As I try to get myself excited over the latest Incredible Hulk film (it does star Ed Norton as scientist-turned-monster Bruce Banner, but the effects still look ridiculous), I looked up what Roger Ebert said about the last one, which Ang Lee directed in 2004.
The effects were the Achilles heel of that one, too -- but I also just feel as though the story got a little preachy and over-ambitious for its own good.
Bizarrely, Ebert opens his review thusly: "The Hulk is rare among Marvel superheroes in that his powers are a curse, not an advantage."
Since it's clear from this review and others that Ebert knows something about comic books, I was a little shocked that he wrote that. The thing about Marvel superheroes is they almost ALWAYS feel their powers are a curse.
Spider-Man struggles with the responsibility of being extraordinary and often wishes he could be a normal kid (then a normal man, later, a normal husband often).
Iron Man (eventually) feels that his technology and his brilliance must be used for peace and progress when it's easier, more profitable and less dangerous to be irresponsible, manufacture weapons and be a playboy rather than a superhero. He often calls his "powers" a curse.
The Fantastic Four have all cursed the accident that gave them their abilities from the beginning - from The Thing who became a hideous monster to the young Johnny Storm, who enjoys his powers but comes to understand they make him separate and different.
The X-Men -- that whole franchise is basically built on this concept.
The Hulk is maybe the most extreme example of this, because his powers are destructive and he has so little control over them that they're rarely any advantage at all.
Still, seems like a fairly obvious point.
But Ebert also gave the Hulk movie three stars. No accounting for taste.
