2 of 7

The Hulk's rampages are an amazing feat of special effects and choreography. You can't take your eyes off him, even if the animation is occasionally undercooked. (At times he's a convincing, complex, superhuman brute, and at others he looks more like Shrek's crazy uncle or a Jolly Green Mr. Hyde.) Audiences will cheer as Hulk takes on pit bulls that look like they're literally "from the pit" and then again as he takes on a troop of tanks in the desert. Lee once again indulges his love of heroes who can soar through the sky—Hulk's mile-long leaps are exhilarating.

These sequences offer some relief from the poorly written, angst-heavy dialogue of the in-between scenes. I have no problem with the plot, and I like action movies that take their time. But the lines these talented actors must deliver are bland and often silly. The film's weakest link is Nick Nolte's crazed genetic engineer, who is prone to melodramatic rants that become inadvertently funny. And the film's culminating confrontation between power-mad father and tormented son overtaxes our imaginations, venturing too far into the implausible and abstract to be compelling.

In spite of these disappointments, it is exciting to see another comic book movie going beyond the call of duty to challenge audiences and give them more to think about than the typical summer blockbuster. Ang Lee's Hulk is not as confident, cohesive, and watertight as Bryan Singer's X-Men franchise or M. Night Shyamalan's contemplative superhero film Unbreakable, but it does aim to go deeper and to offer echoes of age-old myths and fairy tales. For his ambition, imagination, and his ability to offer lessons we need to learn, Ang Lee remains one of the most important directors working today.

J. Robert Parks (The Phantom Tollbooth) offers a summer movie preview this week, noting in dismay that, having already seen Matrix Reloaded and X2, we have another 11 sequels this year. "And that doesn't even include Dumb and Dumberer," he says, "which is technically a prequel of the Jim Carrey/Jeff Daniels laugher of several years ago."

The success of Dumb and Dumber can be easily explained—Jim Carrey can make even the lamest comedy funny by his trademark over-the-top antics. But Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd does not star Carrey or Daniels. I'll bet that the studio, unable to lure the actors back for such puerile nonsense, changed the story so it could cast two younger, more persuadable actors to mimic the stars associated with Harry and Lloyd. The plot takes us to 1986, when the two teenagers attempt to break out of their "special needs" education program and enter the regular high school fray. I could make a remark about the "special needs" of moviegoers who spend money and time on this film, but that might be insensitive.

David DiCerto (Catholic News Service) says, "The only thing this clunker succeeds at is making the original stinker look almost Shakespearean by comparison. The film relies on crude humor to conceal its overall lack of anything resembling comic wit, resorting to gross sight gags to elicit cheap, forced laughs."

Steven Isaac (Focus on the Family) says, "Sheer embarrassment over the thought of actually buying a ticket and walking into such a lamebrain movie should successfully keep most families shopping instead of watching. If that's not enough, foul language, sexual crudeness, rude insensitivity to mental challenges and a lesbian kiss should more than seal the deal."

next page... |  2 of 7

share this page

June (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47