Hulk (2003) User Reviews

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

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 21 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.

Horribly Misjudged

[Ltufano23 · 7/10 · 11 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.

Interesting attempt

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 26 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.

Ahead of its time - Good back story

[daveogilvie · 7/10 · 21 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.

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

[lukem-52760 · 7/10 · 6 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.

Surprisingly good

[bbc-2 · 2 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...

The best modern Hulk movie

[dasa108 · 7/10 · 22 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.

Why'd you do it, Ang Lee?

[samba-97913 · 4/10 · 13 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.

A Dark Human Drama Masquerading as a Comic Book Film

[rjsf96 · 7/10 · 27 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.

Way, way better than the 2008 reboot

[asage19 · 9/10 · 3 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.

I enjoyed it

[Zingbot_9000 · 7/10 · 23 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.

NOTHING to do with comic-book at all!

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 1/10 · 30 September 2006]

I thought that first Spiderman movie was bad. I thought that Fantastic Four was worse! Well, at least it wasn't an unfathomably long, catatonic snooze-fest. If loaded guns came with the price of admission, I guarantee most of the audience would have used them. They were literally falling asleep, wishing for it to be over. Or for at least SOMETHING, ANYTHING to happen.

How can The Hulk be boring? Ask Ang Lee. He's the one responsible for turning a dark and brooding comic-book into one of the biggest disappointments in a summer of big disappointments. Hell, even the TV series managed to portray Bruce (or David - the network thought Bruce sounded too 'gay') Banner as an isolated loner, who has no real place to call home, better than this.

It totally disrespects the comic-book, on which it was based, and has mangled Hulk mythology to the point where the title and movie character are the only remotely familiar things. Any fan of The Incredible Hulk will know that current story lines are highly intelligent with deep character development. Nothing of that sort is present here. This would have been bearable if the dialogue, or characters, were good and the logic behind their actions intriguing.

Eric Bana brings nothing to the title role. A better casting choice would have been Bruce Campbell, because Bana emotes zilch. Jennifer Connelly is useless. Nick Nolte isn't used enough. Sam Elliot, for once not playing a cowboy, has nothing to do, either.

From a creative point of view, Ang Lee's wretched way of cutting scenes together with split screens, in an effort to mimic the comic-book, is disorientating. It appears that in researching the film, he read a couple of Sixties issues and got inspired. This cheapens and degrades the movie and insults the current style of the comic franchise. Even the photography is dull, with no thought put into composition. In fact, the only time the camera is considered is when the colour green makes a creative appearance.

And why is it so tame? The Hulk - called Mister Angry in the movie! - spins a tank and chucks it across the desert. Anyone inside would have been crushed by the G-Force before the Hulk even let go. But what happens? The guy inside climbs out, coughs and wipes the dust off! What is this? The A-Team? This would never have happened in the comic-book. It gets even worse when Apache helicopters crash into the Grand Canyon without blowing up.

Oh, and since when did the the green guy do that leaping through the air thing? Leave The Hulk alone. He's angry. And you're not going to like him.

Very impressive!

[CGA_Soupdragon · 22 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.

Better than I thought.

[jake-law123 · 7/10 · 8 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.

Interesting and different superhero adaptation

[Pi72 · 7/10 · 25 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!

Incredibly Boring

[dbborroughs · 3/10 · 16 May 2004]

Word on this was mixed, people either loved it or hated it and having watched this twice put me into the loath it group.

Technically this is one of the best looking comic films ever made. My guess is that had the TV show producers had the technology they might have made something that looked like this. The fact that they didn't is a real shame since what they lacked in special effects budget they made up for in the story department. The film makers here had the opposite problem, a special effects budget but no story.

The film has been praised as being deeply thoughtful. My guess is that people confuse "meaningful" silences for meaning. The vast majority of this film comes across as people looking intently not saying anything, granted its a metaphor for the inability to speak, or act, and that the Hulk is the opposite, the man of unrestrained action, or some such garbage, what ever it is its boring and there is no point trying to find deep meaning in it.

The performances are flatter than the comic book. Sam Elliot is one note. Jennifer Connelly is so stiff I thought she had her Oscar give the performance. The worst is Eric Bana who is so stiff, so empty, so un-breathing that all I can do is wonder where in the hell they dug his corpse up? I wouldn't call his performance a performance, unless you think the creations in a wax museum perform. He isn't bad, he isn't good he's just there. I screamed at one point "Will you do something?" only to be rightfully told to shut up, after all inanimate objects don't move. Buildings and statues in the background have more personality than Bana.

Much of the problem I have to lay at the feet of director Ang Lee who seems to have put together a film of discards, he got rid of everything but the silence. What was he thinking? You can't even get lost in the action since the Hulk doesn't even show up until an hour into the movie, and then the score runs counter to any excitement the scenes might generate.

I don't know what these people were thinking.

What I do know is that I hope never to see this movie again.

The Story Could Be Shorter and With More Action Scenes, But Entertains

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 11 November 2003]

Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) is a geneticist working with her colleague and former lover Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) in a laboratory in a military base. One day, he is exposed to gamma rays when protecting a colleague from an accidental operation of Betty. This exposure releases Hulk, a green monster. Bruce becomes aware that he is the fruit of a genetic experience of his crazy father, David Banner (Nick Nolte).

The approach of Ang Lee to the story of Hulk is not bad. However, the screenplay could be shorter and less dramatic, since fans of Hulk certainly like action movies. I myself do not like the technique of using of split screen, maybe with the intention to be similar to a cartoon. In my opinion, the graphics of Hulk make him look like Shrek. Maybe, the use of a very strong actor would be better than the virtual character. But anyway, it entertains, and it is very above the average of similar movies. However, Daredevil, Spiderman and X-Men are better and better. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Hulk"

Please, let there be no sequels

[Agent10 · 1/10 · 26 June 2003]

As if they needed yet another comic book turned into a movie, The Hulk sauntered into theatres. And despite the crummy special effects, the slow and listless dialogue, and a running time that seemed far too long and pretentious for a movie like this, it still opened with a bang. Let's hope it doesn't last. But what actually made this movie so bad? If it wasn't for the overwhelming marketing blitz that subconsciously motivated you to watch this film, then obviously the curiosity of a CGI Hulk intrigued you. Sadly, it would have been better with a guy painted green than a CGI cartoon character. I thought I was watching a Pixar movie, not some live action film. Even that last comment was degrading for Pixar. And of course, the big bad government seemed too cartoonish and overused to make it a believable enemy. Let's face it, this movie was nothing more than some overblown episode of some dull and repetitive anime that happened to include live action elements and wooden acting. Let's hope this movie just tanks, so we won't be tortured with yet an unnecessary sequel.

The Incredible Nothing

[Rebochan · 1/10 · 26 January 2006]

With the one-two punch of the entertaining Bryan Singer-helmed X-Men films and Sam Raimi's brilliant Spider-Man take, it seemed like comic films had finally found their way. It really WAS possible to tell the deep, moving plot line that has entranced comic readers for decades while including the requisite explosions that have also entranced comic readers for decades. Naturally, when I saw the trailer for the Hulk, I was expecting Bruce Banner to get an equally good treatment. I mean, they brought in Ang Lee, meaning they wanted a more serious exploration into the Hulk's multiple personas, right? And the man knows his wire-fu, so the action sequences would be good too, right?

Wrong. The Hulk was one of the most painful theatrical experiences of my lifetime. It even managed to top Wild Wild West and The League of Extraordinary Gentleman for cinematic torture. Of course, that two hour run time of badness can do anyone in. At least those films were short enough to escape from. The Hulk is not only bad, it's long too. The more recent Batman Begins clocked in ten minutes longer than this and and it just zooms by while achieving everything the Hulk fails at. And that had the Memento guy helming it for crying out loud!

Let's get something straight - many in the media and the internet are under the impression that The Hulk is some grand artistic opus overlooked by dumb theater goers due to lack of explosions. They laud it's artistic vision, it's brilliant insight into Banner's head, and a bunch of other artsy crap. These elements ARE NOT IN THIS FILM. The movie I saw was so caught up in convincing the audience it was smart that I was just waiting for the "Oscar Moment" subtitles to pop up. Sadly, it's hoodwinked quite a few people into its vision. People who should know better. Hence why this review exists.

No, this film is a cinematic Seinfeld. This film is about nothing. On top of the title character not even appearing for the first third of the film - we learn absolutely nothing about Bruce Banner to make us care about him. He is a total blank slate. Eric Bana is a fine actor, but his Bruce is someone I never cared about. And there's plenty of angles they could have used to make Bruce intriguing, all of which Marvel Comics has gone in depth over(Grey Hulk anyone?). There's a lot to the Hulk character but Ang Lee never got it - he just liked making pretty pictures and vague plot points that amounted to nothing.

Then there's the conflict with his father. Namely - his creepy dad is trying to do...something. The film doesn't really tell you what. It does use that clever smokescreen of being vague so you supposedly need to analyze to find the plot, but no, deep analysis reveals dad is nothing but a creepy old guy with mutant poodles. At the end of the film, his showdown with Bruce is nothing but a giant metaphor for...nothing.

We get a lot of flashbacks, supposedly to establish conflict. They add nothing to the film except that Bruce's dad is Not A Good Person. We get shots into Bruce's head that are supposed to show an identity crisis. But since we never get anything resembling an identity from Bruce, there's no involvement in his crisis. And naturally, these scenes are way too long and go nowhere. That's not artistic vision - that's someone stumbling around trying to find something more to do with the concept than "Hulk smash!" There's nothing for the Hulk to define himself against - we are given a few vague sources of antagonism. The military sort of plays a role - nothing like a good cliché in our monster movie. But for a film that's supposed to be innovative in its presentation, how come the best they can up with for the military are nothing but tired clichés? It's as though they exist solely so someone can throw tanks at the Hulk.

Oh, sure, there's action sequences, but those are boring too. The only thing the film gets right is that helicopters are not giant tanks of nitroglycerin waiting to go off at the slightest touch. But we do get a thirty minute or so chase sequence through the desert where Hulk jumps...and jumps...and jumps...and winds up in San Francisco so he can...wind up right back where he started! Oh sure, he overturns some tanks and helicopters on the way, but we just had a thirty minute chase sequence go absolutely nowhere but boy did it buffer that artistic runtime.

Folks - do not be fooled. This film is not an unsung classic. It is undeserved of that praise. Bruce Banner's consciousness has been explored in depth in his comics since the 70's, and Ang Lee couldn't even get close to it in three hours. Even the TV series had a better shot at the character and he wasn't even named Bruce in that one. There are plenty of better three hour films out there, and plenty of better comic films out there.

Comic-Book Panels

[Cineanalyst · 8/10 · 13 July 2020]

This is far better than the subsequent and trepid MCU entry, "The Incredible Hulk" (2008), and much other superhero fare, simply for some originality and thought being put into the visuals. Such was quite rare for the emerging genre at the turn of the century. Sure, the CGI is dated now, but it's superior to much of the cartoony leaping of figures in "Daredevil" (2003), "Catwoman" (2004) and even "Spider-Man" (2002). I rather like the brightness of the green here, too, which is such a relief from a lot of the needlessly dark--except to cover up CGI cheats and otherwise lack of interest--texture of many of these movies. More importantly, the camera bounds along with the Hulk. Compare that to the static views of characters supposedly gliding and web-slinging in "Spider-Man." Most impressive, methinks, though, are the transitions between scenes. "Hulk" remains unique to this day in this regard, as director Ang Lee and company experimented by making sequences appear the cinematic equivalent of comic-book panels.

It's also interesting that the story is relatively skeptical of American military might so soon for a blockbuster post 9/11 and that there's relatively less smashing than in some other supes burgers (and this despite the Hulk being larger than some other depictions, more like King Kong), but this one does follow the same plot of science-gone-wrong, simplified Jekyll/Hyde anger issues, listless love interest with Betsy, failed military containment by her father, and final confrontation with another monster that comprises "The Incredible Hulk" and, to a large extent, many other such movies, so that's not what's important. Perhaps, a bit more psychologizing, with repressed memories, daddy issues and dreams is here, but that's about it. The main distinction is stylistic--the recognition that cinema is a unique visual art form that requires visual adaptation, and that's what "Hulk" achieved.

The zooming montages through different scenes, the split-screen separation of others, different views of the same characters simultaneously--it's the best attempt I've seen at creating a cinematic comic book. The camera is quite free, too. Shots appear from various angles, often at the same time and of slightly different times. It's as though the spectator, through the camera's eye, were flipping through a comic book where motion pictures replaced the static drawings. Not only a feat of cinematography and editing, either, this, I'm also impressed with the sound design--and even the score--with accompanying such complicated layering of images.

What went wrong?

[Flagrant-Baronessa · 6/10 · 16 July 2006]

Ang Lee attempted a different approach in his direction in Hulk. The recipe for superhero comic book movie was not followed and for that, it failed in entertaining the mainstream audience. It is more off-beat, more difficult. The music score by Danny Elfman is much heavier than on the average Spider-Man film. The character is not a hero--nor is he a villain. It is a dark story of a pretty dark character. I believe that this is its essentially biggest problem: it is humourless to the core and when featuring a dark character like the Hulk, you need some serious light-hearted comic relief to counter it.

I barely even recalled the plot after having watched Hulk, but I remember that it was paper-thin. It's mostly Eric Bana as Bruce Banner coming to terms with his new green identity and the conflicts that this curse this brings. While Bana acts with more conviction and skill than any of the superhero actors (Tobey Maguire, Brandon Routh, even Christian Bale), he is only ever used for acting that varies between the extremes sad or confused in the film. It is not fair that this fantastically talented man is overshadowed by the alter ego of his character.

The action scenes are also sub-par and rare. When they are attempted, Lee makes them too overblown to emphasize the sheer strength of the Hulk--and we have a green CGI monster in purple pants spiraling up in the sky--a Shrek on steroids. This may sound like the comic relief that was needed, but it isn't funny -- it's mostly bizarre. Some well-placed and traditional action scenes could and should have been included, in my opinion. It's not "selling out" so much as it's balancing the dark Hulk with light entertainment. If you make everything dark, then the character is not going to look dark or stand out.

Still, I prefer Hulk to either of the Spider-Man films any day, probably because it has an interesting approach to it. Just..sometimes a little too difficult. 6/10

Disappointing, considering the director and cast

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 16 September 2011]

I do remember seeing this film on TV once, and other than the visuals, good music and two or three decent performances I didn't think much of it. I was considering a re-watch, but was advised by a very reliable and trust-worthy pen pal not to. But as I have said many times about other movies, I was curious. As I do love the director and think highly of the cast, I did finally give it a chance. And my initial reaction sadly hasn't changed.

I will give credit where it's due. It is an artistically tasteful film, with wonderful cinematography and editing and the effects are great. The score is also memorable and more importantly fits with the movies' tone. And I found Eric Bana very charismatic in his role, and I enjoyed Sam Elliot too.

Jennifer Connelly does okay with what she's got, but I didn't find her character as interesting, in fact she came across as unnecessary and vapid at points. Nick Nolte I like, but he overplays here and it doesn't help that his whole story was on the misconceived side and in a way feels like a different movie altogether.

I mostly liked Lee's direction too. I am very fond of Lee, he is a great director and has a very distinctive style which comes through loud and clear with Hulk, and I love his films. Brokeback Mountain and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon are two of my favourite movies of all time, I love the Ice Storm and Sense and Sensibility is one of the better period drama films I've seen.

Although he does do a decent enough job here despite a tendency to let his style get in the way of telling the story and making us connect to the characters(the only time I have felt this about him), sometimes even impressive, there are reasons why this is my least favourite film so far of his.

First off, I wasn't all that impressed by the action. Not that it was badly edited or choreographed, in fact these scenes are done with efficient style and the choreography doesn't look all that clumsy. It is all to do with tone, most of the action sequences here don't fit all that well with the feel of the overall film, the fight with the poodles is a prime example, which felt rather silly compared to the film's intensity.

The script has some brooding lines from Bana and Elliot, but some lines feel stilted or delivered in a bland fashion. Which brings me to the story, I loved the idea and had no problem with it. It also started off great. Its problems was that the more over-complicated it got, the more leaden the pace got too and the more things were left with little to no explanation, leading to one of the weakest and most disappointing endings I've seen for any comic book movie. Ridiculous is a more ideal way to describe it.

All in all, considering the director, concept and cast involved, Hulk was very disappointing and didn't live to hopeful expectations of improvement on re-watch. 4/10 Bethany Cox

The first superhero movie that had some inner meaning

[akashicorca · 7/10 · 20 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.

Cannot believe the positive reviews...

[ivony · 3/10 · 3 July 2003]

Given my summary, no doubt anyone reading further has a pretty good idea of what I'm about to say. The Hulk sucked. Bad. I mean, Toxic Avenger held my interest far longer than The Hulk ever did. And that's just downright sad.

Now, to be fair, the acting was well done and I have no real issues in that department. Eric Bana played a believable enough Bruce Banner. Nick Nolte is as good as he ever is and is incredibly creepy in his role as Bruce's father. Now, let's get to the storyline. Ok, I have to admit I was disappointed to see some changes, but they weren't anything I couldn't deal with; nor was it enough to truly detract from the movie. In and of itself, the storyline was, well, ok. Not fantastic, not great, not awesome, but ok. I can live with that.

So, if not the acting or storyline, what was so bad about the Hulk? The unbelievably ridiculous excuse for CG, that's what. Toy Story looked more "real" than any moment of CG in The Hulk. It was absolutely pathetic. Basically, the CG reduced The Hulk to nothing but a cartoon on steroids. Based on the trailers, I had a pretty good idea that was going to happen, but I held out hope. Unfortunately, that hope was short-lived as the movie turned out to be exactly what I feared it would. The fight scenes were reminiscent of King Kong being attacked by the airplanes or the end battle in Mortal Kombat 2. Horrible and most of all, super cheesy.

Please, don't waste 8 bucks on this one. At the very least, wait until it hits the dollar theatre and use the other seven for popcorn and soda...it'll be far more worth it. I'm not even giving this one stars.

This movie was uneven but has some elements that make it worth a watch

[kevin_robbins · 7/10 · 27 July 2022]

Hulk (2003) is a movie in my DVD collection that I recently rewatched on Tubi. The storyline follows a scientist with a traumatic childhood that he barely remembers but has nightmares about. When a series of tests go wrong and blow up in his face he is turned into a mean, green fighting machine. It could be those responsible for the experiment going wrong will try to capture and harness him. Meanwhile his past is bound to resurface.

This movie is directed by legend Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) and stars Eric Bana (Troy), Jennifer Connelly (Requiem for a Dream), Sam Elliott (Roadhouse), Josh Lucas (Ford vs Ferrari) and Nick Nolte (48 hrs).

This cast is absolutely awesome and with a better written film could have been a masterpiece. Elliott was a tremendous Ross. Unfortunately, the father son storyline didn't work for me and their face off towards the end to deal with their problems was the worst part of the movie. However, the CGI did work for me and I liked the look of The Hulk. His action scenes were good, especially the fight versus the dogs and Hulk's escape from the base. The ending was just okay and could have been better and relied too much on CGI.

Overall this movie was uneven but has some elements that make it worth a watch. I would score this a 6.5-7/10 and recommend seeing it once.