Hulk (2003)

Great Film overall

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Few people actually realized that this is not exactly a superhero action movie. More precisely, he is not superhero. After all, the Hulk has never really been a hero. Always in exile and persecution of enemies.And it was very skillfully shown by Eng Lee. He created what Christopher Nolan later did. As it turned out, the audience was not ready for the drama "about comics." Maybe it was simply not worth shooting this film by Eng Lee, although he portrayed the perfect drama. He showed the Hulk quite the other side.Personally, I am a sincere fan of this film, like comics in general. All as always waited for a passing summer "militancy", which they are feeding us up to now and will do it again. Everything turned out to be too bad ...Eric Bana did everything right, that would not say critics. He showed all the experiences of the hero as it was not in the comics, but as it would be in real life.Jennifer Connelly in my opinion did not show anything, except for some tears. Bad.Nick Nolty stood out most of all. He truly played the villain and father of Bruce Banner. The brightest figure in the film.I appreciate only the game of actors, since this is not an action.I'll put the film as a first-rate drama created by a first-rate director who later created the best drama in general (Brokeback Mountain):

This film has a solid cast and brilliant director. Ang Lee understood first of all that this was a COMIC BOOK film, explaining the cut screen in multiple scenes, as though you were reading a comic. If anyone understands the archetype of anger, they will understand this film. The film also used cutting edge CGI for it's time, to make hulk look as real as possible. In addition, the film explains briefly in the opening credits how David Banner creates the Super cell, by combining specific species genetics, and then his own. Ang Lee includes the attributes that are unique to Hulk: He metamorphs when triggered by emotional stress, he becomes even larger when angrier, and his strength only increases as he becomes enraged. He can run incredibly fast, and leap incredibly far. Yes, he is incredible! His skin is resistant to great stress from bullets, tank rounds, missiles, and even nukes! His skin, if damaged, repairs itself at an alarming rate. His mind does not think clearly when he is angry. Does anyone's? On a side note: So how was Hulk so coherent in Ragnarok? "He has the mind of a five yr old"? Than how the hell did he know how to fly a complex ship that took him to that distant planet?? Lame move Marvel! With these things in mind, I must point out the great disservice marvel has also dealt Hulk in the latest installment of Avengers:Infinity war. The hyper brief battle looked like a video game clip, poorly done. Then, we never see Hulk again in the film, aside from Banner struggling to control him? Since when has Bruce Banner ever been able to control Hulk?! Hulk will never shy from a fight. I understand that Thanos has the infinity stones, but that does not mean he can defeat Hulk in a matter of seconds, that was just insulting to Hulk's character. There is no way that the "power stone", packs more of a whallop than a nuclear blast. Besides, Hulk would have become enraged after that first counter attack from Thanos, and become stronger, and the fight would have continued for some time, until Thanos would eventually be destroyed by Hulk. Granted, Thanos was nearly unstoppable with all the stones, yet Thor was able to lodge his axe in Thanos chest. Which brings up another point. Odin pointed out that Miljonir was not the source of Thor's strength, so why did he need a new axe to suddenly have his power back? Anyhoo, if you have patience and emotional intelligence, you will understand the "angst" this film Hulk, provides. Great film!

This movie proved to be VERY divisive upon release. We heard the now familiar rumblings of 'superhero fatigue,' and talk that the comic book bubble was about to burst - and this was fourteen years ago!Let's be fair - Hulk is not a bad movie. Ang Lee doesn't know how to make a bad movie. Having said that, was he the right guy for this movie? Hmmm... The story comes across more as an art-house type Greek tragedy than a superhero flick, when people really just want to see The Hulk and The Abomination pummelling each other. They did so in the Incredible Hulk, a lame reboot nobody went to see. The action beats, when they do eventually come, are pretty impressive. We see Big Green taking on tanks, helicopters and, er, poodles. The Hulk himself looks really weird now. People were criticising the CGI even then, and of course, time has not improved it. It would be a while before they would get the Hulk right. One thing that I hadn't seen before was the framing of some shots in the style of comic book panels, a technique later borrowed by other comic-book movies (see Kick-Ass). Eventually Marvel realised that The Hulk works better as a supporting character than as a lead, but Hulk remains and underrated curio.

This movie is fun to watch. I like the way when Bruce Banner transform into the hulk. I thought Eric Bana was good as playing Bruce Banner. It sucks that there's no sequel like I want to know if Bruce Banner is still alive in the film. I thought Edwad Norton as Bruce Banner is weird like I don't why I think that. The special feature of this movie remind me of Spider-Man (2002) because they have two disc like one for playing the movie and the other one for special feature. It's still a good film.