I wanted to like “Hulk,” really, I did. Ang Lee has become one of my favorite directors. “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon” remains my favorite movie from 2000 and his other films have never failed to impress me. Until now.

As most know, “Hulk” is based on the Marvel comic book of the same name. The movie follows the life of Dr. Bruce Krensler (Eric Bana), a well-respected scientist. When we first meet the good doctor, he is as far from his green counterpart as he could be. Mild-mannered and emotionally distant, Bruce’s personality and his ability to hide his true feelings shows strongly in the first scene between he and his recently ex-girlfriend Betty (Jennifer Connolly), a fellow scientist. The anger and confusion over the breakup of their relationship can be seen, lying just below the surface in his every word and every facial expression, but only faintly.

We learn through flashbacks about their relationship and more about Bruce’s past. We learn he is adopted and that he has no desire to know about his real parents whom he has been told are dead. We learn about (and see) the nightmares that plague him in his sleep. Dreams of rage, dreams of the past, dreams so real he begins to wonder if they could be.

Despite the breakup, Bruce and Betty continue to work together on a project to enhance human regenerative powers using gamma radiation. The project, however, is in danger of losing its funding. Desperate to find a success to use to their advantage, the two continue their research finding only failure.

One fateful night, Bruce and Betty are preparing further study when their assistant becomes trapped in the gamma chamber. Bruce rushes to his aid only to find himself, also, trapped. With the gamma rays set to go off, Bruce nobly acts as a shield to protect him and takes the full brunt of the radiation himself. Radiation that has killed every animal specimen they have used in the past.

Bruce, however, survives this terrible accident, but is not totally unscathed. The radiation has set off a chain reaction of changes inside of him. Despite Betty’s constant reminders that he should be, in fact, quite dead, Bruce feels better physically. His bad knee has healed and he feels better overall than he ever has. Nevertheless, his sleep disturbances worsen and become more violent. That night, in his recovery room in the lab, Bruce is confronted by a strange man, David Banner (Nick Nolte). The new late shift janitor, David reveals himself to Bruce as his real father. David approaches Bruce to explain his dreams. Explain the empty questions that have filled his consciousness for so long, yet remain unanswered. David has already been introduced to us, however. Opening flashbacks show the senior Banner, a scientist just like Bruce, who has also worked on regeneration. David’s work, though, took on a much darker turn when, against the orders of his military superior, Betty’s father simply referred to as Ross (Sam Elliott); David subjects himself and his newborn son - Bruce - to experimentation. It is this experimentation that caused Bruce to survive the accident. It is the reason Bruce has something deep inside him just waiting to come out.

Those who remember “Hulk” the comic book may have a hard time swallowing this cinematic version. There is little doubt that “Hulk” is an impressive film to look at. Technically, the film is well made. Lee’s direction is as innovative as ever. The CGI Hulk is an acceptable, if not perfect rendering of the comic classic. Some of the technical tricks up Lee’s sleeve act as a distraction, though. The stylistic editing does little to enhance the story or further the plot, instead distracting the eyes away from where they should be, on the characters and involved in the story. In addition, the usually reliable Danny Elfman has produced a score that echoes his score for last year’s “Spider-Man” a little too much. While there are those who will say John Williams does the same, Williams’ scores have never sounded like Mrs. Edwards’ fifth grade music class playing out of key as Elfman’s score does here.

The acting in the film is mostly first rate, but its weakest link is Bana. His uneven performance makes it hard to take an interest in Bruce at all, something that was not the case in the comic book. Connolly’s job is to look pretty and sound smart, and she succeeds in both. As her father, Elliott gives one of his best performances. He does not play Ross as either a stock military villain or a rampaging lunatic. He instead injects sympathy into the character and makes it much easier to believe he is doing what he does out of concern for his country’s and his daughter’s safety. It is Nolte, however, who gives the best performance in the film. Playing with his patented bubbling under the surface rage, he gives Banner more layers than was required. He is the most interesting character in the movie.

Those good things aside, “Hulk” is uneven at best, boring and plodding at worst. Even with all of its technical prowess, the movie has the feel of an empty hull. Too much time is spent trying to turn the film into a character study of a father and son at the expense of giving the film a soul. Lee and his screenwriting partner James Schamus spend far too much time breathing psychological upheaval into the lives of their characters, ultimately ignoring the fact they are making a movie about a man who turns into a living, breathing, king-sized green temper tantrum. Comic book movies are supposed to be fun and “Hulk” is the first film I have ever seen that is completely devoid of humor. It becomes quite apparent after the first hour that Lee has opted to take the subject matter far too seriously, searching for dramatic leanings which simply are not there.

Like a lost soul, Ang Lee’s vision of “Hulk” searches for meaning, searches for a purpose but just as most lost souls, never succeeds in its quest.

Absolutely brilliant. The black and white cinematography are incredible and the story is an amazing tale of journalistic courage and a refusal to back down when the truth is at stake.

An incredible movie. Long, but worth it.

Worth it, but VASTLY overrated.

The world’s favorite bespectacled boy wizard returns after a two year absence in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, the third installment of J.K. Rowling’s wildly popular series of children’s books, armed with a new Professor Dumbledor (Michael Gambon) and a new director who brings with him a much darker tone than the first two movies.

Harry’s third year gets off to a rough start when he accidentally on purpose inflates his instigator Aunt, turning her into a human. Harry (Daniel Radcliff) turns runaway and, with nowhere else to go, returns to his beloved Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to find the wizarding world in upheaval. A frantic manhunt is underway for the convicted mass murderer Sirius Black (Gary Oldman). Black, we learn, has strong ties to Lord Voldemort, the dark wizard who killed Harry’s parents. A perceived madman convicted of killing 13 people with a single spell, Black has escaped the wizard prison of Azkaban, a prison believed impenetrable due to the dreaded Azkaban guards known as the Dementors. These tall, terrifying creatures patrol the prison, feeding off of the happy thoughts and feelings of those around them and seem to have a particularly strong effect on Harry. Black, it is believed, plans to finish Voldemort’s work and kill Harry. With his ever-present best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) at his side, Harry meets the new challenge head-on with the help of a new ally in Professor R.J. Lupin (David Thewlis), the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, who becomes Harry’s mentor while hiding a violent secret.

I admit to having serious misgivings from the start when I heard about the choice of Alfonso Cuaron to direct Azkaban, replacing the much and (mostly) wrongly maligned director of the first two films, Chris Columbus (who stayed on as producer). Cuaron, an art house favorite who was granted the job due to his “hot” status after his recent foreign language hit Y Tu Mama Tambien and his reputation as a children’s director, presents a flashy style and deliberate pacing to his films that concerned me as being unsuitable to the story. Cuaron does have an exceptional way with the camera and is in rare form here, but his problem with pacing is evident, especially in the first act. He does manage to rectify that by the last act, a lightening fast, whiplash paced conclusion that ties everything together nicely even if it also marks the biggest structural departure from Rowling’s vision (giving Watson’s Hermione significantly more to do than in the book).

The last act isn’t the only major change Harry purists will notice. Harry’s third cinematic adventure is much more tightly packed than the previous two whose only real fault in my opinion was they felt too episodic. The film gets right into the action, leaving nothing to pretense. This is both a help and a hindrance, however, since this gives the film’s first act an overall hurried feel. It feels more like a trailer for the book’s first third than an introduction to the story. Cuaron has also overhauled the look of the school itself. Unlike the first two movies, the outside of Hogwarts now looks like any other castle you would find in Europe, losing its magical quality. Also gone are the neat and tidy robes the students wore in the books and the first two movies, replaced with a disheveled, loosened tie look that, while it may fit most teenagers in private schools, does not match the images from Rowling’s books.

However, there is much to like. The kids have settled into their respective roles nicely, even if they are all beginning to look a little long in the tooth to be playing 13 year olds (making next year’s The Goblet of Fire likely the last with all three child actors). Radcliff makes the biggest impression. His performance is much more confident than in the other movies and a number of his scenes require actual acting, not just reacting, and he pulls it off nicely. The rest of the acting is also first rate. Gambon is a nice replacement for Harris with his performance being much closer to the quirky, almost hippyish Dumbledor described in the books, although Harris’ loving, fatherly warmth will be missed. Oldman is a terrific (if all too brief) addition as the mysterious Black and Thewlis is truly wonderful as the kindly Professor Lupin, both of whom are vitally important characters in later installments. He handles Lupin’s relations with Harry beautifully, allowing the character to become a father figure for him. His scenes alone with Radcliff add a personal dimension that was missing from the first two films.

Visually the film is easily the most impressive of the three. The effects are also the best of the three films with the wonderful CGI character called Buckbeak - a bizarre, but gorgeous creature that looks like a cross between an eagle and a horse - is the film’s crowning achievement. The Dementors are also impressive and appropriate creepy, but some might complain of a resemblance too close to the Ring Wraiths from The Lord of the Rings. Composer John Williams’ third go around has produced his most satisfying and impressive score of the series, mingling familiar themes with heavy doses of orchestral foreboding and medieval moodiness. A number of pieces present some of the loveliest work Williams has done in years.

My small complaints aside, make no mistake that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a very, very good film, One that nicely continues the cinematic journey of Harry Potter.

Worth it, but I admit I was disappointed. They cut so much out (which I knew they would have to do, but they hacked the meat of the story out, too) and it just didn’t feel right.

Much better than Coke. Don’t get me wrong, I like Coke, too, but I much prefer Pepsi.

An abomination in the eyes of all that is good and holy. Every copy of this movie on film, video and DVD needs to be confiscated and burned into ashes.

It’s not perfect. It’s not brilliant. What it is is an eye-opening conclusion / link to the greatest trilogy of films ever made. It fills in the blanks, sets the future in motion and is visually spectacular. It’s everything I wanted Episode III to be.

Long and boring. Way, way, way too long. I’m sorry, but there is no reason for a remake of a movie to be nearly twice as long as the original.