My review: https://youtu.be/XRz8j4S7OYQ

“Hulk” (2003) directed by Ang Lee is a bold attempt to bring the iconic Marvel superhero to the big screen with a fresh and artistic approach. While the film showcases remarkable visual effects and explores psychological depths, it falls short in delivering a truly satisfying and cohesive narrative.



The story follows the life of Dr. Bruce Banner (Eric Bana), a brilliant scientist who, after a lab accident involving gamma radiation, finds himself transforming into a green, rage-filled behemoth known as the Hulk whenever his anger is unleashed. As he grapples with his newfound powers and attempts to uncover the truth behind his past, Banner becomes entangled in a web of government conspiracies and personal struggles.



One of the notable aspects of “Hulk” is its visual ambition. Ang Lee’s vision shines through with his innovative use of split screens, comic book-inspired paneling, and vibrant colors. The film embraces a more introspective and artistic approach to storytelling, attempting to delve into the psychological complexities of the character. The transformation sequences, in particular, showcase impressive CGI and demonstrate the immense power and sheer size of the Hulk.



However, the film’s strength in visual style is hampered by its convoluted and uneven storytelling. The pacing is inconsistent, with the first half of the film focusing heavily on character development and psychological exploration, while the second half shifts to more action-oriented sequences. The balance between the introspective nature of the story and the need for thrilling superhero action feels off, resulting in a disjointed viewing experience.



The performances in “Hulk” are a mixed bag. Eric Bana brings a certain level of intensity to the role of Bruce Banner, effectively portraying the inner conflict and tormented nature of the character. However, the supporting cast, including Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross and Nick Nolte as David Banner, often feel underutilized and their characters lack depth.



The film also suffers from a lack of compelling villains. While Nick Nolte’s portrayal of David Banner initially holds promise, the resolution of his character arc feels rushed and anticlimactic. The antagonists in the film fail to leave a lasting impact, resulting in a sense of missed opportunities to create formidable adversaries for the Hulk.



Despite its flaws, “Hulk” should be acknowledged for attempting to explore the emotional and psychological aspects of the character, going beyond mere superhero action. It raises interesting questions about the nature of power, repressed emotions, and the consequences of scientific experimentation. However, these themes are not fully realized or effectively integrated into the overall narrative, leaving the audience wanting more depth and coherence.



**In conclusion**, “Hulk” (2003) is a visually ambitious take on the iconic superhero that falls short in delivering a satisfying and cohesive story. While it showcases impressive visual effects and explores psychological depths, the film suffers from a disjointed narrative, inconsistent pacing, and underdeveloped supporting characters. Nonetheless, it remains an intriguing attempt to tackle the complexities of the Hulk character, and fans of the Marvel franchise or those curious about unique visual styles may find elements of interest in this adaptation.

Hulk was an overly-long, boring film with far too few action sequences, and those that there were lacked any real punch. Considering that the film was shot this century, the production and acting quality feels like it was a low-budget mid-90's affair - and I was watching a remastered version. In fact it looked akin to the rubbishy B-movie travesties that you'd see on Scy-Fy Channel, although thankfully the acting and direction (apart from the stupid split-screen bits that just looked cheap and tacky) was at least a little bit better, and there was no sped-up footage. Unfortunately, even if they'd cut the length of this film in half, it would still have been too long and boring, but still have been able to have all the same content. [spoiler]Additionally, after they'd unleashed all manner or military firepower on "The Angry Man" (as he was nicknamed in this film) in the desert, and realised that he was totally impervious to bullets and even high-power missiles - all of which served only to make him even more angry, what was the point of subsequently deploying exactly the same arsenal against him when he was in the middle of the city? "T-Bolt", presumably an experienced army general, would surely see that as a totally futile strategy that would just result in the deaths of hundreds of innocents? Surely not acceptable collateral damage? Thankfully, Banner's girlfriend Betty stepped in with the practical, common-sense plan which was to just calm him down instead of aggravating him. Which worked like a dream, even if she did backstab him later to allow his capture.[/spoiler] This was by far the worst Marvel Universe film I have ever seen, and I really wouldn't recommend watching it, despite an impressive desert dash and a couple of half-decent fight scenes in the latter half.

I can only hope that the 2008 'reboot' - The Incredible Hulk - that was actually a Marvel Studios production and an official part of the MCU saga, is a vast improvement on this half-baked cash pit of a film.

Ang Lee helped revolutionize superhero related films forever with Hulk (2003). Rather than just have the hero try to save the world, Lee and James Schamus decided to have Bruce Banner deal with his Freudian psychology, specifically the repressed memories he had thirty years ago about his father.

The acting talents of Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Nick Nolte, Sam Elliott and Josh Lucas are perfect for the five main characters. Bana was able to do intentional wooden acting to hide his character's repressed emotions while Connelly conveyed kindness as her Oscar winning role from A Beautiful Mind (2001).

What I loved about Lee's interpretation is that he did not care about faithfulness. He cared about showing a cerebral kind of superhero film that later got imitated with The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012), Watchmen (2009), Logan (2017), Dawn of Justice (2016) and Suicide Squad (2016).

Ang Lee is one of the best directors to have ever lived and Hulk is one of many films he directed for great proof.

The Green Giant is awakening!
As a little baby, the Offspring Bruce Banner Genmanipulativ is changed. Later, as a young man, he is a scientist himself and is employed with gamma radiation. He wants to try to reach scar tissue and injuries, using the radiations, a healing method. Through an accident with the radiation, banners mutate when he has a tantrum, to a Green Giant: the Hulk!
Eric Bana plays the shy and vulnerable Bruce banner. Although he does not really trust the role, he mastered the insecurity in person, sovereign.
Jennifer Connelly plays Betty Ross. Connelly embodies Betty cool and sober. It is only when she experiences how banners mutate that she shares a helping emotion.
Josh Lucas plays Glen Talbot. Talbot is fully fixated on his career and is a smug Sesselfurzer. He wants to develop the invention of banners for the military and thus create super soldiers. He has every means right for that. Lucas was arranged as a little villain. Unfortunately, he doesn't necessarily come across like that.
The military commander Ross, is portrayed by Sam Elliott. Elliott plays his character cool and iron. He really wants to protect his country. That is why he acts defending and patriotic for his country.
Although Nick Nolte has at least playtime, he plays his role most deeply. The few minutes of presence, is a pleasure of acting.
The visual language of the director Ang Lee is very special. His idea of using certain settings as a split screen is also closer to the Marvel Comics. So that you really also realize the Hulk is a comic book template.
The effects from the year 2003 are good, but you can already notice certain Unperfektheiten.
The animations are still kitschy. Which seems a bit ridiculous, too. The story leaves a lot to miss. On the one part, because Hulk belongs in the MCU, here the humor and sarcasm is very rare to see. The colourful and colourful MCU can not be classified here. The story is portrayed here rather as a fantasy drama. Which then looks rather dull for a comic book template.
In the last third, it is right to the point and it is going to be quite an effect thunderstorm. It's really a pity that you have to wait more or less until the end until the Hulk drops off steam.
Conclusion: A down-to-earth stand of the character hulk of Marvel Comics. Unfortunately, it diminishes the story through seriousness and dramaturgy that happens!

Ang Lee's "Hulk" is nuts. From the comic book panel effect to the insane and possibly chemically-induced performance of Nick Nolte, this seems closest to what a Hulk movie ought to be.

It truly seems as though Bruce Banner's transformations turn him from a normal skin-and-bone human being to an animated monstrosity born into the real world. When he turns Hulk, he looks like an animated freak straight out of a comic book. Call it primitive CGI if you want, but I think it works almost perfectly. It makes the Hulk himself scary. At times it nears "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" levels of "Toontown".

I don't even care about Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly or Sam Elliott. Just give me the scenes with the massive, swollen Hulk leaping across the desert Southwest. His breakout from the military lab, his battle with tanks, his foot race with Army helicopters, it's all just a blast! Not to mention the brutal fight between Hulk and three deformed Nolte-dogs.

The only real drawback for me is an underwhelming ending battle between Hulk and his father, Nolte-thing. It's really hard to see what is happening in this sequence, even on Blu-Ray. The two are fighting in the clouds and underwater, I think. It ends so uneventfully. Maybe a bit to artsy of an attempt to wrap things up.