR". And that was James “Rhodey” Rhodes aka War Machine in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". Yes, he had supported the Sokovia Accords in "CIVIL WAR". I did not find that surprising, since he was an Air Force officer. But nearly two years later, he had rejected the Accords when he had refused to obey Ross' order to arrest Captain America, the Falcon, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Vision and the Hulk following their return to the Avengers headquarters in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". It took six films after "CIVIL WAR" for a MCU protagonist to either express disapproval of the Sokovia Accords or refuse to adhere to it. Yet, at the same time, Rhodey never really went into details over his eventual rejection of the document.



Why? Why did it take the MCU so long to find characters others than Captain America or the Falcon to express disapproval of the Accords? Why was the MCU so reluctant explore the legal ramifications of this document, especially since the franchise had went out of its way to introduce it in the first place? As several articles, including THIS ONE, have made clear - the Sokovia Accords is a violation of a citizen's right. It is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Period. Any attorney, civil rights activist or civil rights organization could have easily pointed this out in any of the other Phase Three movies or MCU television shows. McFeely, Markus and other screenwriters could have easily pointed the unconstitutional aspect of the Sokovia Accords in "CIVIL WAR", "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.", "JESSICA JONES", "INFINITY WAR" or any other MCU production set on Earth. Either McFeely, Markus and these other writers were idiots or for some reason, Kevin Feige had lost interest in exploring the consequences of the Accords. Perhaps Feige simply wanted to use the Accords as a plot device to battle "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" at the box office.



There is another aspect of the Sokovia Accords that many do not seem aware of or willing to discuss. The Sokovia Accords should not have been presented as a law in the MCU. Why? Because an accord is an agreement, not a law. Those enhanced beings who did not sign the Accord should NOT have been held accountable for using their powers, unless the latter were used for the usual crimes – robbery, burglary, kidnapping, murder, etc. Now, many would dismiss this criticism, claiming that "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" was a movie set in the world of comic books. Well, so were other similar documents. The Marvel Comics series, "Civil War" had the Mutant Registration Act. The document that affected enhanced beings and costumed vigilantes in Alan Moore's comic novel, "Watchmen" and Zack Snyder's 2009 movie adaptation of it was called the Keene Act. And "act" is a law. Mark Millar, Alan Moore and Zack Snyder had managed to get it right. Why had Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely failed to do so? The problem with this is that if an enhanced being does not sign this accord, agreement or treaty; then their actions should not be dictated by it. The Sokovia Accords is an agreement, not a decree or a law.

If an enhanced or non-enhanced vigilante, who did not sign the accord, practices vigilantism, then that individual should be asked to cease such activity or face imprisonment for practicing vigilantism. To me, a vigilante is like a person pursuing a criminal or going into a foreign country to find a criminal without contacting the police or government agency. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is why I find it odd that in "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME", Spider-man aka Peter Parker was never pursued by the police for his vigilante activities. Had he signed the Sokovia Accords and agree to cooperate with law enforcement? Do the Accords still exist by this latest MCU entry? If not, why is Spider-man practicing vigilantism without law enforcement breathing down his back?

In the end, I get the feeling that Kevin Feige and the MCU seem undecided on what to do with the Sokovia Accords arc. Worse, the franchise seems incapable of utilizing this story arc with any real competency. How can it if its writers do not know the difference between an accord and a law? But the more I think about the Sokovia Accords, the more I cannot help but feel that its creation was one of the biggest mistakes made by the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The Incredible Hulk Meets Thor - Part I

Twenty-four years ago, a television movie called "THE INCREDIBLE HULK RETURNS" aired on CBS. It served as a continuation of the popular 1978-1982 television series and starred Bill Bixby as Dr. David Banner and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK MEETS THOR - PART I "THE INCREDIBLE HULK RETURNS" not only features another attempt by Banner to rid himself of the Hulk for good, but also his meeting Dr. Donald Blake aka Thor, God of Thunder. Here is a recap and REVIEW of the movie. Unless there is a third movie that features both the Hulk and Thor, "THE INCREDIBLE HULK RETURNS" features their first on-screen meeting, until 24 years later in the summer blockbuster, "THE AVENGERS". I think.

"THE INCREDIBLE HULK" (2008) Review

”THE INCREDIBLE HULK” (2008) Review

When I first heard that another movie based upon the Marvel Comics character – Bruce Banner/the Hulk – would hit the theaters soon, the word in both Hollywood and on the Internet was that it would be better than the 2003 film directed by Ang Lee, namely ”THE HULK”. Well, I have finally seen ”THE INCREDIBLE HULK”. Below is what I think of the film and whether I believe if it has surpassed the 2003 movie.

The first film that starred Eric Bana as Bruce Banner ended with the main character in South America, providing medical services to impoverished local citizens. This movie, in which Edward Norton takes up the role, picks up with Bruce in South America – namely Brazil. Only he is working as a day laborer at a soft drink factory in Rio de Janeiro, while at the same time seeking a cure to get rid of the Hulk within him with the help of an internet friend. At the same time, he is being pursued by General Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) and a Russian-born, British Royal Marine on loan to the U.S. Army named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth).

There are some changes in which director Louis Leterrier, screenwriters Zak Penn and an uncredited Edward Norton made changes. One, aside from Brazil and Mexico, the movie is mainly set on the East Coast – suburban Virginia and New York City; whereas the 2003 version is set in San Francisco, Berkeley and Nevada. The movie’s opening credits showed the origins of the Hulk, which has nothing to do with the 2003 story. In the 2008 version, Bruce and Betty were assisting General Ross in an experiment to create the Perfect Soldier”. Only Bruce became exposed to Gamma radiation during a lab experiment and injured and/or killed a number of people, including Betty. In the 2003 movie, Bruce unwittingly became the subject of his father’s DNA research not long after his birth. His altered DNA is exposed to Gamma radiation during a lab experiment as an adult, and the Hulk is born. And of course, there are different actors in the major roles.

Naturally, Edward Norton did a great job portraying Bruce Banner. He managed to capture all the pathos, desperation and anger of the fugitive scientist/comic book hero. He managed to put his personal stamp on the role just as Bana had done, five years ago. At first I had a hard time accepting Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, Bruce’s love and former colleague. She did not seem as effective as Jennifer Connelly in projecting Betty’s emotional personality. And I found it slightly hard to believe that she was a scientist. But she eventually grew into the role. I must admit that I have to say the same about William Hurt as General Thaddeus Ross. There were times when it seemed that Hurt was trying too hard to portray Ross’ obsessive and hostile personality. To be perfectly frank, he lacked Sam Elliott’s natural intensity. But he eventually did a good job. Tim Roth had no such problems. I thought he was perfect as Emil Blonsky, the Royal Marine determined to take down Bruce/the Hulk in any way. It really came as no surprise when he was willing to become a subject of another one of Ross’ Perfect Soldier. And finally there is Tim Blake Nelson, who portrayed Dr. Samuel Stern, an eccentric scientist and Internet ally of Bruce, who becomes infatuated with the potential power of Gamma radiation, after he witnesses Bruce’s transformation. Although a little over-the-top at times, Nelson does a good job in portraying Sterns’ eccentric nature.

Do I believe that this new version of the Hulk is better than the 2003 version? Honestly? NO. And my family feels the same. I had expected this version to be better and was slightly disappointed that it failed to live up to the hype. At least for me. I wish that Marvel Films and Universal Pictures had allowed this film to simply be a sequel to the 2003 film. Instead, they tried to reboot the saga by changing the story of the Hulk’s origins from what was joined in the previous film. I feel that the story involving Bruce’s father gave the Hulk a special angst factor that the 2008 film lacked. Now, some people have claimed that the 2003 film had too much angst. We are talking about the Incredible Hulk that is a major character from Marvel Comics. Angst is Marvel’s middle name. And most of its movies – especially those focusing upon Spider-Man, the X-Men and Daredevil – have angst up the yahoo. This movie is a little more action oriented than the 2003 movie. Actually, I feel that it is more action oriented than ”IRON MAN”. But I do not believe that the presence of more action made this movie better than the 2003 movie or ”IRON MAN”.

I really had a problem with the story’s finale. Granted, I was not fond of Bruce’s showdown with his father in the 2003 film. It came off as too vague for me. Although the Hulk/Abomination showdown was less vague in this film, I was not that impressed by it. The fight came off as too crude for my tastes. But the really problem is that the movie ended on a vague note. Perhaps this was Leterrier, Penn and Norton’s way of saying that the saga will continue. I think it could have been written better. The movie made it clear that it only defeated and not killed Abomination, but what later happened to Blonsky? Did he end up as Ross’ prisoner? Does the Army general really believe he can control Abomination? And those familiar with the Hulk comic saga knows that Sterns, who was exposed to Bruce’s blood in a confrontation with Blonsky, will become another one of the Hulk’s nemesis, the Leader. Unfortunately, not everyone would know this and the movie’s script makes this hint rather vague. It is almost as if the writers and the directors were afraid to give the story a more solid ending – like ”IRON MAN” or even ”THE HULK”. Not even the last shot of Bruce with a Norman Bates-style grin on his face or Robert Downey Jr’s cameo appearance as Tony Stark could really stave off my disappointment over the ending.

Despite the ending, ”THE INCREDIBLE HULK” is a damn good movie . . . one that Marvel Films to be proud of. But the vague ending and my initial problems with Tyler and Hurt make it impossible for me to accept the prevailing view that it is better than 2003’s ”THE HULK”.

"THE INCREDIBLE HULK" (2008) Photo Gallery

"THE INCREDIBLE HULK"(2008) Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery from the new Marvel comics film - "THE INCREDIBLE HULK" - starring Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth and William Hurt:

"THE HULK" (2003) Review

"THE HULK" (2003) Review

Poor Ang Lee. His 2003 adaptation of the Marvel Comics character, Bruce Banner aka the Hulk, has been the target of hostility and contempt from comic book fans for the past six-to-seven years. After Universal Pictures had released Louis Leterrier’s adaptation back in 2008, many had declared his film superior to Lee’s movie. But after recently viewing the 2003 movie, I do not believe I can agree with their assessment. Mind you, I am not claiming that Lee’s film was better than Leterrier’s. The 2008 film possessed certain aspects that Lee’s movie lacked. But I also believe that the 2003 film possessed traits that were certainly lacking in the later film.

”THE HULK” was basically an origins tale about how a genetics researcher from Berkeley, California became a massive, green-skinned creature named the Hulk. Ironically, this tale began years before his birth. In one of the most original and chilling opening credits sequences I have ever seen, the movie revealed how his father David Banner, a genetics researcher for the U.S. Army, was conducting experiments on himself to improve human DNA. The Army, represented by Lieutenant Colonel “Thunderbolt” Ross, learned of his experiment and ordered it shut down. Nothing came from Banner’s experiment at first. But he managed to inadvertently pass his mutated DNA to his son, Bruce. The sequence ended with Banner causing a massive explosion of the facilities' gamma reactor, and accidentally killing his wife during an argument with her about Bruce. Banner ended up in a mental hospital for nearly three decades.

With his father in a mental hospital and his mother dead, Bruce Banner was sent into foster care and adopted by a family called Krenzler. Thirty years later found Bruce as a genetics researcher at the University of California in Berkeley. One of his colleagues happened to be Betty Ross, General Ross’ estranged daughter and Bruce’s ex-girlfriend. After saving another colleague from a Gamma radiation explosion, Bruce’s altered DNA (now affected by the radiation) led him to manifest into a green-skinned monster - ”a hulk” - whenever he lost his temper.

When I had earlier compared ”THE HULK” to the 2008 film, ”THE INCREDIBLE HULK”; I was not trying to be diplomatic when I had stated that neither film was superior to the other. I honestly believe this. If there is one thing that the 2008 film can boast about was that its action sequences were superior to the ones found in Lee’s film. The Taiwanese-born director had a bad habit of shooting a good number of his action scenes from a long distance angle. This seemed very apparent in one sequence that featured the U.S. Army’s attempt (led by General Ross) to kill the Hulk, following the latter’s escape from a desert military facility to San Francisco. There were times when I found it difficult to maintain an interest in this particular scene. Another sequence I had problems with featured Bruce/the Hulk’s final confrontation with his genetically altered father, who had become a powerful electrical being. Frankly, it seemed nothing more than a vague display of CGI special effects against a dark backdrop that damn near made it impossible to watch their fight with a clear eye. One sequence that almost caught my attention featured the Hulk’s battle with David Banner’s mutated dogs that had been sent to kill Betty. I say “almost” because I thought the fight had lasted longer than necessary. And I simply could not get excited over Bruce’s fight with a trio of dogs that looked like something from the 1994 film, ”THE MASK”.

Where ”THE HULK” reigned supreme over ”THE INCREDIBLE HULK” was its story and strong characterizations. Quite frankly, it possessed more depth and pathos than the 2008 film. The movie managed to delve into Bruce’s childhood horrors, which had led to his tendency to bottle up his emotions. His personal demons also revealed how this trait had affected his past relationship with Betty and help contribute to the Hulk’s manifestation. Another interesting aspect of the movie was the father/child theme that seemed to dominate its story. Not only did both Bruce and Betty suffer from damaged relationships with their respective fathers, their past romance and continued love for each seemed to be regarded by David Banner and General Ross as potential threats. And both men seemed incapable of resisting an urge to manipulate and control their children’s lives.

Ang Lee managed to gather an impressive cast for his film. I believe kudos should have gone to Eric Bana for his on-spot portrayal of the emotionally repressed Dr. Bruce Banner. The Australian actor did an excellent job of delving into his character’s emotional psyche, yet keeping it all in check in order to reveal Bruce’s difficulties in expressing himself. Jennifer Connolly gave a subtle performance as Betty Ross, Bruce’s ex-girlfriend and fellow geneticist. She ably managed to portray Betty as a woman frustrated by Bruce and her father’s penchant for emotional repression; and also torn by her love and loyalty toward Bruce, and her fear that only her father’s military resources can save him.

Sam Elliot was top-notch as the intense and paranoid General Ross, who seemed more interested in branding Bruce as a danger to his daughter and the Establishment, due to the latter’s family connections. ”THE HULK” marked the second movie in which I heard Elliot used a growl to mark his character’s intense nature. And I hope that he never uses it again. In a rare performance, Josh Lucas portrayed minor villain Glenn Talbot, Bruce and Betty’s former colleague that left the U.S. Army to join the private sector for more cash. Lucas did a first-rate job in portraying Talbot’s venal and smarmy nature without going over the top. His character also had one of the oddest death scenes in film history.

Two actors portrayed Bruce’s father, Dr. David Banner - Paul Kersey and Oscar nominee Nick Nolte. Kersey portrayed the young Dr. Banner, whose obsession with improving human DNA in the film’s mesmerizing opening credits ended up having major consequences for his family – especially his son. I am amazed at how Kersey managed to convey such a strong presence with very little screen time. It was a damn good thing Lee cast Nick Nolte in the role of the older David Banner, because Kersey struck me as a hard act to follow. However, Nolte gave what I believe was the best performance in the movie. He certainly did an excellent job in conveying Banner’s continuing obsession with his original experiment. Yet, thirty years in a prison managed to unhinge Banner’s personality, making him even more obsessive. He also acquired a possessive attitude toward Bruce’s Hulk alter-ego, viewing the latter as his true son. Nolte not only beautifully captured this aspect of the scientist’s personality, but also the latter’s hostile view of Betty Ross, and an increasingly hostile attitude toward the military industry complex and society at large. This hostility was openly revealed in what I can only describe as a fascinating speech that dripped with contempt.

Frederick Elmes did an excellent job in photographing the movie’s settings of Berkeley, San Francisco and the Nevada desert. I also have to commend visual effects supervisor Dennis Muren for a split screen technique that allowed Lee to cinematically mimic the panels of a comic book page. I thought that was truly inspired – especially in the scene that featured Talbot’s death. At Industrial, Light and Magic, Muren also supervised the movie’s CGI effects – especially the computer generated Hulk. The interesting thing about this movie’s Hulk is that his facial expression seemed more varied than the expressions of the 2008 version. However, I was not that impressed by Muren’s design of David Banner’s ”hulkish” dogs. They struck me as something from 1994’s ”THE MASK” - a little too cartoonish for my tastes.

In the end, ”THE HULK” is a well-written movie with interesting characters. I find it only marred by questionable action sequences. If Marvel Entertainment ever decide to combine this movie’s characterizations and depth with the action sequences from ”THE INCREDIBLE HULK”, it would have one hell of a movie on its hands.

"THE HULK" (2003) Photo Gallery

Below are photos from the 2003 adaptation of the Marvel comic book character, the Incredible Hulk. Directed by Ang Lee, the movie starred Eric Bana, Jennifer Connolly, Nick Nolte, Sam Elliot and Josh Lucas:


"THE HULK" (2003) Photo Gallery