Customer Reviews

Hulk [VHS]

5 star:		(173)
4 star:		(175)
3 star:		(122)
2 star:		(113)
1 star:		(184)

 

 

The "Hulk" is a good movie, often times great. The first half of the movie is a long, methodical character study of people under immense emotional torture, especially Bruce Banner (a pitch-perfect Eric Bana) and Betty Ross (Jennifer Connely). It is hinted that they share a dark past filled with absentee fathers and a secret military project that they might now be working on again, 30 years later. This first half or so is the reason why the "Hulk" was not well recieved among viewers and critics. People were expecting either another "Spiderman" or another "X-Men" or its sequel, filled with those films' brimming everyman qualities and light-pacing throughout, or the Hulk of the 70s t.v. show, who aided people when he had and anger spell. But director Ang Lee opted for a more tragic approach, with plenty of Freudinized angst, along the lines of repressed memories manifesting themselves in dreams. And while Lee sometimes overdoes it, his decision ultimately makes "Hulk" far more interesting than the t.v. show whose premise wore thin after a few episodes and a little more intriguing than Marvels past comic-book adaptations . However, action junkies need not fear. Things kick into high gear in the film's fast-paced and action-packed final act as Banner escapes from a military compound where they were hoping to harvest him for their own purposes. He then proceeds to tear up the california desert in a wondrously shot sequence that shows off the ILM's incredibly life-like and belivable Hulk creation and the films' unique style of editing that makes the film feel like a comic-book with skillfully juxtaposed images from various camera shots that describe various scenes that occur simaltaneously in the film.

It should be said, though, that "Hulk" is not as artistically accomplished as Director Lee's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" or perhaps other acclaimed films in his catalog. "Hulk" at times suffers from uneven pacing, some mind-numbing psycological probing and timid acting. But overall, "Hulk" stands on its own as a dark, brooding and spectacular comic-book adaption that had the balls to take the "Hulk" to places no one ever expected something like the "Hulk" to go. And while having the guts to do something daring is instantly laudable, "Hulk," even with its flaws, still succeeds surprisingsly well.

Despite the fact that I loved the CBS Television treatment of The Incredible Hulk, even as a child I referred to the show as "watered-down HULK".The Hulk in the comics was described by Stan Lee, (his creator), as: "1000 lbs of unfettered fury, the mightest mortal to ever walk the earth . . .". In the comic books, Hulk could leap 1/4 mile, run 60-80 mph, and easily use a tank as a bat to swat another tank! This is the Hulk I longed to see on the BIG Screen, and this is the Hulk that was presented! In the comics, Hulk's main enemy (at first) was the United States Army. This was also the case in the film. Although the movie was slow moving, I enjoyed it the first time I saw it. Interestingly enough, the more I watch the film, the more I increasingly enjoy it! In the comics, Hulk gets stronger the angrier he gets! In the film, he gets bigger, an interesting choice but still true to the original concept. When I saw the teaser trailer for the Hulk, (at the first showing of Spiderman), I did not even know it was for the Hulk but I instantly associated Eric Bana as Dr. Bruce Banner before the mirror close-up! I thought his performance of Banner was absolutely on point. I did not have any problems with the special-effects at all, I thought they were excellent. I did subtract one star because the ending with his father was a bit muddled. The thing that gets me about some of the criticisms is that Hulk was CGI as opposed to an actor. If you pick up ANY Hulk comic, you can plainly see that Hulk cannot be accurately portrayed without GIANT proportions! I would have been disgusted if the used an actor in green paint!!! The story of the Hulk is a Dr.Jekyl/Mr. Hyde monster tale first, and a misunderstood superhero second.

Since this movie is seven years old and already has plenty of reviews written, meaning it's doubtful this one will ever be seen, I'm going to keep it very short. This movie was simply too smart for today's movie going audience. If stuff isn't blowing up every five minutes they lose interest, fast. It is no wonder to me the new Hulk was so well received compared to this one, because stuff was blowing up all the time. I think the intelligence of the new Hulk parallels today's movie goer, "Hulk Smash!" It's no wonder I haven't been to a theater to see a movie in five years. Last movie I saw in a theater was Peter Jackson's King Kong, and after enduring almost three hours of cell phones ringing, idiot teenagers behind me kicking my chair (almost caused a fist fight, I was very close to "David Smash" at one one point until they got the hint I was serious), and idiots talking through most of the movie, I told myself it would be the last movie I go to in a theater. The rudeness and complete lack of intelligence of today's movie goer knows no bounds, and therefore I have to wait a bit to see movies until they hit video, but well worth the wait to avoid sitting next to a bunch of rude strangers.

Since I don't have a short attention span and I appreciate stuff like character development, a well written script, and an emotional core to my movies, this version of the Hulk delivered in spades. The effects were also fantastic, and I thought the CGI was very convincing, better than the new Hulk with it's synthetic looking CGI, which is impressive considering the new version had six years of technology advances over this version and in my opinion had nothing to show for it. Lastly, as someone who has emotional scars from my own father, and the very troubled upbringing I had with him, this Hulk was a much more emotional experience for me than I am used to in an action/sci fi movie. I applaud what Ang Lee attempted with this version of Hulk, and how he was more interested with using the character as a catalyst for a much fuller, cerebral movie experience. Sadly since the majority of today's movie audience doesn't want to think during a movie, it was lost on many a viewer. If you value the same things I do in a film however, and you haven't seen this version due to the bad reviews, you owe it to yourself to give it a shot.

To begin with, I had very low expectations of "The Hulk." Many of my friends had gone to see it in the theatre and the basic sentiment among most of them is that it was "boring," "too-long", and "confusing." This coming from people who are not simply violent-action movie junkies convinced me to wait until this movie was released on DVD. In a way, I'm glad I did.

As someone who only has a basic knowledge of Hulklore, I can't authentically critique the movie much when it comes to how well it followed the comic books. What I can say is that in comparison to many other well-adapted comic book series (X-Men, Spiderman, and yes...even Daredevil) this one actually stands out when it comes to how well the main character's inner turmoil and past experiences are used to shape his current conflicts with not only himself, but the forces around him. Eric Bana (who cemented his hunk status with his stunning performance in the lackluster Troy) has received a lot of criticism for his lack of energy in portraying Bruce Banner, but when you consider how repressed and guarded the character is about his past and present emotions, it's obvious that Bana's performance is actually quite impressive in it's accuracy.

Another thing that stuck out to me from a characterization viewpoint is how Sam Elliott's character (the main villain) was far from one-dimensional and actually very relatable and humanistic, especially when it came to his relationship with his daughter Betty (an appropriately subdued portrayal by Jennifer Connelly.) In fact, other than the typical villain-type Talbot (Josh Lucas did very well too, by the way), none of the players in this film were overtly or innately evil. Not even Bruce's psychotic father David (Nick Nolte, in my opinion, took this character to a totally new level of moral ambiguity by adding necessary layers that most likely would have been lost if the character were in the hands of a lesser actor.)

All in all, I'd say the Hulk was kind of similar to "Daredevil" in the way that it's cerebral nature can either offend or enamor one to the film's nuances. I for one liked the comic-effect the split screens and overlays supplied, and despite a few awkward scenes the CGI Hulk was astoundingly humanistic in it's movement and especially facial expression.

Don't be discouraged by those who flat-out hated the movie. Keep an open mind, and don't be surprised if you find yourself enjoying the movie as much as I did.

For fans of the HULK in all of his incarnations, this film cannot be the best thing ever, because of reasons I want to suggest here. I rented this after missing it in the theaters so maybe I am missing the big screen experience, but here are my thoughts after watching the film and the extras. If you havent seen it, then don't read this review. there are some spoilers (I do think fans should see it, but I also was disappointed) so stop here if you do not want the experience ruined for you.

Okay, first we have the origin story. What made the Hulk's origin so moving is the desperation of the test with the "gamma bomb" and Bruce Banner saving Rick Jones, and sacrificing himself to the bomb's rays. Here in the film, we have a pseudo-scientific update using "nanomeds" bathed in gamma rays that Bruce already possessed due to his Dr. Frankenstein-like father (Nick Nolte, I will say more about him later). I have problems with that because why complicate the issue by making another prior origin to the event that transforms Bruce into the Hulk? It becomes anti-climactic when Bruce is sacrificing himself in the movie. I may incite arguments from people who loved the film, but really think about it. Why have his transformation be a two step process? Unless the father/son thing was the impetus for the whole film (which it should NOT have been). It is true that Peter David has psychoanalyzed Banner in the comics, and it is entertaining to a degree, but to make Bruce and his hulkness a product of his father's tampering, is to change the origin completely! The tragedy of the Hulk (presented in HULK #1 by JACK KIRBY (shame on the filmmakers for not giving him more credit!) and Stan "the man" Lee) is that it is an accident, that happens to a decent man who is also a genius. No offense to Eric Bana, but the Bruce Banner in the film is basically there to become the hulk. You do not buy into his being a genius. He is too young. My idea of a Banner would have been Kevin Speacy, who could have played a genius, and capture the humanity of the scientist. Bana is not bringing anything to the table, and he admits it in the 2nd disc.

The other thing that I noticed was the misuse of Nick Nolte as the father. What could have worked were flashbacks to Bruce's childhood and maybe the intro of the anger issues. But to use the father as the villain is (I'm sorry) stupid. What made spider man such a success is that the origin story is straightforward, the villain intense, and the tragedy inherent. HULK is the opposite. The story is convoluted, the villain nonexistent (the army was always just a 3rd party that hunted the hulk. They do not qualify as "villains". They are just "puny humans". Again, Nick Nolte as the final "showdown villain" makes no sense, even as we have been given his sort of backstory of madness and being locked up for 30 years (?) except maybe to show off some special effects) and the tragedy is less powerful than it could have been because of these things. Why not have a pure villain? (The Leader, for instance, the REAL absorbing man, or even The Abomination) The film would have been SO much better if the origin was relegated to the first 30 minutes (like Parker's in Spider man) and the rest of the film the plight of the monster, but I guess I am just wishing for things here. For a 2 1/2 hour film, the editing did not speed up the process of telling the story at all, even with the split screening.

I want to say something good about the film, and this is because I love comics. It does try very hard to be a serious drama and succeeds in that you do not laugh at all. They gave HULK the big budget treatment, with a hot current director. The music is intense from Danny Elfman, and worthy of praise. It is an emotional film to a degree, but it is so bleak that you feel drained after watching it. I compare it to Spider man, because Sam Raimi treated spider man seriously, but he kept the element of FUN and ADVENTURE that fans loved. Ang Lee is so talented, but he is more interested in telling stories about people and their problems, than telling a straightforward action tale. I don't fault him though, this was a project that probably had hundereds of people poking their noses into it until there was no story left to tell.

On the second disc, Gale Anne Hurd (producer of such epics as the terminator series, and the Abyss and forgettable fare like the Relic and Virus.) says that they really "tried to capture the essence of the comics and what comic fans loved about the Hulk." Kudos for trying, but speaking as a long time fan of the comics: "You failed Gale."

I don't understand why soo many people are giving this movie bad
reviews. I did'nt see at the theater because people had some problem with the animation of the HULK character. I watched with my friend on my home theater and was suprised. Neither one of us knew what everyones problem was. The movie was great. Sound was great. I thought the animation was great also.
I have learned not to listen too much to other peoples reviews, especially the long drawn out ones that are wannabes. This is another movie I will be adding to my collection.

This film was a widely popular, major blockbuster release. Although, it seems as though it fell a little `flat' with most audiences. Not so much a `superhero' film as it is a psychological study of repression. It is for this reason that I think this is such a fantastic film. In my opinion, Ang Lee has single handedly managed to revolutionize the comic book genera. Don't get me wrong, I think the recent comic films (e.g. Batman Begins, Spiderman 2, and the X-men movies) have all been excellent films with good plots. But this film is different. If people could move past their `preconceptions' about `the Hulk character,' in all probability, this film would have had a more direct appeal to fans of intelligent psychological thrillers, opposed to your usual comic book audience (...even though I readily admit that a level of sophistication can be found in many comics and comic films).

I think the reviews of Ang Lee's film say more about the reviewer than they do the film. If what you're looking for is slim on story and long on whiz-bang visual effects, then perhaps this "Hulk" is not for you. If you're satisfied by more explosion than exposition, I'd suggest any number of other comic book movies.

Ang Lee has been vilified for creating here a smart, tight, thoughtful movie that just so happens to be about a comic book (anti)hero. Which means that much of its built-in audience is going to be surprised by what they get in this film: a multilayered story that is rich with subtext; excellent performances by award-winning actors; clever dialogue and assured pacing.

In other words, for those who love movies, this is a good one.

Far from perfect, this movie does succumb to summer blockbuster visual effects-itis by the end and for my money it degenerates into noisy racket for the lowest common denominator in the multiplex. However, what fun it is to get there.

This is a much smarter movie than it needs to be, probably better suited to those who are more interested in a good story than to those who want some brainless "pow!" with their butter-flavored popcorn. There is no doubt that Hulk smash- Hulk smash expectations, Hulk smash conventions, Hulk smash the low-set bar for comic book adaptations. Hulk smash.

...though not a perfect one. Most of the reviews on this site are completely off base. One person questions the Hulk's ability to "jump as if there's no gravity." That's straight from the comic book! As a longtime reader of the Incredible Hulk comics, I can tell you that this movie has quite a few things right. The best Hulk stories have always been about Banner's inner war with his repressed personality and how it affects the people around him, and this movie showcases a lot of those elements. I don't know if people expected a superhero movie, but Hulk has never been a superhero. He has more in common with Frankenstein and Mr. Hyde than he does with Superman. If you're looking for a superhero flick, check out Spider-man and Superman. If you want to see some excellent sci-fi/horror/fantasy that might inspire discussion beyond, "Wasn't that cool when...," check out the Hulk.

I've been collecting comic books since I was eight years old (I'll stop when I die) so I was interested to hear Ang Lee would direct the Hulk movie. Having now seen the film, though there've been many changes made to the character's history, I feel they did a pretty darn good job capturing his essence.

First major change, Bruce no longer develops the gamma bomb for the military. I guess the writers thought it would be too difficult to build sympathy for a character who spends his days building bigger and better ways to slaughter thousands of people. Now Bruce's metamorphosis is triggered by a combination of experiments performed on him as a child by his scientist father, and a lab accident. While this may sidestep the whole issue of building sympathy for a weapons designer, we lose that overriding, powerful image of the Hulk being born at the heart of a nuclear bomb blast.

In the comics, Bruce's father was even more of a monster than in the movie. It was comics writer Bill Mantlo who first came up with the idea that Bruce Banner was a seriously abused child - we're talking his entire childhood was a living hell of physical/emotional abuse, and watching the same delivered upon his mother. In the movie, though the father experiments upon his son, and eventually, accidentally kills his wife, versus Bruce's comics father - who beat his wife to death, and it was NOT an accident - he's comparatively decent.

Of course, that doesn't make him a nice guy. Nick Nolte was an inspired choice to play the father. Even his good guys are psycho a-holes. Give him a character who's a psycho a-hole to start with and he really goes to town.

Mantlo theorized the Hulk is basically an expression of Multiple Personality Disorder, Bruce Banner's rage over what happened to him as a child - repressed his entire life - finally released into the world as a separate personality, a different body, by gamma radiation. An idea put forth in the movie, that to my knowledge has never been used in the comics - and I find this fascinating - is that Bruce feels a JOY, a release when he becomes the Hulk. On some level, this repressed man delights when he's finally able to lash out at a world that's dealt with him so cruelly.

Yes, this is a dark movie. Bruce Banner is Marvel Comics' Job. Really, given everything he's been through, he should have committed suicide years ago. The only thing he has going for him - and this is a biggie - he has the love of a good woman. This is his lifeline, what keeps him sane, gives him a reason to go on living. And this was communicated well in the movie.

I've been an Eric Bana fan since his amazing performance in Black Hawk Down. Bana was a good choice to play Bruce Banner; he was able to project the sense of Banner's pain. The only gripe I have with Eric as Bruce is that in the scenes where we see him stripped down, this guy does not have the body of a shy, bookish scientist nerd. He has the body of a Delta Force troopie.

Jennifer Connelly brought her customary sensitivity and intelligence to her portrayal of Betty Ross. I'm shocked, though, at how thin she looks throughout the film. It's like she's actually been listening to the idiots who've opined, over the years, her bounteous curves made her look overweight (as if!). Watching this movie, I was struck with the urge to take her out to dinner, not out of a desire to get lucky, just to feed her a decent meal.

I agree with the statement that Sam Elliot was born to play Thunderbolt Ross.

The notion of the Hulk fleeing through the New Mexico desert, being hounded by Thunderbolt Ross, tossing around tanks, etc. had become a cliche' in Marvel Comics before the Sixties were out. I was surprised to see how much power those images, those ideas, had when translated onto the movie screen. During those scenes, I was just sitting there going, "Oh my God."

The CGI Hulk looked great. I was impressed at how believable he seemed.

Really, the only major complaint I have about this movie, that cost it its 5th star, was the frequent use of split-screen technique during many key scenes, especially early on. It's difficult to suspend your disbelief when the director is constantly calling your attention to the fact this is Just a Movie with such flashy techniques. Really, I expected better from Ang Lee.