Hulk

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hulk is a very surprising film. When I first saw it when I was like nine or ten I was confused, shocked and somewhat disappointed. My expectations at the time had not been met. What I had been expecting and hoping was just endless scenes of the hulk smashing sh#t up. What I got was an art film. At the time I didn't understand or care about any of the split screens, dream sequences, etc, I was just waiting for the hulk to show up and destroy stuff.(The hulk dosen't show up till about 40 minutes into the movie, by the way.) I eventually began to get restless because it is a very slow movie and when it was over I felt very disappointed.

A few years later I bought the DVD to give it another try, and I was very surprised with how good it actually was, now that I had gotten older and could appreciate the style, acting and pretty much everything else. The acting is quite good in the film, especially Nick Nolte, who almost steals the show as Bruce Banner's father, David Banner. Eric Bana is decent as the hulk, but I prefer Mark Ruffalo as the hulk in the avengers. Unlike other movies based on comic books, Hulk actually looks like a comic book, due to the split screens. This works most of the time,as it gives the film a unique look thats different from other comic book movies.

Now to the much criticised CGI, which for me is a mixed bag. The close ups of the hulk work, because his facial expressions are well done and you can actually feel sympathy for him. However the long shots of him, especially in the desert scenes, look a bit cheesy but definitely not as bad as some critics have been saying. Apart from that the visual effects are top notch.

Overall, Hulk is a refreshing change from standard and bland superhero movies. It takes its time setting up the plot and characters, which works because you have almost fully fleshed out characters and not cardboard cut outs. The repressed memories and psychology of the hulk is much more interesting than the standard heroics of superman or captain America. So to sum it up, I wouldn't recommend this movie to young kids because there are a number of intense scenes and it is a fairly long and slow movie, so those with short attention spans won't be well rewarded. But for those who are prepared to accept that it is more an art film than an action film then you will be well rewarded.

The film isn't perfect, but every time I watch it on DVD it grows on me and I find myself wishing sometimes that more action blockbusters were like this, but then if they were I doubt they would be blockbusters.