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.

The Hulk portrayed in The Avengers, and the actor who played him, was by far better than the 2008 or the 2003 movie.

I use to respect you man. :cry:

Seriously, what is wrong with Ruffalo in The Avengers? He's a good actor and does very well in the role.

I really liked the Hulk and Ruffalo in The Avengers. Neo's just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Seriously, what is wrong with Ruffalo in The Avengers? He's a good actor and does very well in the role.

---

Honestly my problems with him was more to do with the writing then the actor himself. :p

He just seemed constantly bitter and snarky, which was quite a contrast to the Banner portrayed in The Incredible Hulk movie. It didn't even feel like the same character anymore.

And that bothered me, because I loved his portrayal in The Incredible Hulk. This Banner I really had no reason to get behind him. I will say him and Stark had some fun bits together though.

Of course that is the problem with the Banner/Hulk character, there's been three films and three different portrayals of him, so the whole thing has come across as somewhat uneven - I imagine Joss Whedon decided to scrap what had gone before and take the 'guy is bitter from having to live with what he is' approach. Plus he's snarky in The Avengers because he's a character in a Joss Whedon script. But as with all of Whedon's tendencies, that won't appeal to everyone.

Just blame Ed Norton and the film studio for getting into an argument in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Of course that is the problem with the Banner/Hulk character, there's been three films and three different portrayals of him, so the whole thing has come across as somewhat uneven - I imagine Joss Whedon decided to scrap what had gone before and take the 'guy is bitter from having to live with what he is' approach. Plus he's snarky in The Avengers because he's a character in a Joss Whedon script. But as with all of Whedon's tendencies, that won't appeal to everyone.

Just blame Ed Norton and the film studio for getting into an argument in the first place.

---

I've read only a little bit on it, and it doesn't really seem like there was an argument, just that they decided Norton wasn't really a good choice for the Roll in the movie. Hell, as far as Norton seems concerned, or his agent for that matter, there was no hard feelings on any part of this.

The only issue that seemed taken was Nortans agent having a problem with the statement marvel released to the public about why banner was Recast. :p

So really, it sounds like the casting director, or maybe Whedon's, fault for the new banner, not Norton's. :p

Worst smurfing part about Banner in The Avengers was how he just flatly says he tried to kill himself then when they're kinda gawking at him he elaborates in one or maybe two sentences.

Overall I get the feeling they were going for dramatic and shocking but they achieved absolute apathy and disinterest. It was a stupid, unnecessary and forgettable little scene that did nothing except drive home how little I cared for Banner in this incarnation.

Also, regardless, Ed Norton is an amazing actor. It's kind of hard to follow up after a guy like that. :p

The second I saw Jennifer Connelly in the 2003 version of Hulk, I knew the melodrama was going to be cranked up to 11.

The Hulk sucked. I saw it on my birthday too. Worst birthday ever.

Don't be Lightning'ing it up in here. This is a good topic.

I will admit, upon some reflection, that Ruffalo (the actor who played Bruce in The Avengers) was probably the most convincing at portraying a nerdy scientist. Norton just played himself and while they tried vaguely to make Bana seem like a dork, it just didn't work.

http://i.imgur.com/jk2GB.png

For obvious reasons.

Now we mustn't forget the '03 Hulk had that Elfman Magic working for it.
Danny Elfman:"The Hulk"(2003)-Main Theme - YouTube

Get out of here, Neo. Mark Ruffalo is the best Bruce Banner.

The first 25 seconds of this gives me chills and I love it :hyper:

"I'm always angry" was the worst smurfing line in that entire movie.

You're digging yourself deeper and deeper here!

To escape this overwhelming wrongness I'd gladdy dig myself a hole so deep that I could hand myself over to Satan to escape it.

Seriously, that was such a god awfully cheesy line.

*shakes fist* Want to slate 'he's adopted' or Agent Coulson while you're at it? :cry:

That line was smurfing funny, and Coulson was arguably the best moment in that movie.

That's a joke, right?

What line are you reffering to? The Fact I think that the adopted line is funny, or that the coulson moment was a great moment in that movie?

I say great moment in that it was very well done. Not that I was happy Coulson got shanked. :p

Coulson was the man. I hear he's getting hsi own movie now or something. He deserves it.

Agent Coulson is the principal in the Ultimate Spiderman cartoon. Don't really like the cartoon but I thought that was amusing. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

He just seemed constantly bitter and snarky, which was quite a contrast to the Banner portrayed in The Incredible Hulk movie. It didn't even feel like the same character anymore.

---

So I've never seen an incarnation of Banner who was quite snarky, but I've never seen one who wasn't bitter or depressed in some way.

I was not impressed with the casting of Eric Bana as Banner (casting as Nemo on Star Trek as well). I agree with an earlier statement that Edward Norton portrayed himself rather than Banner (which I didn't actually hate). Frankly, I agree with the statement most people tend to make about the character of Banner. He doesn't matter. You can cast anyone as him. No one's really paying any attention to him. They just want to see him turn green.

I'm actually more a fan of banner himself then the Hulk. :p

I'm actually teetering more in that direction myself. I didn't care for him much in the old tv series but then I didn't really watch. I've never read the comics either. The recent movies have been the first time I actually started to pay attention to the character of Banner. I've never really been a fan of the Hulk in general. I like the alter-egos though: Grey Hulk, Maestro, War (Hulk), etc.

And now, a bit more detail on why banner from "The Incredible Hulk" is the best one.

This is the only one that I think got it right with Banner, in that it's the only one I didn't want him to turn into Hulk. The whole point of the character is he doesn't want to turn into this raging monster, it's something he either wants to get rid of, or control (Something you see him doing at the end of Incredible Hulk, a great moment completely dropped for Avengers). When he is in those moments of high stress, I want him to be able to keep a level head and stay as banner.

In Avengers? I didn't give two smurfs if he stayed as Banner. I just wanted Hulk to smash. Don't get me wrong, it was great when Hulk smashed in The Inredible Hulk, and you knew he was going to change, but there was still that part of me that could sympathize with him and wished him to succeed in his en-devours. A Banner you want to turn into Hulk is a failure as Banner.

In the end, even if it was Ed Norton being cast to play himself (And I disagree that he didn't come off as a smart guy. He did, I just don't think he was at all stereotypical about it. ;P) he still has the advantage of being far more sympathetic then Ruffalo.

I find Ruffalo a lot more sympathetic than Norton to be honest, Norton is a good actor but always has a bit of a 'smarm' factor about him. He's the sort of person who works best as a smartarse character. Though I say that and he actually worked well in Moonrise Kingdom doing the complete opposite role. Regardless I think Ruffalo had the best balance of being a little dorky with the intimidating factor just beneath the surface.