Hulk (2003)

Sadly Over-hyped

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

I think the only superhero movie that really dared was "Hulk". They have few but great action scenes! But for comic book fans, it should have more adrenaline and less drama. I really liked the design of this Hulk here, and I would have liked to see more of it during the film, or in a sequel, since the film was mostly devoted to Bruce's past. The idea of edit the movie remembering comics was wonderful!

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 is an embarrassment to one of Marvel's best superheroes and it makes it seem that 'it's not easy being green' especially considering that the film didn't bring much green at the box office. The film is a comic book movie that's WAY too literal in its editing (though it is a nice style in an otherwise sloppily paced movie) and even then the movie is BORING! For a film that has the word HULK in the title, it's very unfortunate that the film's name is totally out of place considering the story is basically a slow-paced and Hulk-lite story.As a fan of the Hulk character, this film didn't really want to focus on its title character; instead it wants to be Bruce Banner, a sooky and whiny insult to the character's alter-ego.For 2003 it's technically impressive and well-done multi-million dollar filmmaking, but today it's a bad egg that has collective nostalgia for some, but others not so much. I'm amongst the not-so-much crowd in that regard.

I should mention that this film was influenced by the comics "The Incredible Hulk" (may, 1962) The film took the main idea of this character from the original comics and focused on the relations between Bruce Banner and his father. It emphasized the complexed relations between Bruce and his father. This movie is relatively slow, and hence it is difficult for people to be attached to it. This is not a sufficient reason for the negative criticism of many regarding this film. Few critics did not like Nik Nolte's performance, but we should remember that this character did not have its significant role in comics at all So that this very character was full modified only in our film and spectators do identify with it easily the interrelationships between Betty and her father were unique and interesting. Moreover, it enabled a comparative examination between the two sets of relationships - Banner and his father and Betty and her father We see that the two fathers acted against their families in spite of the fact that they present their activities as right and proper Betty's father is trying to stop Banner's father from his experiments in his wife and his son it designates him as the "good family person" but in the continuation, we realize his terrible activity when he tries to use the scientist's son as a kind of a weapon, and all that in spite of the fact that he knew that his daughter Betty was his colleague and his ex-girlfriend. Bruce's father made medical experiments in his daughter and her boyfriend...and his wife based upon the belief that it helped them. In fact, both fathers acted from their own interests and not based upon family care.