Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to His little ones (which includes at-home teens) through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
Analysis Date: June 19, 2003
CAP Score: 67 out of 100
CAP Influence Density: 0.88
Give your visitors clear access to ALL CAP movie analyses. Put the link above on your web page. FREE! Click it to test it and to see what you will get!
NO processing fees if you do not want to pay them.
All donations are tax deductible.
|To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) our FREE text-only versions of our Entertainment Media Analysis Reports as they are calculated, visit our Mailman. If you experience difficulty with Mailman, send us your request. Your email address will NOT be given or sold to other parties.|
(2003), PG-13 -- ... quite atypical of today's PG-13.
Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database
Production (US): Good Machine, Marvel Entertainment, Pacific Western, Universal Pictures, Valhalla Motion Pictures
Distribution (US): Universal Pictures
Director(s): Ang Lee
Producer(s): Avi Arad, Kevin Feige, Larry J. Franco, Gale Anne Hurd, Stan Lee, James Schamus, Cheryl A. Tkach, David Womark
Written by/Screenplay: Story: James Schamus. Screenplay:, John Turman, Michael France, James Schamus. Based on the Marvel comic book character created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby
Cinematography/Camera: Frederick Elmes
Music: Kenneth Burgomaster, Danny Elfman
Film Editing: Tim Squyres
Casting: Avy Kaufman, Frank Warren
Production Design: Rick Heinrichs
Art Direction: John Dexter, Greg Papalia
Viewed At: Driftwood Theater 6
The story opens in 1966 with Dr. David Banner (Paul Kersey) conducting top secret experiments for the US Army. On ethics charges, Dr. Banner is sent to prison for 30 years. While working the experiments, Dr. Banner and his wife Edith Banner (Cara Buono) gave birth to a son. Not only did Dr. Banner conduct unethical experimentation on himself and animals, he conducted experiments using his son Bruce (Michael Kronenberg, David Kronenberg) at various stages of development. Dr. Banner left a legacy in his son. Upon Dr. Banner's arrest, young Bruce is adopted by Mrs. Krensler (Celia Weston) and becomes Bruce Krensler.
About 35 years later, we find Dr. Bruce Krensler (Eric Bana) working with one-time girlfriend, Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) under Berkeley Nuclear Biotechnical Institute (BNBI) contract to develop nanomeds, tiny little programmable critters that enter flesh to heal injuries much like Seven of Nine's Borg nanoprobes from Star Trek: Voyager(tm). Maybe the nanomeds should have been called no-no meds. As with David Banner's experiments, Dr. Krensler's experiments go haywire. To shield a fellow worker from an inevitable gamma burst, Bruce steps between the gamma gun and the fellow worker. With a batch of the nanomeds inside him, Dr. Krensler (who, by unfairly ignoring Mrs. Krensler, is Dr. Bruce Banner) gets zapped with a mega-dose of gamma radiation. In an augmentary relationship between the nanomeds and Bruce's psycho-biologic balance, the nanomeds cause corruption of Bruce's behavior management and physiology. Bruce must now control his emotions, especially anger because we don't want to make him angry. We would not like him if we made him angry.
All this is under the watchful eyes of Betty's father, General Ross (Sam Elliot) and Glenn Talbot (Josh Lucas). General Ross's interests, in addition to a token interest in his daughter, are use of the nanomeds in military applications to create soldiers who instantly heal. Glenn Talbot's interests are completely monetary. Sadistically.
While recovering from injuries that should have happened from the mega-dose of gamma radiation but did not happen, Bruce is visited by a crusty old man whom Betty noticed as the new janitor for the lab at BNBI. Who he is (other than Nick Nolte) I will not spoil. Suffice it to say he has many things of significant importance to Bruce and three things of lethal significance to Betty. Regarding the gamma burst to Dr. Banner, I wrote a book on the handling of radiation accident patients by paramedical and hospital personnel and wish I could share with you a few things that make what is portrayed absolutely stupid, but I dare not take your time or mine to do so. Besides, it's a movie. It doesn't have to make sense.
That is all of the plot and storyline I will share with you. Now to the main reason you parents and grandparents come to visit us.
The Hulk is quite intense in violence at times. Too intense (in my opinion) for the younger adolescents up to about eight or ten years old. Gunfire to kill is somewhat graphic at times as the viewer can see the bullets hitting the Hulk but bouncing off. Action violence is bold and sustained. [Prov. 3:31-32]
Sexually The Hulk is immoral for a couple minutes due to Eric Bana displaying rear nudity [**]. Fortunately, that is all the sexual programming I noted in the entire show. Unless I missed it (which has happened before while taking a restroom break), no one becomes obviously sexually involved with anybody which is quite atypical of today's PG-13. There are not even innuendo or suggestive eye movements, just the brief full rear male nudity which is bad enough. Talbot looks at the floor near Betty once but that is not suggestive. Regarding Bana's nudity, those who may choose to watch this film note that after the Hulk fights the demonized dogs at Betty Ross's place in the country, when he changes back to Banner at the edge of the pond, look away for about two minutes and that should avoid sight of the nudity. Since that is the only time the Hulk/Banner is nude after a few times of changing to and from the Hulk, it is glaringly obvious that this piece was put there just to get a little skin sin in the show.
Regarding foul language, there are five uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary [Prov. 22:11] plus a single use of God's name in vain with the four letter expletive and three uses of God's name in vain without the four letter expletive. [Deut. 5:11] And that is just about it. The Hulk was not a R-13. In fact, with a score of 67 it was a high end PG-13. PG-13 movies in the CAP comparative baseline database of movies earned scores from 54 to 67 out of 100. It may be a high end PG-13 but it is a contemporary PG-13 in every sense, only not as "PG-13" as most PG-13 movies.
There are also some rather bitter father/son and father/daughter issues, clearly giving the impression that once adults, we don't get along with our parents nor they with us, thus possibly fueling arrogance and rebellion. [Prov. 13:24, Matt. 18:10]
Clearly, The Hulk (2003) earned a PG-13 rating because of violence, brief full rear male nudity and a single use of God's name in vain with the four letter expletive. However, it did not earn a CAP "R-13" score mainly because of the unusual length (130 minutes) with a relatively light density of assaults on morality and decency due to long periods of none.
Please read the listing in the Findings/Scoring section for a complete accounting before you decide whether it is fit for your family. If you do decide to watch The Hulk, write me and tell me how many times you see elements from King Kong in the film. Hint: dogs, dinosaurs and beauty and the beast.
If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page.
***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry***
As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie.
Wanton Violence/Crime (W)
Offense to God (O)
NO processing fees it you do not want to pay them!!!
Donations to the CAP Ministry are Tax Deductible!!!
Christian Media News
|NOTE: While the Summary/Commentary section of these reports is precisely that -- a summary in commentary format which can be and sometimes is subjective, the actual CAP Analysis Model (the Findings/Scoring section) makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse, for manufacture of justification for, or camouflaging of ignominious content or aberrant behavior or imagery with "redeeming" programming. Disguising sinful behavior in a theme/plot does not excuse the sinful behavior of either the one who is drawing pleasure or example of behavior or thought from the sinful display or of the practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. We make no attempt to quantify the "artistic" or "entertainment" value of a movie -- whether a movie has any positive value or "entertainment" value is up to mom/dad. The CAP analysis model is the only known set of tools available to parents and grandparents which give *them* the control they need, bypassing the opinion-based assessment of movies by others and defeating the deceit of those who would say anything to convince their parents otherwise. The model is completely objective to His Word. Our investigation standards are founded in the teachings and expectations of Jesus Christ. If a sinful behavior is portrayed, it is called sinful whether Hollywood tries to make it otherwise. That the sinful behavior is "justified" by some manufactured conditions does not soften nor erase the price of sin. Whether there is application of fantasy "justification" or "redemption" is up to mom/dad.|
|"There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our more than eight years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings.|