Rating: 
Summary: A movie that could have been great....
Review: This movie may have been a tad drawn out (i.e. flashback scenes with Bruce Banner/Dad), but it would have at least been bearable without all of the ridiculous split-screens and similar layouts that Ang Lee used in presenting this story. Had it been a one-screen movie throughout I would have given it a 7 or 8 out of 10, but as is I can only give it a 5 (if that) and I have loved Marvel Comics and all its characters for the past 28 years. I thought Marvel was going for realism (as real as a comic can be), and although I know that the Hulk is not the X-Men or Spider-Man, the "realism" seemed to vanish once the Hulk appears in this movie. The split-screens get so ridiculous, it makes you not take the story seriously, much less even able to pay attention with all of the excess flutter of NOTHING being thrown at you by trivial picture boxes and page turns. I applaud Ang Lee for having the guts to use a CGI Hulk, but to not even explain the PURPLE PANTS just makes this thing even more ridiculous. In my opinion, he basically made a real expensive joke ($137 million + $37 million marketing) that hardly paid for itself at the theatres. Thank god for loyal fans who will also pay for the DVD and kids who just love the character of the HULK and will buy the toys or they would have lost their *#S#* on this movie. PLEASE DON'T LET ANG LEE DIRECT ANOTHER MARVEL MOVIE!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Why all the bad reviews?? This movie was excellent!!
Review: I don't understand at all. I am just too confused here. "Hulk" in my opinion was one of the best movies ever. It was just perfect. The plot was very well made, the acting was great, and the way that the film captured all of the rage and emotions of the characters was just what was missing from all these other superhero movies (excpet Batman--that was another great film.) So why all the bad reviews?? I think I have a good idea why...First off--I have heard many people complaining that this movie dragged to much and "The Hulk" was not present enough. OK--If they wanted to make this a high-budget movie with poor acting and just dumb action scenes and an hour and a half of the 2 hour movie was just full of the hulk wrecking havoc on things--the movie would have been the worst movie of the year. What people do not understand about the "Hulk" himself is that Bruce Banner only transforms into the hulk when he becomes enraged beyond his control--which cannot happen every 5 minutes!!! It would make NO sense!!! His emotions go nuts when he can't control them anymore--he cannot just simply choose when he wants to become the hulk--it happens to him weather he likes it or not. So please take another look at this movie and PAY ATTENTION to the plot and story. Another reason this movie got bad reviews--TOO MANY PEOPLE WALKED INTO THIS MOVIE HOPING FOR ANOTHER "SPIDER-MAN"!!!!!!! Give it up already!!! Yes Spider-Man was a hit and a good movie. But the Hulk and Spider-Man are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!! You people need to get your heads out of the gutters and start realizing that just because a superhero movie is made, it doesn't mean it will be the same type as another one. I have heard a lot of people say that Spider-Man had more action and funnier and blah blah blah...--BUT I happen to think that Spider-Man was also very very little-kiddish and light hearted. Yes there was more scenes with the hero in action, but spider-man had control over himself and was out to save the world--where as in "Hulk" (or at least the first one if they choose to make a sequal) doesn't understand what he is and can't really "save the world". The problem with spider-man was that it didn't capture enough character plot--while being a very good movie, at the same time, it was very poorly written and the characters brought nothing emotional or special to the screen (mainly because it was a bunmch of teenie-bopper actors). But the HULK's main purpose was to capture the raw human emotions and the anger and pain present in Bruce's mind. Eric Bana, I thought, played his part to perfection. People need to start to realize that Spider-man was made light hearted and a little humorous so the "family" can have a fun night together watching a movie that is for the "family"--but THE HULK is not exactly a "family movie"--it is not light hearted, or funny, it is very dramatic and intense. So all you Spider-Man obsessors--seek elsewhere if you haven't seen thins movie yet. It is not for you. I personally feel that more superhero movies should just completely ditch the whole light-hearted, playful, family feel that Spider-Man had. People may say "oh but it has a PG-13 rating, so it isn't a complete family film."--BUT what they don't realize is that Spider-Man could have been PG, but they wanted to attract teenagers, hence the PG-13 rating. But movies like The Hulk, Batman, Blade--those superhero movies are mainly targeted torwards people seeking a suphero movie with NO little-kiddish stuff to it and is just pure action, drama, or emotion. "THE HULK" runs for about 2 hours and 10 minutes. It is rated PG-13 for violence/action sequences, breif language, partial nudity, and some disturbing images.
Rating:
Summary: Maxed-out mutant anger...,
Review: Ok, who's left out from Marvel comics that hasnt been filmed yet?
Well, of all the lines of "super heroes" that have paraded through the screens the last decade this has got to be the most entertaining adapration I've seen even if it's riddled with flaws from beginning to end.
Explanation needed here, and I'll start out with the flaws:
The movie commences in an admittingly very slow pace because those not familiar with the Hulk story need to be introduced to it. Fair enough and it's not that dramatic really as this actually results in the whole film being more compact. It could have been much more pacey and faster when it comes to the first 45 minutes or so.
Then as the Hulk finally makes his appearance (and whoa that is some appearance!) other needless mistakes appear as well such as the Hulk being able to make tremendous mile-long leaps as he literraly bounces off mountain tops. The filming however, is so good that even that doesn't annoy as much as it could have.
Being that the Hulk is portrayed as having such abilities he should be practically untrappable but yet he gets trapped on several occasions all for the need to set up mammoth fight sequences and showdowns.
Then you have the army general responsible for containing da Hulk in his army bases who seems unable to learn any lesson even that involves whole neighborhoods being destroyed or half his personell and equipment being squashed as he gets constantly convinced by his daughter (and simoultaneously Hulk's amore) to "give him one more chance". One more chance at what exactly? Well, the Greenman is beyond such niceties as every time he's loose the earth trembles but no, the general is there again always prepared to go soft and let this indestructible creature wreak havoc extraordinaire. But then the positives are actually overwhlemingly dominating the negative aspects of the film.
First of all Lee's (the director) excellent editing with multiple frames and freeze frames that pay hommage to the authentic design by the comic makers.
Then of course the action scenes themselves. Once the film kicks in and the Hulk appears you wish it'd go on for another 3 hours. We're talking about some of the most entertaining, funny, and at the same time 100% convincing action scenes seen on celluloid. Now, that is bizzare in itself because it envolves scenes where the Hulk dismantles tanks and throws them 100s of meters away, chews at missiles and spits them back, or holds onto fighter jets to be almost launched into space, and finally, takes on a squadron of fighter hellicopters and blasts them as if they were annoying lil mosquitoes. Huh? Yes, all this does actually seem incredibly believable and filmed in such frenetic pace (in pure contrast with the film's beggining) that it guarantees some serious jaw-dropping. But there's actually more than just the mindless brute force of the Hulkman that makes this film work. Subtle but hardly unnoticeable political touches are there as well as the Hulk's father (Nick Nolte) tries to instill in him some political conscience with anarchistic overviews. "What about those in uniform and the crimes they've done??" he screams at Hulk in one sequence. "What about the poison of religions" he continues and urges his green creation to keep on the struggle. Nolte incidentally is a very good cast here as he's a glove-fit for this role.
The only character that comes across as being particularly poor is the army general but then again why would anyone with a functioning brain mind that? It is after all an army general and as any person dedicated to destruction and catastrophic "secrets" isn't ferociously smart to begin with the general's IQ makes actually sense. Neither is the Hulk for that matter but this is a different proposition.
He comes across, as, yes, a mindless organic machine set on totally pulverising anything that angers him/it but you can always feel an "agenda" beneath his green skin that you can identify with.
Tremendous action film and adaptation, incredible filming, great camera work, stunning effects are the specialty of the day here.
Makes the Spidermen and Batmen of this world look like kindergarten boys with issues and sets new standards.
The laugh factor in the film is incidentally extremely high even though there aren't more than 1-2 actual funny lines to be heard. That's primarily due to the fact that the Hulk's anger reaches at time hilarious peaks and you cant help it but laugh. Once you see the sequence with the tanks you'll know exactly what I mean...
By all means, DO see this.
Rating:
Summary: It really wasn't that bad.
Review: As a long time comic fan I have sat through some horrible interpretations of my favorite heroes on the big screen. Everyone remember Dolph Lungren as The Punisher?? While watching The Hulk last night on DVD I couldn't help but smile as I saw old Jade Jaws leaping across the desert, hammer throwing tanks and riding fighter jets into the upper atmosphere. Sure, he looked cartoonish at times, but come one people! This is a fifteen foot tall, green, muscle-bound behemoth we're talking about. The battle scenes looked cartoony because they were supposed to look cartoony. In a few scenes, most notably when Betty discovers him outside the cabin, The Hulk looked very realistic. The tenderness and love on his CGI face spoke volumes. What about the plot? It served the action well and the pace really picked up nicely about a third of the way through. Granted, the start of the film was somewhat repetitive and slow but the moment Bruce hulked out the first time we picked up a boatload of steam and just kept right on going. I have heard a lot of people bemoaning the fact that the origin story was changed substantially from the book as well. The only thing I have to say about that is that the origin fit the time well. When The Hulk first debuted The USA was just tied up in a period of history commonly known as The Cold War. There was a genuine fear across the nation that we might be attacked with nuclear weapons and the science fiction of the times utilized that fear to it's advantage. Now we have chemical and biological weapons to worry about instead. Genetic engineering and nano-technology hold greater possibilities of wiping out the human population of the world than nukes ever did. Fear of man's dark side getting access to it's greatest power... That's what The Hulk was about in 1966 and that's what he's about today. I'm not saying that Ang Lee has bested himself over Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but this is a fun popcorn movie that remains true to the spirit of the comic that spawned it. This film is loads of fun while The Jolly Green Giant breaks stuff and was cut beautifuly in a panel style that comic book lovers will really enjoy. If you want to shut down the old cerebellum and just have a fun night on the couch go ahead and give Hulk a spin.
Rating: 
Summary: Cartoon Hulk goes scientifically batty
Review: the Hulk, a simple story in real Marvel Comic life was turned into a long boring science fiction. The maker of this movie obviously never read the comic in his life. For one it's starts off so slow that the kids will be fast asleep or wrecking some other part of the house before he even turns a shade green. It gets so idiotic that I thought I was watching a twilight zone or Star Trek movie
Stay away from this bomb
Rating: 
Summary: Lost interest very fast
Review: While I appreciated Ang Lee's direction and cinematography of the film, I found myself becoming quite bored with the story. There were very few good moments, and they were quickly over-shadowed by the banality of the super-hero genre. Unfortunately, this movie did not offer anything new and spectacular... the best parts of the movie were 1) how high and far The Hulk could jump and 2) the desert landscape and shots in National Parks... and that is why I kept watching. If you want to see a comic-book adaptation, there are much better choices out there.
Rating:
Summary: "Is that my Bruce?"
Review: Every summer we are presented with a big summer blockbuster film. But all too often we are disapointed when the big blockbuster turns out to be simply a big summer bomb. This is one of these unfortunate instances where fame falls short, where a beloved commic book character goes awry.
The heretofore unknown Eric Bana plays(not very convincingly)emotionally scarred Bruce Bannner who was genetically altered by his crazed scientist father, and therefore as a result of his bottled - up rage turns into the incredible hulk. Jennifer Connelly plays bruce's girlfriend, Betty Ross. And Nick Nolte plays his mad father. apart from acting that leaves much to be desired, lifeless and unlikable characters this film is a model example of a good idea gone sour, a potentially fine movie terribly done. You must sit through an hour of boredom-inducing diolouge and interaction between Bruce, Betty and their fathers both equally cold-hearted and insane. Plus relive Bruce's excruciatingly painful childhood memories which only come off as irritating and tedious. Aside from the above stated provocations, I must add another. The Hulk's time on-screen limited, unentertaining and unmoving. The only credit I can possibly give "Hulk" is the long-awaited closing scene. other than that it is a long-long two hours.
Rating:
Summary: An honorable failure
Review: Ang Lee is a great director...let there be no doubt. CROUCHING TIGER, ICE STORM, SENSE & SENSIBILITY. All TRULY outstanding films. So it comes as no surprise that he would try to bring greatness to a genre little familiar with greatness...the movie comic / superhero genre. On many levels, Ang Lee did a great thing. He attempted to REALLY delve into the emotional angst of his characters...to show use in a "believable" manner how Hulk could have come into being. The opening credits for the movie are great, in my opinion, truly setting a mood while giving us a lot of backstory. The cinematography and unusual style of fade-in / fade-out that Lee uses throughout are highly suggestive of a comic come to life. It is a daring movie on many levels and really kept me engaged in the conflicts building up. I was able to enjoy not just the "superhero level" quandries of the characters, but their human problems as well. However, the movie fails Lee (and vice-versa) in two fatal ways. 1) Lee is obviously a good director of experienced performers. Think of Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh in CROUCHING TIGER...probably their best work. Signourney Weaver in ICE STORM. Great. Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet in SENSE...Oscar nominees. Lee must establish a wonderful rapport with his experience actors. In HULK, Nick Nolte is a bit over-the-top but actually quite frightening, and Sam Elliott is at his best. Jennifer Connolly gives a tortured performance. But newcomer Eric Bana is just NOT GOOD. He may look OK for the part, but he brings no emotional heft, no believeability to his role...and that's a REAL problem. If we don't buy Bruce Banner in all his anguish, we have a hard time making an emotional connection with him. (To a lesser degree, the inexperienced Josh Lucas is also miscast and unconvincing.) 2) THE SPECIAL EFFECTS STINK! When I think of the miracle of craft that Gollum is in LORD OF THE RINGS, it is inconceivable to me that the Hulk was allowed to come to an audience looking so totally and completely unconvincing. There are a few nice moments, such as when a sprinkler system is raining water everywhere, and we see it running off of Hulk. But I was AWARE of the thought that went into that shot...I was totally removed from the movie. The worst is when Hulk is prancing around in the desert...oh my God. '50s era monster movies weren't much worse!! It is simply impossible to suspend your disbelief as the film nears its climax, and thus the whole contraption falls apart. Ang Lee will no doubt continue to make outstanding films. He (and we) should just chalk this one up to experience and move on. If you haven't seen this movie, I can't really think of a compelling reason. There are more clearly awful movies out there, true, but there is something sad about watching a movie that COULD have been really special fall so short.
Rating:
Summary: Pretty good, as far as superhero flicks go
Review: Surprisingly, Ang Lee's first film after "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" has the same deliberate pacing and gracefulness that that film did. Most of the comic book films of our era have a set formula: big, explosive action, tongue-in-cheek caricatures, and plainly linear plots. Usually their best assets are the villains - psychopathic killers like Willem Dafoe as Green Goblin and Jack Nicholson as Joker - or the mysteries, like the shady Wolverine in the "X-Men" trilogy. "Hulk" was ripe for divergence, though, and Ang Lee knew it. The Hulk is his own villain, a bizarre menace to himself, his girlfriend and the United States military. He is the manifestation of pure emotion, a metaphor for the real monster within all of us. Of course, this "thematic ore" has been mined dozens of times before, so you'll be wise not to expect much originality here. The cast is great. Eric Bana covers both the American accent and the introverted scientist role of Bruce Banner with ease. Nick Nolte is at his fiery best as Banner's haunted father, and Jennifer Connelly, who doesn't quite impress me in any of her roles, is fine here. Sam Elliot borders on camp in his enraged portrayal of an American general caught between his country and his daughter, but it's all well and good because director Lee mixes things up with fractured visual styles and plenty of CG eye-candy. This "Hulk" isn't flawless; the film is a bit too long and drives in the themes a little more than it should. The climactic battle seems energetic and frenetic, but empty. And the simple plotline gets twisted and tangled more than it can handle. But, considering the cartoonish level to which some of these movies have sunk, "Hulk" keeps the violence to a smart level and lets the characters speak for themselves.
Rating: 
Summary: The Hulk?
Review: There are a lot of things to like and a lot of things to hate so I put them in two different categories. Good: The special effects are okay but of course, they don't make up for dumping Lou Ferrigno. The casting was good even if the TV series casting was better. Some good old memories are brought back when some guy comes out of no where and beat up Bruce Banner. Bad: Ending and Dog scene was bad (why was the Hulk fighting a poodle?). Breaking up the screen with several views was annoying Overall this movie makes up for bad Cartoons, but the TV series is much better.
| 
