The Incredible Hulk (2008)
The Incredible HulkUSA 2008
Director: Louis Leterrier
This newest screen incarnation of the popular green superhero marks an unusual time for comic adaptations. Up until this point, if a superhero comic was turned into a film there were usually two possible outcomes: a successful franchise which eventually grows further and further away from the original material (such as the Burton Batman films or the Reeve Superman films) or a tremendous flop, quickly forgotten (Dolph Lundgren as The Punisher comes to mind). Ang Lee’s 2003 superhero film Hulk is generally considered the latter: an expensive failure (even though the film made over $100 million). Following the patterns set previously, one would expect a significant gap between Ang Lee’s version and any future Hulk films. For better or worse, this was not the case, as The Incredible Hulk comes just five years after 2003′s Hulk, not sequel but remake, with a whole new cast, new story and new Hulk.
Because of this, Louis Letterier’s attempt at the Hulk franchise faces inevitable comparison to the earlier film. The major differences are obvious at the outset: The Incredible Hulk is action-based as opposed to the more character-driven Hulk. That said, the action sequences in the later film seem clumsier, not as refined as those seen in Lee’s version (perhaps not so surprising considering Ang Lee’s previous film Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and its beautifully choreographed fight sequences). Further than that, The Incredible Hulk also seems fairly rushed overall, from the occasionally ropey special effects to the weak plot. Perhaps not surprisingly, the plot points seem to only serve as transitions between action set-pieces.
Unlike most superhero films that came before it, the world of The Incredible Hulk seems to exist in a greater Marvel universe, something lacking in Ang Lee’s version. There are hints and references to other Marvel superheroes (and villains) dotted all over the screen, some subtle and some blatant. This simple consideration is a great treat for comic fans and seems an obvious step (especially considering Marvel is producing all their films from now on and cross-promotion is almost never a bad thing for comics). Marvel definitely has their act together with their films and a massive superhero film collaboration is not far off (something which comics fans have been waiting for for decades).
I personally enjoyed Ang Lee’s ‘softer’ version of the Hulk. Even though the film was far from perfect, he tried to bring a level of seriousness and respectability to a sometimes silly film genre. I can respect Letterier’s attempt to bring his film back to what the fans expected (or perhaps what the studio thinks the fans expect), but I still prefer Lee’s version. Granted, the action sequences are better in The Incredible Hulk, but I enjoyed the performances more in Hulk and I thought the 2003 version had a poetry to it which is lacking in 2008.
Is this the start of a new way of looking at superhero films? If a version isn’t massively successful, just go back and start from scratch? I hope not, but looking at the forthcoming Punisher War Zone, it appears as if franchise continuity isn’t as important as box office success.
Colin Le SueurUzumaki (2000)
UzumakiJapan 2000
Director: Higuchinsky
Language: Japanese
In horror films, it’s easy to run from the killer. Part of the excitement in watching a slasher film, for instance, is seeing the promiscuous teenagers successfully evade the maniac in a hockey mask, if only until the next scene. Now imagine if the killer you’re running from isn’t a six-foot walking Freudian nightmare, but an abstract concept. How can you escape from an idea?
The Hollywood horror genre during the late 1990s was getting pretty old. The gore cycle had run its course; people were tired of seeing stupid kids slaughtered by Freddy or Jason. Along comes Scream, and it becomes smart kids getting slaughtered, but even that didn’t last very long. Outside mainstream Hollywood horror, however, strange and disturbing things were happening.
In Japan, Hideo Nakata’s Ringu in 1998 helped to re-energise the lagging genre. Suddenly the focus shifted from gore and skin to terror and psychosis.
Following the pattern set by Ringu, Higuchinsky’s Uzumaki is at once an incredibly unique, disturbing, frightening horror film, ten years ahead of Hollywood horror.
An uzumaki is a spiral (simple enough). There are spirals everywhere: in the water, in the sky, on your fingerprints. It’s easy to miss them, but they’re everywhere.
Something weird’s going on in the town of Kurozu-cho. People are obsessed with spirals, almost mesmerised. A student falls to his death at the foot of a twisting spiral staircase. A man becomes transfixed by the shell of a snail. A girl develops a hypnotic fashion accessory. One by one the townspeople fall under the power of the uzumaki. The town of Kurozu-cho is cursed by the spiral.
Based on a trilogy of bizarre and frightening manga (Japanese comics) by Junji Ito, the film is a fascinating mix of classic atmosphere and modern editing. Higuchinsky (his first and last name, apparently), has a very expressive visual style that fits well with the disturbing content.
I was first introduced to Uzumaki by a friend of mine who’d bought the first book in the manga trilogy. She was so disturbed by it, she felt she couldn’t have it in her house. She gave it to me because it frightened her that much.
There are certain sequences in the film that still freak me out; in my eyes that’s the mark of a great horror movie.
Uzumaki: the spiral has you.
(Originally written in 2004.)
Colin Le Sueur30 Days of Night (2007)
30 Days of NightUSA 2007
Director: David Slade
I’ve never read the original ’30 Days of Night’ comic, but the main hook is brilliant: what happens when vampires invade a small northern town just as a month of wintry darkness and isolation descends? This is a story that was made for film. Director David Slade (working with Steve Niles, the comic’s writer) has crafted an interesting, tense, and claustrophobic horror film filled with strong performances and some good shock and gore.
Slade takes his time with the set-up of the film, different narrative elements gradually building together piece by piece, helping to develop the characters and establish the setting. When the main thrust of the action does begin, it seems inevitable and inescapable. This film reminded me a lot of John Carpenter’s The Thing: both concern remote frozen settlements under attack by otherworldly beings and both deal with isolation and claustrophobia. However, The Thing deals mostly with paranoia (never knowing if the man standing next to you is really human), whereas 30 Days deals more with interpersonal relations under strain.
Technically, the film looks really interesting. Slade has an excellent eye for visuals and he crafts several genuinely frightening and tense sequences. The film’s (relatively) low budget lets it down at certain points, however: some of the establishing shots of the town are a littlle amateurish and there is obvious use of CG and miniatures. Those are minor quibbles, however, and generally the visuals are quite good. There are several continuity holes, however, perhaps remnants of deleted scenes or altered sequences. They aren’t really noticeable and actually help add to the disorientation created during the attack on the town.
The performances are all above average, with Josh Hartnett settling nicely into his new position of leading man. As well, following from his previous work in Hostage, Ben Foster seems eager to establish himself as the go-to guy for playing crazy bastards. His characterisation in 30 Days is borderline over-the-top but it seems to work.
It’s nice to see a straight-forward vampire film that manages to bring a fresh approach to an often tired genre. I’m not sure if the types of vampires seen in 30 Days are as revolutionary as everyone seems to believe, but I personally enjoyed them, all black eyes and gaping teeth, practically shark-like.
30 Days of Night shows that interesting films can be made from interesting comics and that horror films are made all the better by good writing and excellent direction.
Colin Le SueurHouse of Wax (2005)
House of WaxAustralia/USA 2005
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
What can I say about a film that was marketed around seeing Paris Hilton killed? Dark Castle Entertainment have a very spotty track record; they’ve made some slightly entertaining films and they’ve made some rubbish films. House of Wax is a slightly entertaining rubbish film.
First of all, the characters seem to possess almost zero logic. Granted, most horror films operate with a reduced level of logic, but the characters in this film seem to be borderline retarded. There’s no continuity of behaviour, either. Characters act totally differently in varying scenes.
One element that separates this film from most of the other Hollywood horror fare is the level of violence. House of Wax doesn’t hesitate in mutilating its main characters, something which doesn’t usually happen in typical mainstream horror. This helps give the film a little more edge, though everything else is strictly by the numbers. Perhaps if the writers and director had taken more chances, the film wouldn’t be so formulaic.
While I’ve certainly seen worse films from Dark Castle (fear dot com and Gothika, for instance), this films does little to differentiate itself from recent horror films and is therefore instantly forgettable.
Colin Le Sueur