Hulk (2003) - Retrospective

Hulk (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?

I don't remember that version so well but I did rewatch the 2008 one yesterday and I remembered why I didn't like it so much.

...There are people who liked that god awful movie? :p

Edit: The 2003 movie I mean.

I watched the 2008 movie recently, and it was just as dull as the 2003 movie. Maybe the Hulk is just not an interesting enough character to keep a movie going on his own.

Ang Lee's a great director, but this sort of thing just isn't his forte. Nick Nolte's scenery chewing at least provides some entertainment, but I think Hulk is summed up by the fact you can barely see what is going on in the climactic battle.

I actually really enjoyed the 2008 Hulk. The performances were all great, noticably Tim Roth and Ed Nortan, excluding of course the female lead, and I actually think the story worked out fairly well. It wasn't steller by any means, but I think the characters helped make up for it.

Plus the action was awesome. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

...There are people who liked that god awful movie? :p

Edit: The 2003 movie I mean.

---

Yes. It's an ambitious attempt at a more psychological superhero flick. It's about Jekyll and Hyde really. It's certainly flawed but I liked it.

I guess people wanted less substance and more Iron Man. "I need my heroes to be smug douchebags! or I just can't relate to them!"

Except Iron man did have substance. It may not have really been Psycological, but there was still a lot more to it then smug douchebag. :p

I'll admit I liked Iron Man. I just really disliked The Avengers I guess. Was totally underwhelmed by Loki after his amazing role in Thor and I did't like the new Banner and Tony's attitude grew really tiresome after a while.

Thor was just as awesome at least.

What? I loved Loki in The Avengers, and Stark. :p

However, I will give you banner. I hated the replacement for him in Avengers.

I just felt Loki was a really sympathetic and tragic villain in Thor.

In Avengers he's out to Take Over The World (OF COURSE!) and he kills Coulson in a very underhanded way and then he's finally taken down in a thoroughly humiliating fashion by Hulk.
It robbed him of his likable and admirable traits, making him a more generic villain, and then he's made to look absolutely pathetic in the "climactic fight."

I actually find Loki to be more so out for revenge on Thor then a 'Take over the world' bit. Hey may no longer be sympathetic, but purely as a villain he is on form the entire movie. He's coniving, manipulative, and very clever.

And He's Loki. Yes he killed Coulson in a very underhanded fashion. That's how Loki fights, dirty. Him shanking Coulson was actually one of my favorite moments in the movie.

Also with Loki, by the time the Climactic Fight hit's, thats when the real threat of the movie is in full throttle, the coming armies. Also, Loki had been pretty damn busy up until that point. He'd gotten shot down by Coulson's gun, battled with Thor and Iron Man, and by the time Hulk Showed up he was worn down and beyond frustrated. Plus, Hulk is pretty much established as the most Powerful of the avengers in this movie. It's no surprise a worn down and frustrated Loki, who's not known for fair fights anyway, got his ass kicked. :p

In addition, I don't think they could have continued making Loki sympathetic at all. By Thor's end, he had pretty much lost all Sympathy, and is pretty much ruled by his own pride and arrogance.

He's always been fairly Generic as a villain, but where Loki Shines is how amazingly well he can play that roll.

You like the 2003 Hulk and hate The Avengers, and don't like the Hulk beating up Loki (one of the funniest film moments of recent years)? Whatever floats your boat I guess.

And Mark Ruffalo is great as Banner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

And Mark Ruffalo is great as Banner.

---

This may be the single worst comment ever made in the history of this forum.

Why thank you.