Search - Hulk [HD DVD] on HD DVD

K. K. (GAMER)
Reviewed on 12/16/2018...

ALERT - You are ordering an HD-DVD item. This format can be played only in HD-DVD players (the discs will NOT play in regular DVD or Blu-Ray players). If you do NOT have an HD-DVD player, you should not order this item.

Brad S. (Snibot) from DALLAS, TX
Reviewed on 2/19/2010...

This movie seems to miss just about everything about The Hulk. Acting was par, except Connelly's portrayal of Betty Ross - props, and probably the only thing worth seeing in this otherwise bland miss of a Marvel movie. Nick Nolte played the hand he was dealt well ... but his part was just plain WRONG!

The liberties taken with The Hulk storyline would have been forgivable, if they had made a CGI of The Hulk that didn't feel like I was watching an old Speed Racer cartoon. They spend WAY too much time on the "Hey Hulk is huge and smashes stuff into oblivion" and not nearly enough of the "Banner is a man savaged by remorse for releasing a monster he can't control." and then lets get the creation story .... um wait what was it again? was it gamma rays or nanotechnology? No I remember now, he was a mutant. Um wait, I know it was the IV drip ... no, wait, that is just confusing ... shame on you writers.

In the Opinion of the Humble...

mljkb | I ain't tellin you, QE CAN | 11/16/2003

(4 out of 5 stars)

"The "Hulk" is a good movie, often times great. The first half of the movie is a long, methodical character study of people under immense emotional torture, especially Bruce Banner (a pitch-perfect Eric Bana) and Betty Ross (Jennifer Connely). It is hinted that they share a dark past filled with absentee fathers and a secret military project that they might now be working on again, 30 years later. This first half or so is the reason why the "Hulk" was not well recieved among viewers and critics. People were expecting either another "Spiderman" or another "X-Men" or its sequel, filled with those films' brimming everyman qualities and light-pacing throughout, or the Hulk of the 70s t.v. show, who aided people when he had and anger spell. But director Ang Lee opted for a more tragic approach, with plenty of Freudinized angst, along the lines of repressed memories manifesting themselves in dreams. And while Lee sometimes overdoes it, his decision ultimately makes "Hulk" far more interesting than the t.v. show whose premise wore thin after a few episodes and a little more intriguing than Marvels past comic-book adaptations . However, action junkies need not fear. Things kick into high gear in the film's fast-paced and action-packed final act as Banner escapes from a military compound where they were hoping to harvest him for their own purposes. He then proceeds to tear up the california desert in a wondrously shot sequence that shows off the ILM's incredibly life-like and belivable Hulk creation and the films' unique style of editing that makes the film feel like a comic-book with skillfully juxtaposed images from various camera shots that describe various scenes that occur simaltaneously in the film.It should be said, though, that "Hulk" is not as artistically accomplished as Director Lee's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" or perhaps other acclaimed films in his catalog. "Hulk" at times suffers from uneven pacing, some mind-numbing psycological probing and timid acting. But overall, "Hulk" stands on its own as a dark, brooding and spectacular comic-book adaption that had the balls to take the "Hulk" to places no one ever expected something like the "Hulk" to go. And while having the guts to do something daring is instantly laudable, "Hulk," even with its flaws, still succeeds surprisingsly well."

What's missing? Why I cannot praise this film.

N. Chodoba | Torrington, CT USA | 02/21/2004

(3 out of 5 stars)

"For fans of the HULK in all of his incarnations, this film cannot be the best thing ever, because of reasons I want to suggest here. I rented this after missing it in the theaters so maybe I am missing the big screen experience, but here are my thoughts after watching the film and the extras. If you havent seen it, then don't read this review. there are some spoilers (I do think fans should see it, but I also was disappointed) so stop here if you do not want the experience ruined for you.Okay, first we have the origin story. What made the Hulk's origin so moving is the desperation of the test with the "gamma bomb" and Bruce Banner saving Rick Jones, and sacrificing himself to the bomb's rays. Here in the film, we have a pseudo-scientific update using "nanomeds" bathed in gamma rays that Bruce already possessed due to his Dr. Frankenstein-like father (Nick Nolte, I will say more about him later). I have problems with that because why complicate the issue by making another prior origin to the event that transforms Bruce into the Hulk? It becomes anti-climactic when Bruce is sacrificing himself in the movie. I may incite arguments from people who loved the film, but really think about it. Why have his transformation be a two step process? Unless the father/son thing was the impetus for the whole film (which it should NOT have been). It is true that Peter David has psychoanalyzed Banner in the comics, and it is entertaining to a degree, but to make Bruce and his hulkness a product of his father's tampering, is to change the origin completely! The tragedy of the Hulk (presented in HULK #1 by JACK KIRBY (shame on the filmmakers for not giving him more credit!) and Stan "the man" Lee) is that it is an accident, that happens to a decent man who is also a genius. No offense to Eric Bana, but the Bruce Banner in the film is basically there to become the hulk. You do not buy into his being a genius. He is too young. My idea of a Banner would have been Kevin Speacy, who could have played a genius, and capture the humanity of the scientist. Bana is not bringing anything to the table, and he admits it in the 2nd disc. The other thing that I noticed was the misuse of Nick Nolte as the father. What could have worked were flashbacks to Bruce's childhood and maybe the intro of the anger issues. But to use the father as the villain is (I'm sorry) stupid. What made spider man such a success is that the origin story is straightforward, the villain intense, and the tragedy inherent. HULK is the opposite. The story is convoluted, the villain nonexistent (the army was always just a 3rd party that hunted the hulk. They do not qualify as "villains". They are just "puny humans". Again, Nick Nolte as the final "showdown villain" makes no sense, even as we have been given his sort of backstory of madness and being locked up for 30 years (?) except maybe to show off some special effects) and the tragedy is less powerful than it could have been because of these things. Why not have a pure villain? (The Leader, for instance, the REAL absorbing man, or even The Abomination) The film would have been SO much better if the origin was relegated to the first 30 minutes (like Parker's in Spider man) and the rest of the film the plight of the monster, but I guess I am just wishing for things here. For a 2 1/2 hour film, the editing did not speed up the process of telling the story at all, even with the split screening.

I want to say something good about the film, and this is because I love comics. It does try very hard to be a serious drama and succeeds in that you do not laugh at all. They gave HULK the big budget treatment, with a hot current director. The music is intense from Danny Elfman, and worthy of praise. It is an emotional film to a degree, but it is so bleak that you feel drained after watching it. I compare it to Spider man, because Sam Raimi treated spider man seriously, but he kept the element of FUN and ADVENTURE that fans loved. Ang Lee is so talented, but he is more interested in telling stories about people and their problems, than telling a straightforward action tale. I don't fault him though, this was a project that probably had hundereds of people poking their noses into it until there was no story left to tell.On the second disc, Gale Anne Hurd (producer of such epics as the terminator series, and the Abyss and forgettable fare like the Relic and Virus.) says that they really "tried to capture the essence of the comics and what comic fans loved about the Hulk." Kudos for trying, but speaking as a long time fan of the comics: "You failed Gale.""

Forget all the bad reviews

Bryan | wyoming, michigan United States | 01/23/2005

(5 out of 5 stars)

"I don't understand why soo many people are giving this movie bad
reviews. I did'nt see at the theater because people had some problem with the animation of the HULK character. I watched with my friend on my home theater and was suprised. Neither one of us knew what everyones problem was. The movie was great. Sound was great. I thought the animation was great also.
I have learned not to listen too much to other peoples reviews, especially the long drawn out ones that are wannabes. This is another movie I will be adding to my collection."