When i first saw this in the theater (back in 2003) - it wasn't what I wanted it to be. The story seemed slow-ish, Ang Lee's direction was too different/too flashy and I didn't love Eric Bana as Bruce Banner. I've grown to really appreciate Eric Bana's quiet rage. I've always felt - when there's an intelligent character - the less science dialogue, the better. By comparison, the current Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) is loud, friendly, and outgoing but is totally unbelievable as a, "genius" and isn't what Bruce Banner was written to be (quiet, shy, awkward, etc.). Banner was never meant to the the loud-genius that Tony Stark is. All these years later, I find that Eric Bana's Bruce Banner is more true to the written character of Bruce Banner. ...and so is Sam Elliot's General Ross. ...and while I liked William Hurt as Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross in the newer Marvel movies - Sam Elliot looks, sounds and acts exactly as Ross should. His rage almost matches Bruce Banner's! The story of this 2003 is Hulk is both strong and weak at the same time. EXCELLENT repressed rage back story but weak present day story and, "villain" match-up. Jennifer Connelly is quite good as Betty Ross and while I didn't love his featured villain story arc - Nick Nolte gave an excellent performance.
What hurts this movie (when viewing it in the present day) is the CGI. The color green they used for the Hulk was far too bright! Ironically, that's a detail that's true to the comic book - but does not look great on film. That's exactly what they were going for when paired with Ang Lee's comic-book style direction choice - but it doesn't look great when compared the recent muted, "realistic" adaptations of these characters.
This movie would have been better if some (not all) of the plot was re-written and the CGI was better. I DO think Ang Lee's direction has aged well. It's still, "different" - but i've grown to appreciate it more. ...and given time to compare these actors to the more recent portrayals of Bruce Banner (Edward Norton and Mark Ruffalo) - I feel that Bana gave the most accurate, strong performance. It's on the dull side but remember, Bruce Banner isn't Tony Stark.
It's a fun watch - and a better movie than I remembered it. I just can't help feeling that it could have been MUCH better. Again, the color choice and CGI of the Hulk really affect the viewing... as does a weak-ish plot.
What hurts this movie (when viewing it in the present day) is the CGI. The color green they used for the Hulk was far too bright! Ironically, that's a detail that's true to the comic book - but does not look great on film. That's exactly what they were going for when paired with Ang Lee's comic-book style direction choice - but it doesn't look great when compared the recent muted, "realistic" adaptations of these characters.
This movie would have been better if some (not all) of the plot was re-written and the CGI was better. I DO think Ang Lee's direction has aged well. It's still, "different" - but i've grown to appreciate it more. ...and given time to compare these actors to the more recent portrayals of Bruce Banner (Edward Norton and Mark Ruffalo) - I feel that Bana gave the most accurate, strong performance. It's on the dull side but remember, Bruce Banner isn't Tony Stark.
It's a fun watch - and a better movie than I remembered it. I just can't help feeling that it could have been MUCH better. Again, the color choice and CGI of the Hulk really affect the viewing... as does a weak-ish plot.