Hulk (2003) - Retrospective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(film)

Having just watched The Avengers, I decided to revisit this gem that I haven't seen in almost a decade.

And upon watching it again...it's a helluva lot better than 2008's The incredible Hulk, at least in my opinion. I felt both the plot and characters were a lot stronger. This was a genuinely story-oriented film whereas Incredible Hulk was just action, action and then some dialogue so that they could lead into more action. I felt the casting was pretty damn good all-around too. Dave Banner was a very memorable villain and I really liked the guy who played Bruce. It might have to do with me empathizing with the characters more in this version.

The only thing that hung me up was...well, I'm not really into cinematography. The way a movie is "shot" has never really stood out to me. But the way this movie was filmed is just bizarre to me. I can't remember ever seeing a movie with so many split screens and random camera angle switches and a few odd fades too. I don't know if it was good or bad - I liked the movie after all. It was just something very unusual for me.

So those are my two cents. What say the good people here?

There's just one word that sums up the Ang Lee film for me...

• ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*

I am not a fan of the way it split the screens either but I think it is much better than the 2008 movie anyway because it had vastly superior action sequences. I liked that Thunderbolt Ross was a Hero Antagonist who was simply against something he did not fully understand instead of a greedy General Ripper.

The one thing I give the 2008 movie is that its designers did a better job with Hulk's physique but that is it. The second film just seemed like a sloppy attempt to make the Hulk fit in with the events of Ironman, Captain America and Thor. The easier solution would have been to say David Banner's research was, by contrived coincidence, similar to the super soldier serum. Maybe he found some Hydra records?

Ehh ... I thought it was bland then and I think it's bland now. I thought the Hulk himself looked better than in The Incredible Hulk, the casting was better (with the exception of Eric Bana) and Hulk's enormous jumps were great to see on screen. I think TIH was the better film though, simply because the film Ang Lee wanted to make didn't really suit the Hulk. TIH was a lot more conventional ... but I thought a conventional superhero film worked a lot better for the Hulk.

Does everyone really dislike Bana Banner that much? No doubt Connelly's Betty and Elliot's Ross were the best performed characters but I never felt dissatisfied with Bana. Well, except maybe when he was crying near the end right before Nolte started to ham it up to the max.

I liked him more than the dude in The Avengers at any rate.

I don't think there was much wrong with any of actor's performance. I blame that entirely on the writers/directors/casting...well I do not know where to lay any kind of blame but even though I would not have changed the actors to me it seems like they were mostly doing what the script called for.

2008 Hulk had an inferior characterization all around, arbitrarily changing behavior, motivation and events. Avengers had Aesop Amnesia and poorly executed Let's You and Him Fight...just like the source material.

I disagree, I thought the Let's You and Him Fight in Avengers made perfect sense, as far as the Hulk goes. Remember, the only time Hulk actually *fought* the other Avengers was when Loki was screwing with their minds.

Anyway, I actually think Bana did a much better job as Banner. Bana actually came off as a deeply repressed individual with a lot of anger bottled up inside; Norton just came off as Ed Norton. Connelly was a better love interest than Tyler, the take on General Ross was awesome, Nolte did a genuinely compelling villain performance, "Hulk vs the Army" was a great set piece. . .

The big flaws of the movie were: 1. Poor pacing 2. Talbot was a cartoon 3. The entire ending sequence.

IMO, the movie would have been immeasurably improved if they simply ended it with a quick scene of General Ross speaking about how "after Talbot royally fucked everything up, the Pentagon decided to let me handle the matter to my best judgement. And this is what I think is best." Show Banner working in a laboratory. . . and then draw back to reveal that the lab is inside a large, heavily armored cell within Gamma Base, combination living quarters, laboratory, and prison. Have General and Betty Ross looking in through the big glass window.

And then, after the credits? David Banner melds out of a wall, next to the bed where Bruce is sleeping. "Oh, they think they can lock you up in a cage now? No, we can't have that. . . you'll understand, son, you'll understand."

The only one I got an impression of being influenced by Loki directly(well indirectly) was Banner because of the radiation...Hulk was mostly what made Avengers viewable for me and I think he was overall better there than in 2008. Most of my Avengers complaints are not Hulk related(some are though but those would too spoilering)

2003 Hulk had some interesting quirks but it was trying to ask some big questions about science and the limitations of humanity, which is why the "Puny Human" line was so intense. Despite the "avocado" coloring the Hulk himself was much more convincing than the 2008 version, who to me always looked like a video game character because of the shiny skin and limited facial expression. On that note I do think they hit a nice middle ground with The Avengers version where he had a much heftier weight lifter look rather than a body builder, I've been going to the weight room a lot in the past year and thus am more observant on how different physiques are formed.

As far as performances each Bruce Banner actor had a different era of the character to work with, which makes a straight up comparison hard. Bana was the guy who was trying to figure out what has happened to him and why he has so much emotional baggage. Norton was the guy who has spent years trying to contain the beast by doing yoga and tai chi, reaching a zen point and thus sometimes came across as overly muted and Spock-like. Ruffalo (who was the most convincing portrayal for me) was a guy who had finally come to terms with who he had become and thus had this very sardonic sense of humor while keeping himself at length from other people.

2008 had better action, better effects, a more cohesive story, a more interesting villain, and mostly better performances.

2003 had better Jennifer Connellys.

I have to agree to disagree. While I wasn't too terribly convinced with ILM's effort in 2003. I also wasn't too impressed with Rhythm And Hues' version in 2008.

I don't know why, but something just looked off on that one too. I get that neither Hulk nor Abomination were meant to be real. But I couldn't get over the feeling that they never looked right.

Hell, in some aspects (Mainly lighting and compositing), I consider the '08 Hulk to be worse than the '03 Hulk.

The 2003 Hulk is probably my least favorite superhero movie (and I've seen Daredevil and Electra). I found it to be poorly paced, boring, and had a Hulk that looked overly a cartoonish and lacked weight.

While the 2008 movie is the weakest of the canon MCU movies, it's a more entertaining movie.

Pacing is one of the most vital things any writer or producer can consider and is often what separates a good movie from a bad movie, regardless of the content. The '03 movie had a lot of brilliant moments but was considered too long and chatty to be entertaining. The '08 movie is considerably less thoughtful but it moves along briskly and the lack of slow parts makes it an easier watch.

I feel that a lot of movies could have been improved greatly by trimming 15 minutes or adding 15 minutes. The two Transformers sequels could have benefited by trimming time, The Last Airbender and Green Lantern needed more time to properly develop the plot and characters.

2003 Hulk: Far better General Ross, a better Betty Ross, a more contrived storyline. I actually didn't mind the Hulk Dogs. Hulk vs. the Army was a lot of fun. Goes overboard with the flashbacks. Talbot was an idiot and a cartoon of a character, but somehow he works. Nolte is a good actor, but his character was a complete mess. He did the best he could out of it.

2008 Hulk: A better Bruce Banner, Abomination worked better than the Kinda-Absorbing Man. Much better final monster battle. General Ross sucked sour balls after the outstanding 2003 version. Betty was pretty, but not that much more than Connelly, and otherwise felt flat. Sam Sterns and Doc Samson feel wasted.

edited 8th Jan '13 5:14:44 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

THIS!

Too much Wangst, not enough smash.

After seeing Captain America 3, this movie continues to be the only one with a great Ross.

Also the only Hulk I like. Age of Ultron did nothing for the character.

And still the best Betty because Betty doesn't exist in the MCU or something.

Also it had cool music.

There is a thread for "unified pre-marvel and dc cinematic universes comic book movies" which I think would be more appropriate.

Oh. I just knew about this thread for obvious reasons and figured I might as well revive it. My bad.