Is it me or is this film completely trippy most of the time? I mean apart from Nolte's face, of course.

I actually quite like it because of that.

Marvel rewatch. Absolute tosh.

A giant hulk of absolute rubbish - the film, not Bruce Banner's alter ego.

Ang Lee's pre-Marvel Cinematic Universe effort has an interesting comic book style but a flawed, far too long and increasingly silly story. 3/10.

I remember thinking this was NOT a good movie, but it didn't deserve all the trashing it gets.

I rewatched it recently, and yes, it IS that bad. The CG effects are somewhat lacking, sure, but it's easy to criticize technology. Most people lay the blame on director Ang Lee, and while he does deserve the blame, he's not alone. Eric Bana and Nick Nolte give the cheesiest performances of their careers, and the screenwriters didn't exactly give them a great script to work from either.

Now that there's a decent Hulk flick, I can stop rationalizing and defending this one and accept how truly lacking it was.

i kind of liked it but it's a sprawling mess

When I saw it in the theater I seemed to be the only one who appreciated what Ang Lee attempted to do with the movie. Revisiting it, I still do, but the movie has so many problems it's hard to give it a higher rating. The sequence of the Hulk escaping the military facility, the subsequent chase across the desert, and the quick segment in San Francisco capture the Hulk perfect. Unfortunately the horrible plot with Bruce's dad and the gamma dogs are so bad that they offset the good negatively. Also it takes far too long to get to the Hulk and the other characters and sub plots are just not interesting. This may be the better made film out of the two Hulk movies, but it's story is worse than the subpar reboot.

The flaws of this movie are well known: slow pacing, plasticky CGI... the bad guy the Hulk fights at the end is a CLOUD. But there was one particularly unique and under-appreciated editing device used in this movie that I really loved: the use of comic-book panel layouts to convey action and timing.

A giant hulk of absolute rubbish - the film, not Bruce Banner's alter ego.

Los primeros 20 minutos son aburridos. Toda una tortura.

Cuando por fin nos ponemos en acción nos damos cuenta que no hace falta que intenten vendernos la moto porque hace tiempo dejamos de desearla.

El resto de la pelicula te entretiene porque aceptas que no puede salir nada mejor de ahí. El enemigo físico del protagonista , su padre, es lo peorcito.

Ninguno de los actores, por muy buenos que sean en otros papeles, provoca el más mínimo sentimiento. Te despegas de la pelicula con una facilidad alucinante y que los efectos especiales no sean nada realistas (aunque es imposible, lo sé, un monstruo verde te va a chirriar sí o también) no ayuda.

El final me ha parecido un horror de proporciones bíblicas. Ni climax ni nada. Hay gente que disfruta más con los humoristas de un gala random de Jose Luis Moreno

This one just didn't do it for me. I appreciate that it tries to be different from your typical superhero blockbuster, but it just felt like a mess. There's a lot of good stuff - the editing, the effects - but an equal amount of things that just don't work - the ending, the hulk dogs, etc.. I might look at it differently if I saw it again, but I really have no desire to.

Ang Lee nailed it. Totally.

6.0/10

Ang Lee's Hulk has a solid cast, a good cinematography, impressive visual effects, and remarkable action sequences, but it ultimately disappoints due to a disrupted plot and an inconsistent screenplay. In my opinion it could have been a memorable addition to Marvel Comics' collection of cinematic adaptations, but unfortunately it fell flat in what mattered the most: telling an engaging story to accompany its technical merits.