Hulk (2003)

7/10

Initially Dismissed Ang Lee's "Hulk" Deserves Another Appraisal

LeonLouisRicci21 September 2017

Smashing His Way into the First Wave of Marvel Movie Superheroes, (The Incredible) Hulk, an at First Failed Title that only went 6 Issues in the Early Sixties, did Recover and has had a Long and Intricate Career (Grey/Green). The 1970's TV Show with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno is Remembered Fondly.

Director Ang Lee Decided to give the Tragic and Unfortunate Scientist Bruce Banner and His Gamma Ray Created "Monster" a more than Serious, Psychological, Philosophical Bent that Audiences found Boring, Slow, and Pounded on this Film with some Brutal Bashing and the Sequel was Scrapped.

Critics, for the most part, Like the Movie Much More than Mainstream Viewers. They were Kind to the Depth of Characters and Rich Story. The Movie's Supreme and Interesting Template also got Noticed.

Back to the Haters. Folks Complained about the Length (2hr 20min), Nick Nolte's Bombastic, Shouting Performance, and Not Enough "Hulk". The Big Green Guy doesn't Show Up much in the First Hour.

Danny Elfman's Score is as Usual, Good but Derivative and Repetitive. The Characters like Betty (Jennifer Connelly), General Ross (Sam Elliott), and Talbot (Josh Lucas) are 100% Dead Serious and Chew the Melodramatics Ad Nauseum.

Overall, Director Ang Lee Accomplished His Vision, but in the Early Days of the Mega-Blockbuster Summer Superhero Movie, it wasn't Welcomed and was Dismissed as a Major Misfire. Viewed Today it Holds Up quite well and Deserves a "New" Look and Appraisal.

42 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Ahead of its time - Good back story

daveogilvie21 May 2016

If you saw this when it first came out, you would probably have hated the split screen cut away's etc The story seemed complicated at the time and it was the first re-enactment since the TV series so a lot of the audience had a sentimental attachment to Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno. I've watched this on TV over the years and for some reason I am strongly drawn to it. I just think its underrated. Watching it now 21st May 2016 I think it does fit in with the Marvel Universe and offers a good backstory especially of his love for Betty Ross. The affects are not totally bad as when you watch you become more enthralled with the story. I am still not a fan of the split screen/24 dual story imaging but otherwise I think it is an underrated film. I'm neither DC or Marvel i'm more the action hero and for me it was always Superman and Spiderman /Incredible Hulk as the also rans. Superman was just the hero. As a kid growing up nothing more i'd love to do sometimes would be wear a shirt id grown out of and try and do muscular stretches at 10 and burst that old school shirt. This film has grown on me now i'm 43 and while I did n't like it at the time its grown on me the more I've seen it over the years on TV. Superman Returns V Hulk then this wins as Superman Returns was such a missed opportunity. Casting is great Bana,Elliot,Connelly and even Nolte buying into comic book Folk Lore for the time. When I first watched Hulk id have given it a 5.5 i'd now have to say its worth a 7. The special effects are not bad still - ie they draw you in and you don';t question the rendering like some tech head. The story seems easier to understand and HULK as a character fits in with the current Avengers Marvel Universe. Overall it's a film thats aged well and should be up-rated rather than under rated.

60 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Horribly Misjudged

Ltufano2311 October 2023

Having always heard terrible things about it, I had avoided Hulk (2003) as I felt I had better things to watch. Upon viewing, in the current day of superhero films, I am surprised to say how much fun this was! The acting is a little cheesy, the dialogue is a bit hokey, and the effects look cartoonish at parts, but that all comes together to make you feel like you are watching a comic book brought to life. Going as far as making scene transitions mimic the pages of a comic, the uniqueness of this movie create quite an enjoyable viewing experience. I also feel that this did the best job of portraying the lonely monster side of Hulk, instead of theGod battling brute we normally see. Ang Lee's vision of the Green Goliath is a love letter to the medium that inspired the film.

13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Interesting attempt

SnoopyStyle26 April 2014

Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) is a brilliant scientist working with his girlfriend Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) on nanomeds and gamma radiation to cure physical ailments. A lab accident causes high exposure of gamma radiation and releases the hulk within him. His father David (Nick Nolte) had experimented on himself and transferred some changes within Bruce. When Bruce was 4, an incident which he can't remember caused Betty's father Gen Ross (Sam Elliott) to lock up David Banner. Now David is back just in time to see the change in Bruce release by the gamma radiation.

Director Ang Lee definitely put his own mark on this comic book movie. It's probably not what the fans or Marvel was looking for. This is a much more a Greek tragedy than a popcorn summer action flick. While it's the not the best choice, it does make it an uniquely interesting comic book movie.

The acting from Eric Bana is a little too bland. He's not really a favorite of mine. On the other hand, Jennifer Connelly is superb. She is the heart and soul of this movie. Nick Nolte shows that he can play crazy well. He definitely goes overboard but I sorta like it. Sam Elliott tries a little too hard. He should be able to play this part without trying. He doesn't need to yell and scream.

Then there is all the split screen and other visual tricks. Ang Lee is pulling inspiration from the comic books. However he may be too literal and more importantly overused this style. Luckily, it does make it more visually interesting when the story moves at a slower pace. There is something outside the normal comic book movie going on here. It is fascinating. It doesn't work that well. But it's good enough for me to recommend. It's worthwhile to check out at least once.

14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Very impressive!

CGA_Soupdragon22 November 2004

I finally caught up with the film on DVD, after missing its cinema release and just not having the urge to see it until now. It has had some rather bad press, so I wasn't actually expecting very much.

One of the reasons I have waited so long was to let my son, (who is now eight) grow up a bit before seeing it. He was interested in the tie-in products filling the shelves in all the stores on release. A blanket-marketing ploy that is becoming more and more hysterical, I fear.

Another was that I was wary of renting it as the Hulk character has been rather mal-treated in live-action form.

Until Ang Lee's film.

Firstly, this isn't by any stretch of the imagination, a kids' film. Though my younger children watched it, it gave them serious food for thought about what scientists do to animals and people in the name of science. My oldest was enthralled. She appreciated Lee's magnificent use of the film medium.

This is a very dark movie. The origin-story has been manipulated and updated linking the two lead characters (Bana and Connelly) in a sorrowful, fearful event that happened to them both in their childhood. Nice touch.

"Banner's" (Eric Bana's) father (played by Nick Nolte) shuffles back into his life after 30 years incarceration for causing the events that had traumatized the young Banner. Banner later finds that his father had "experimented" on him when they were still a whole family. This creepy device effectively modernizes the story and it's ultimate revelation is a clever way of releasing the pent-up rage that Banner jr has locked within his mind. This rage feeds the Hulk. Banner finally becomes the Hulk after some incredible bravery in the lab.

The film's effects are superb. I am a very happy viewer. This is great cinema. A wonderful adaptation of a tortured, misunderstood human being.

Highly recommended, by me, for true Hulk fans.

252 out of 390 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Interesting and different superhero adaptation

Pi7225 June 2005

Hulk is an excellent action/drama and science-fiction film based on the classic superhero (or antihero) The Incredible Hulk. Following the trend on the last years about recycling comic superheroes, Hulk's turn became a very interesting alternative to other formulas used in several of these adaptations.

Knowing that many people consider this movie as dull and boring, please let me state that it's far from being dull. After the critics towards Spiderman just scratching the surface of character development, and where other movies simply failed miserably (e.g. Daredevil), we should be grateful that we can finally see some depth in the main character as we're used in the good comics.

Ang Lee's direction shows his usual way of telling stories, in a sensitive and personal way. Instead of letting the movie drown in its limitless action possibilities, he conducted the story through a sensible path. The editing work, which remarkably resembles comic frames in many scenes, and contains some awesome transitions, is simply wonderful.

And all this not forgetting Hulk's main point: a green, angry mass of power and destruction. The movie has some of the best action scenes I've seen lately, which makes me wonder what is expecting some people who blame this movie for its lack of massive fights against entire armies. My opinion is that the action scenes of Hulk are perfectly balanced; more than showing Hulk's sheer strength but never going completely overboard. And also showing some of Hulk's main weaknesses, keeping the character real and not entering the area of fantasy.

One side of this movie that people also seems to throw tantrums about, is the refurbishing of Hulk's origins. The story of Bruce Banner's transformation has been updated with including today's technology, and making it in my humble opinion much more interesting and 'believable' than the original. Not being a huge fan of Hulk's comics, I didn't feel personally attached to the original story, so I actually liked it more. But I can understand that the purists or the die-hard fans will be disappointed by these changes.

Along with Hulk's origins, the plot includes good science-fiction elements. Don't misunderstand me; the stuff is in general barely believable. A scientist conducting advanced genetic experiments in 1965 (all by himself!) is not a good start... But in the end, it doesn't matter. This superhero adaptation is as good science-fiction as other excellent adaptations like X-Men (including its sequel X2), where others will just remain as good or bad action films with just some sci-fi scattered around. Where others lost their opportunity, Hulk didn't.

What other things are good in this movie? Well, the main actors all do a good work, specially Jennifer Conelly and Nick Nolte. The special effects are great, and while there are entire scenes made just of CGI, they're still not the strong point of the movie. The plot and dialogues aren't just bridges between computer generated action scenes, which I'm thankful for. Furthermore, the plot is also rich in references to the comic, Hulk's enemies and other subtle things. The movie is full of small details (has anyone noticed the frog over the hat in the final scene?) which reward you when watching it a second or third time.

The main down of the movie might be that followers aren't used to see Hulk in this way, a deep and sensitive character, and probably expected more action and enemy-smashing and less deep dialogues running after child traumas... Which could explain its relatively low rating and some bad critics. Maybe I just connected very well with this movie and that's why I put it so well, but I can also see that the elements of this film, taken independently, also have their merits and all together form a solid production. In my opinion, of all the comic superhero adaptations, Hulk is the most interesting and best quality one which I've watched to date. I just wish people would concentrate more on enjoying this different view of a superhero's life. But oh well, each one has different tastes.

And one final note. The soundtrack is absolutely wonderful!

155 out of 238 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Absolutely Boring

gigan915 September 2005

Warning: Spoilers

This is the worst Marvel Comics movie I have ever seen. What went wrong? This could have been so much better! The story was slow and boring and the whole split screens idea just made every one in the theater think..."I came here to see a movie not watch a giant comic book!" The beginning is boring enough and it stays that way until the first 50 minutes or so when BB turns into the Hulk for a VERY Short amount of time. The guy only turns into the Hulk like 3 times and he barely stays that way. This whole movie blows and I suggest to NOT waist your money on this puddle of green vomit.

You should be out there seeing movies like "Spider-Man 2" "X2" "Batman Begins" all the GOOD comic addaptations.

61 out of 129 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A Dark Human Drama Masquerading as a Comic Book Film

rjsf9627 September 2015

Ang Lee's 'Hulk' has always received a bad reputation and twelve years on, its critical reception is not likely to change. Despite being superior to the 2008 reboot, it has not been given the recognition that it deserves.

Bruce Banner works as a scientist with his ex-girlfriend. They are trying to achieve cell repair in animals, but to no avail. One day, Bruce is exposed to gamma radiation when a machine malfunctions; mysteriously he survives the incident. Only to discover that he changes into a ranging green monster, whenever he experiences high levels of stress.

Eric Bana as Bruce Banner does a serviceable job, you buy into his character, but Bana lacks the required enthusiasm on screen. He appears as a blank slate and you just wish that he would provide more emotion when it really matters. The tormented character is the driving force in the film and sadly Bana offers little extra. Jennifer Connelly as ex-girlfriend Betty Ross is more commendable, bringing tenderness to the role and thereby selling her affection for Banner in the process. Nick Nolte as Bruce's estranged father is a scientist gone mad from his past failures. You never can tell what he is capable of doing on-screen. The times we do spend with Nolte are indeed the most compelling segments of the film.

'Hulk' is still sure to split the opinions of audiences in half. What some may consider being an interesting take on the tragic hero, full of emotion and character depth, others will be overwhelmed by its admittedly self-indulgent length (at 138 minutes) and disappointed with a lack of scenes that consist of Hulk smashing up anything that he comes into contact with. Unfortunately, the CGI can create a jarring experience, from the effects looking solid to poorly animated.

'Hulk' does indeed benefit though, with a smartly written screenplay by James Schamus. This is a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to a hero that many will not be expecting. It is concerned with the psychological aspects of Bruce Banner and how his relationships with his father and his ex-girlfriend shape him. If you are comfortable with the story taking its time to set up characters and plot points, darker than your average super hero flick, then you are bound to enjoy watching 'Hulk'. If not, then I would re consider whether watching this film is worth your time.

'Hulk' is certainly better than its reputation would suggest. Ang Lee finds a way to make us care about a character that is essentially a giant green monster filled with rage. A sharp script helps to engage the audience, even if the running time is patience testing at best. For those that can appreciate what 'Hulk' does eloquently with its ambitious story and artistic sensibilities then they are sure to have a rewarding and satisfying experience that is among the best that Marvel has to offer in the early 2000s.

11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

Call it Angry Shrek...

RockytheBear8 July 2003

Warning: Spoilers

ALL MY REVIEWS CONTAIN SPOILERS. EVERY ONE OF THEM.

First, they made Coleco-Vision. Then they made Turbo Grafix. But now the makers of PlayStation 2 bring you The Hulk, or as I like to call it, "Angry Shrek." Of course, this is sarcasm, I don't know what animation team created The Hulk, but whoever they are, they should be fired. I don't mean fired from their jobs, I mean fired by a firing squad. They were right to drop the "Incredible" from the title, because this Hulk is anything but. This big green guy was about as menacing as Sprout from the Green Giant ads. Drop Dead Fred was scarier than this animated feature passing as good CGI.

Good CGI is Starship Troopers. Bad CGI is The Hulk. Good action is Speed. Bad action is The Hulk. Challenging foes are the dinosaurs King Kong faced. Bad foes are the gamma ray infected dogs The Hulk faced. Dogs? Dogs?? This scene wasn't even funny accidentally. I couldn't believe what I was witnessing. That movie Congo must now pass its torch-- we finally have animals that look more fake and are even less scary. And that "puny human" scene...let's talk about that. No wait, we'll get to that later.

I should have known the movie was in trouble when I realized the star was some guy nobody ever heard of named Eric Bana. But I gave the film the benefit of the doubt because after all, Christopher Reeve and Mark Hamill were both unknowns when their blockbusters came out (and ironically, they both still are.) But this movie started bad and got worse. The first 10 minutes move at a crappy lightning pace, and the comic book directing style gets old and annoying very quickly. Watching the movie was like sliding down a razor blade nude...and to cool off, landing in an alcohol river.

Nick Nolte plays a (mad) scientist and father of Bruce Banner. Nolte has experimented with his DNA against lab policy, and he is banished. He then goes nuts and does something to his wife that isn't shown, and we don't care. Jennifer Connelly plays Betty Ross, a fellow scientist and colleague of Bruce's. Take a guess if a love affair between them ensues.

To make a long story short, which this movie is firmly against, Bruce gets infected with gamma rays and that causes him to become a big Hulk whenever he gets mad. But that's hardly the problem with this movie. The problem is the fact that Kangaroo Jack looks more real than The Hulk. And how about that "puny human" scene? Oh, God. Bruce has a dream that the Hulk grabs him by the throat and says "PUNY HUMAN." It is easily the worst scene of the film. Even worse than the scene where The Hulk, or as I like to say, Angry Shrek, fights off more animated dogs in a never ending scene.

Another never ending scene is the climax, or as I like to say, Bouncing Banner. The Hulk bounces like a Superball for the last 45 minutes of the movie and it isn't even in a city. It's in a desert. At least a city would make it more exciting, but The Hulk bounces for 45 minutes throughout a non-scenic desert and it wears thin very quickly. Then the military comes and tries to destroy the Hulk, Nick Nolte is captured as well and becomes some strange electro-super monster that isn't even explained. He then fights The Hulk in a final duel and of course, the Hulk wins. After all, we need a sequel. Bruce then ends up in Columbia somewhere speaking Spanish and then says in espanol the famous Bill Bixby quote, "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." And if you don't wish to know the ending of the movie, don't read anything I just wrote.

Sam Elliot is also in the movie, as a General and father of Betty Ross. But he trimmed down his push-broom, so you hardly recognize him. Ang Lee, helloooo. I only like my Sam Elliot in hillbilly mode, thank you very much. And Lou Ferrigno has a "don't blink or you'll miss him" cameo and in that small scene alone, he is ten times more frightening than the actual Hulk. Sure, they gave him a security uniform 4 sizes too small, but he looks like if he punched you, you'd be seeing pink hearts, yellow moons, orange clovers, and green diamonds. At just the sight of him, I felt like such a puny human. God in heaven, what a bad movie.

Zero out of 5.

62 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

The best modern Hulk movie

dasa10822 October 2021

Ang Lee is a great director. And great directors make great movies. In this case we have an extraordinary film that develops characters, adds intensity to the plot, explains everything we see in a satisfactory way, has great actors and dares to use the aesthetics of the comic to make us enjoy the experience. Maybe the villain could have been better but in a sense it is more of an inner journey of the protagonist (he has problems with his father, problems with his girlfriend, problems with a potential father-in-law, problems with a sentimental competitor) but in any case he does not stop have courage. It is a good movie and unfortunately Marvel has not dared to make good cinema with its characters by inviting renowned directors. It is a pity.

13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

A film that will cure insomnia

salestech10 July 2005

Warning: Spoilers

OK, I wanted to like this movie but it failed in doing so. The plot was just too boring. There was at least an hour and a half of useless dialogue in this film which should have been cut out but the only problem was if they cut it out you would be left with about a 40 min movie. The movie started off slow and continued slow for at least an hour, then we got about 15-20 min of pretty interesting action and then back to slow useless dialogue again. I have a 16 year old son that loves Comic Book films. My son enjoyed most of them even Daredevil which got mixed reviews. Well my son fell asleep 30 min into this film which pretty much tells you what the attention level of this film is. "It was not interesting at all" my son said. All he could think about during the film was "When is this going to end". The only part I did enjoy was when The Hulk was throwing tanks around and kicking some military butt, which is the only reason i gave this film a 2/10. The ending was horrible, seems like they ran out of story and just made it up at the last minute to rush this piece of junk out to the theaters. Bottom line is, this movie is not entertaining, it does not keep you excited or on the edge of your seat. If you like movies with lots of dialogue then perhaps this film is for you but I believe that Comic Book films are meant to be entertaining, thrilling, and exciting. This film definitely was not.

16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Sleeper gem that never deserved the hate.

k_hodgman22 January 2022

If you're looking for mindless action, complete with an explosion every 5 minutes like in a Michael Bay movie, this is not for you. The humor is sparse and dry, it's not for comic relief to make you feel better. This is his origin story. It's slower paced so you can understand where he comes from and what drives him.

This Bruce is emotionally-psychologically complex and introspective. This Hulk is the personification of his subconscious; of all his repressed trauma. It's catharsis and acting agent for all of Bruce's pain, anguish, isolation, his hatred in being dominated by Talbot and Ross, and his frustration over a wasted (then thwarted) relationship with Betty. And his agitation over an estranged, obsessive Father, and repeat unwelcome attempts to kindle a Father-Son relationship. His Mother is the ghost of his subconscious mind, and he's haunted by her loss. This loss defines him. He's a dark character, and is given an appropriately dark tone, with a slower pace to match. In the few quiet moments he has to himself, you're given his humanity. He'll try to calm himself down, if he's allowed to. There's glimpses of heroism in him, as when he saves Betty (and a nondescript pilot), but he's no hero. People are only afraid of him here. He's vulnerable and tentative with the one person he cares about, which is rather wholesome lol.

Cinematography wise, it's gorgeous and original. 10/10. Haven't seen anything like it before or since. Many people think the way it's shot is jarring and obnoxious; it flows like a comic book. The CGI was before it's time, it looks better than Mark Ruffalo's. He's a vivid shade of green that will play with some people's depth perception. Some complain this Hulk is "baby faced"...as it's personification of Bruce's 4-year old traumatized mind (and is 15ft tall with more intense sound production than any Hulk after), I don't see that as a con. The dialogue can be quite profound, which some will think cringeworthy for a 'Superhero' (he's not here) movie, but that's your prerogative.

I'm happy this is getting a renaissance of sorts, it deserves it.

16 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

THE BEST VERSION OF THE HULK EVER & IN AN EMOTIONAL,SERIOUS,TRAGIC MARVEL CLASSIC!!!

lukem-527606 October 2019

The BRILLIANT Director "Ang Lee" made a visually stunning, serious & Tragic very Adult Marvel hero film way back in 2003 but it never got the recognition he deserved, it's an underrated CLASSIC.

Eric Bana is an excellent actor & totally fitted the part of troubled scientist "David Banner" he took the role serious & gave a powerful & often emotional performance, to me he is still the best actor we've had to play the role of David Banner & yes he's still better than now "MCU" version, yes i really like Mark Ruffalo but Bana is way better & not as comical & i like Ang Lee's c.g.i version of the Hulk still better, i prefer his look & his darker green colour he holds up & looks fantastic still!!!

Also the cast is excellent, from the great gruff veteran actor "Nick Nolte" who is so good in his evil psychotic role as Bana's crazy father to another old school veteran star Sam Elliott to the beautiful Jennifer Connelly this has a great cast of excellent talent.

The movie plays out like a serious Dramatic Thriller with some fantasy elements, Ang Lee directed this as a serious work of art & it shows, nearly every scene is shot beautifully, he also plays much more on the tragedy of the character & his dark origin story, Bruce Banner is a troubled man who has seen something horrific as a small boy & along with some evil scientific abuse from his psycho father, he becomes a beast.

I have always loved this comic book movie since it first came out & stand by it & defend it as i do with the excellent & underrated Daredevil & The Punisher all early 2000's Marvel films that most people don't seem to like? But i have always loved all 3 films & in my opinion are still the best Marvel before the MCU was properly set-up.

The performance from Eric Bana is excellent & he really dives into the drama & remains my favourite "Banner/Hulk" he's excellent.

Hulk is an excellent serious take on a classic Marvel character by a brilliant masterful Director. Enjoy a real "Adult" superhero film.

19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Skip It!

Oogaphlub16 June 2003

Warning: Spoilers

Possible Spoilers Ahead

Guys this movie is terrible. The trailers are bad. The movie is worse. I saw a screening of it, and it is terrible! The cheesy special effects were bad. The father/son storyline between the Hulk and His Dad has been played over and over in hundreds of different movies. This movie offered nothing fresh, and some really corny one-liners. You will be smarter to put your money towards a more promising looking movie like Terminator 3 that will actually have a story. The Hulk you could tell was a CG effect, and how else could they do it? They did the Predator (from Predator) as a makeup costume and it looked totally realistic. The Hulk here stands out like a sore thumb. A really bad love story, mixed with cheesy subplots, plus bad CG effects, add some corny action=a Really bad movie. Save your money for popcorn and pop for a different movie. Because this movie was just awful.

1/10

16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Surprisingly good

bbc-22 November 2003

I had rather low expectations before seeing Hulk, since the early criticism was pretty harsh and basically the whole mojo around this movie didn't sound very good. However, I was very pleasantly surprised. As many previous reviewers pointed out, Ang Lee has created a marvelous movie/comic book amalgam, which may be too cerebral to most of the viewers, but Hulk has always been pretty complicated character anyway. If the movie had been made as a "Hulk Smash!" bruhaha it would most certainly...well, suck! This way we got excellent Sam Elliot and Jennifer Connely, and very good Nick Nolte and Eric Bana, all capped with absolutely brilliant directing by Ang Lee. If only all the other comic book movies were directed in this way...

145 out of 229 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

I enjoyed it

Zingbot_900023 June 2003

Although I do agree that some of the CGI was bad. I watched the making of the Hulk on the Sci-fi channel last night after seeing the movie and I understand why. Ang Lee acted out the moments in a suit that captured his moves and later had them enhanced with computer graphics. He moved too fast almost like a karate movie. I felt that the Hulk sometimes moved to fast and it probably came from Ang's movements. The CGI animators really only put on the screen what Lee gave them. But that being said the movie still worked and some of the special effects were amazing. I was able to look past it.

Now some are complaining about the setup and the amount of time it takes before you actually see the Hulk (45 minutes). Did you people see Superman? Spiderman? Batman? There was less setup time in this movie then most super hero movies. The setup time here was definitely needed. I watched the tv series but did I know how Banner became the Hulk? I didn't. So that part of this movie was very entertaining to me.

One guy says that he didn't see Hulk save anyone? What were you watching? He saved Jennifer Connolly in the movie. Did you go get popcorn during that part? Worst movie ever made? Come one guy. You don't get out much do you?

The story for this movie was really good. The movie was 2 hour and 15 minutes and it was a fast 2 hour and 15 minutes. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes a super hero movie. Kinda reminded me of King Kong. Another one - how long did it take before King Kong appeared???? There is more to the story then a big green guy going around destroying things. 7 out of 10.

4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Better than I thought.

jake-law1238 May 2014

Based on many reviews, I was not expecting to like this. It honestly worked out in the end. It's got some issues here and there, but it all together it was pretty entertaining. They go the settle route and add drama/scientific talking scenes instead of full blown action scenes all around, it really works out. I mean the action scenes they gave us were pretty enjoyable.

It does well with giving us the back story of Bruce Banner, leading up to his gamma ray exposure, introducing his ex girlfriend, his job, etc. The infamous General jackass, who refuses to listen to reason, is played well by Sam Elliot. His conversations with his daughter are handled pretty well, with his over protection and her dedication to helping Bruce hit each other hard. The scenes with Hulk, (about 3 or 4 extended scenes) are really entertaining. The visuals on him aren't the best, but it's not too noticeable. The editing is very strange, it works with several boxes of views like straight out of a Tarantino film. I don't know if that was trying to signify it as a comic book film or what, but it was kind of goofy.

I didn't care too much for Nick Nolte's role in the film. The father of Bruce who returns after 30 years to see Bruce after his gamma ray exposure, trying to unleash the Hulk in him to take revenge on the military that ruined his research years ago. What I like about Hulk is the idea that only Bruce knows his powers and how to control them. Then it gives us this thing that his father knew all along and tried to control it for him, and he is the one the controls Bruce to use his powers of anger. That was a little weird in my opinion. Nick Nolte plays him okay, but his role is just kind of stupid. In the end, I don't see why this isn't that appreciated. Nothing about it is great, but nothing is really that bad either. It has solid action and solid dialogue in it, some goofy stuff also, but what comic book film doesn't? I think it does its job fine, and in the end it's worth checking out.

7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Flawlessly Awful

treytop9430 June 2003

If there was ever a wrong director for a movie, this is it. He takes this entire movie way too seriously. At least with Spiderman and X-Men the directors knew that when translating an unrealistic comic book to a movie with actual actors you must have some sense of humor (and they did it well). The actors in this movie are forced to deliver their lines with such seriousness in tone and expression that this in itself is almost humorous. This movie badly needs to lighten up.

Right from the start we are thrust full speed into a very slow paced movie. It takes around 45 minutes of tedious, unnecessary dialogs before we even get the change to glimpse the Hulk himself. And it seems that even the scenes with the Hulk are void of any true action. I did not mind the CGI, it's more of the character that bothered me. He is by no means raging, but rather seems quite passionate in many scenes. And the action sequences are merely a repetition of a massive amounts of Army machinery hopelessly shooting everything possible at a running green Gumby.

Jennifer Connelly's motive is never really explained or clear. She loves him, yet she seems to always be the reason he gets captured. The movie's dialog is made up entirely of characters either screaming or whispering, no one seems to understand the beauty of a normally spoken conversation.

The special effects are completely overdone. With the exception of maybe a few frames of this movie, which they probably forgot to cut, every camera shot of people speaking is zoomed into a head shot so close that the actors might as well be sitting in a room talking into a microphone with no scenery around them. Almost every time the scene changes it fades into the next scene using a fade effect you might find built into a consumer camcorder (yes, this is utterly overdone). The few scene changes that lack this effect are graced with flashy, completely pointless computer graphics rapidly flying through the screen.

The limited minutes in this movie that are not occupied by people talking through pages of pointless, dragged-out script are riddled with moving and multiplying camera angles. It usually shows the same picture at 3-5 different camera angles at once, and at some points ventures into displaying multiple scenes on the screen simultaneously. Is this an attempt to make the movie appear more comicbookish? They certainly fail to accomplish that goal. It does, however, become quite irritating and very dizzying to attempt to follow. It reminded me of those annoying pop-up windows you get on some Internet websites, only these windows kept moving.

With so much talking and dialog you would think a movie over two hours in length would include some character development. On the contrary, throughout the entire movie there is not a single character that you will care about. The plot is confusing, overdone and overly complex in many respects, and much longer than it had to be (and should have been).

If you have not seen this movie yet and still feel a need to put in the time, effort and money it requires, wait until it comes out on DVD. This way you could skip to the only two action sequences watch-worthy - the tanks in the dessert and the mutated dogs. To see this movie in a theater you will have to endure many slow, long, un-fulfilling dialogs that will test your ability to stay awake.

21 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

The first superhero movie that had some inner meaning

akashicorca20 August 2020

Ang Lee uses the metaphor of the Hulk to tell the story of a person dealing with anger. For me this was a first. Although, maybe all cinema is a metaphor for inner reality.

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Why'd you do it, Ang Lee?

samba-9791313 October 2023

Ang Lee is a great director who either doesn't like comic book superhero movies or doesn't understand them. In any case-and I know this is going to sound silly-I'm offended when someone takes a well-established character and drastically rewrites their origin story. The Bruce Banner in this movie is troubled and interesting, but he's not THE Bruce Banner.

The acting was OK. I was neither offended nor delighted by any of the performances. If I had to guess, I'd say the reason there was no sequel is that none of the actors were interested enough to do it.

And that brings me to the split screen shenanigans. Totally distracting and pointless. Why exactly did we need to see helicopters from 6 different angles? All I can think of is that someone on the crew who had never played with the split-screen tool snuck into the editing room and instead of cutting the excess shots just pasted them together.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

despite poorly aged CGI this is the most "real" Hulk there is

64ctgst2 July 2022

When i first saw this in the theater (back in 2003) - it wasn't what I wanted it to be. The story seemed slow-ish, Ang Lee's direction was too different/too flashy and I didn't love Eric Bana as Bruce Banner. I've grown to really appreciate Eric Bana's quiet rage. I've always felt - when there's an intelligent character - the less science dialogue, the better. By comparison, the current Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) is loud, friendly, and outgoing but is totally unbelievable as a, "genius" and isn't what Bruce Banner was written to be (quiet, shy, awkward, etc.). Banner was never meant to the the loud-genius that Tony Stark is. All these years later, I find that Eric Bana's Bruce Banner is more true to the written character of Bruce Banner. ...and so is Sam Elliot's General Ross. ...and while I liked William Hurt as Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross in the newer Marvel movies - Sam Elliot looks, sounds and acts exactly as Ross should. His rage almost matches Bruce Banner's! The story of this 2003 is Hulk is both strong and weak at the same time. EXCELLENT repressed rage back story but weak present day story and, "villain" match-up. Jennifer Connelly is quite good as Betty Ross and while I didn't love his featured villain story arc - Nick Nolte gave an excellent performance.

What hurts this movie (when viewing it in the present day) is the CGI. The color green they used for the Hulk was far too bright! Ironically, that's a detail that's true to the comic book - but does not look great on film. That's exactly what they were going for when paired with Ang Lee's comic-book style direction choice - but it doesn't look great when compared the recent muted, "realistic" adaptations of these characters.

This movie would have been better if some (not all) of the plot was re-written and the CGI was better. I DO think Ang Lee's direction has aged well. It's still, "different" - but i've grown to appreciate it more. ...and given time to compare these actors to the more recent portrayals of Bruce Banner (Edward Norton and Mark Ruffalo) - I feel that Bana gave the most accurate, strong performance. It's on the dull side but remember, Bruce Banner isn't Tony Stark.

It's a fun watch - and a better movie than I remembered it. I just can't help feeling that it could have been MUCH better. Again, the color choice and CGI of the Hulk really affect the viewing... as does a weak-ish plot.

5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

No charm, no point.

pisces-622 August 2003

This movie made me miss the old tv-series with Lou Ferrigno as The Hulk, which had zero CGI but lots of good old charm. This movie has lots of CGI, but zero charm. No point going to see this flick. I gave it a 5, but I think I'll have to reconsider and give it a 4.

8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Way, way better than the 2008 reboot

asage193 September 2020

The direction is so good, the acting is best quality, the story is well told. It's a terrific blend of action movie and comic book story. It's full of heart, and depth. The Hulk's story is a good one. It deserves as reverent a telling as, for example, the Batman story, and it gets it here. I really enjoy the old-timey feeling - it's told in contemporary times, but with a retro, 1950s nuclear-age feel. Nick Nolte is wonderful, as always. It might not have been a boon to Eric Bana, because the movie didn't do so well, but he was really quite good in the role. Everybody played it straight, no arch acting, which is due to the Ang Lee's direction. Think about it, the actors in the various key roles have played these roles before (and since), but in this movie, there's no hammy acting - these associations are there, but, as I said, played straight. It's fascinating and wonderful to see. Sam Elliot is the gruff military guy, but is human. Nick Nolte is the loony, but human. Eric Bana is full of quiet strength as Bruce Banner, and wild strength (and freedom) as Hulk but *human*. It's not a formula action hero/superhuman movie at all, it's art. Underrated art.

35 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

I'm sorry MCU Fans: this Hulk Movie takes itself seriously

Heibbi16 September 2022

Warning: Spoilers

The 2003 Hulk Movie is still the best. It's deep and the soundtrack is unbelievebly good and personally i think the CGI still holds up.

If you are a young Gen-Z Marvel Fan who likes to watch TikTok Clips all day and has the attention span of a Goldfish maybe this movie isn't for you. Unfortunately for you this Movie adresses real and plausible conflicts and has boring adult stuff in it, which takes some precious screen time. The Hulk also doesn't twerk or uses the phrase "bruh" in this movie. Unfortunately he can't even say funny one-liners, because he's too busy watching his mom getting murdered.

6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

I got so angry I thought I'd turn into the Hulk!

Belle-Et-La-B13 May 2007

Warning: Spoilers

I admit, I've never read the Hulk comic books but I didn't read Spiderman either and I know I loved those movies (including the third one!). But this one..... Oh, it redefines crap!! I would rather watch Daredevil or the Fantastic Four than sit through this garbage! First off, it's far too long (and I'm one of those people who'd like to see a long accurate Harry Potter) I was almost falling asleep in my chair (even during the 'action' scenes). Second, towards the ending where he keeps having those weird dream sequences, I don't really know how to describe them but I remember I kept saying okay let's move on now!!! And finally, I don't remember how he beat his dad (whatever villain he was) but I'm surprised that he was able to beat him and escape to Mexico???? What the Hell was up with that?? OOOOOOOOOOOhhhhh God!!! I don't wish this movie upon anybody!!!! Go see something better like.... anything else!

22 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed