Hulk Buy Hulk from my web shop

(- 2003 -)

Original Title Hulk Director Ang Lee Genre Sci-Fi, Action, Drama, Horror Released 2003-06-17 MPAA Rating Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence, some disturbing images and brief partial nudity. Rated 6.2

Plot Summary

A top secret military project hires prestigious university students to assist create a cell altering machine called the 'gammasphere'. Lead of the group is arrogant Bruce Banner, mainly complimented by compassionate Betty Ross. When the gammasphere goes wrong, Bruce Banner is afflicted with the ability to turn into a mammoth creature soon dubbed 'The Hulk', a manifestation of his own inner demons that he mutates into when it is emotionally triggered. A ruined, Jeckyll and Hyde man he may be, but a ruined man may prove to be a heroic one when a villain emerges, and close...

Images

Actors / Character

Eric Bana as Bruce Banner , Jennifer Connelly as Betty Ross , Sam Elliott as Ross , Josh Lucas as Talbot , Nick Nolte as Father , Paul Kersey as Young David Banner , Cara Buono as Edith Banner , Todd Tesen as Young Ross , Kevin O. Rankin as Harper (as Kevin Rankin) , Celia Weston as Mrs. Krensler , Mike Erwin as Teenage Bruce Banner , Lou Ferrigno as Security Guard , Stan Lee as Security Guard , Regi Davis as Security Guard , Craig Damon as Security Guard

IMDB User Comments

Extremely Visual Spoilers herein. I haven't had this much visual fun in a long time, not perhaps since "Moulin Rouge" and as with that experience I immediately felt that the world of film -- Hollywood film I mean -- would be transformed forever. That's because this is the very first comicbook film to actually create visual energy, to rely on visual storytelling. There have been some pretty intelligent attempts: Altman with "Popeye" (1980), Beatty with "Dick Tracy" (1990), Burton with "Batman" (1989, 92), Raimi with "Darkman" (1990). All interesting failures in different ways Since then, all experiments have been prohibited by meek studio executives, and we've gotten one superhero flashbang after the other, all in the same mold: simple camera philosophy, a story that is there to give excuse for the effects-enhanced petty drama. Projects that are loud and ordinary. The low point for me was "Spider-man," which could have been an amazing cinematic experience because of the swooping and architectural dimensionality. But it was as by- the-numbers as an MGM musical. Meanwhile, studio accountants realized that most income from these does not come the opening weekend event, but through long term views, serialization and marketing. But how to differentiate among the many contenders? Pixar led the way, I think. Though their projects have high values in the ordinary ways, they pay particular attention to advancing the MANNER of visual storytelling. They work with and extend the visual grammar. "Shrek" will fade into the background (already has if you track these numbers) and "Monsters" will sustain. Then we saw more and more attempts to weave the cinematic style into the story: check out how "Mothman"s camera was mothlike. See how despite Ben Afflick, "Daredevil" took some visual, experimental chances with the notion of seeing. See how the second Harry Potter spent some energy improving the architectural awareness of the camera. Big films like this don't do art for for art's sake, but when art makes money, they pay attention. That's why I think Ang Lee was able to get this funded. Previously, he took a similarly visually moribund genre and added some visual originality and a dancing camera. He made money with his leaping tiger and crouching eye. That's why he was able to get back to basics and rethink the medium. Watch how he conveys almost every detail visually. Watch how every episode is a collage. Watch how he works with simultaneity of image, of layered images to correspond to his layered characters and character traits. Watch how he sculpts color. Watch how he moves the camera with as much choreography as the characters. Watch as we bound as the Hunk does. And notice that we are watching instead of listening: absorbing visually rather than working things out mentally. The coolest piece of IMDB trivia is that Ang was himself the Hulk, literally providing all the motions of the character as well as of us the viewer. Along the way we get Jen Connelly in precisely the same position she had in "Mind" and "Labyrinth" -- an attractive character that does know the big picture we as viewers know played by an actress that doesn't know how to act globally within the big picture. She doesn't bother me much. All actors of similarly limited range rely on a single body part. With her it is her upper teeth. Now I've ruined he for you because you will notice how every motion is motivated by that region. Not so with Nick, who is in demand because he combines an ability to broadcast his presence over every element of a scene including the visual conversation with us, a good work ethic and the willingness to risk his soul in a part. This and "Good Thief" are enough by themselves to justify a life as actor. Finally, I need to mention Danny Elfman. Usually, his honks and squeaks either get in the way or seem to be straining at creating energy in the vision. "Planet of the Apes" was his low point, I think. Here, his notion of phrase is perfectly meshed to Ang's cadence. His notion of quirk is absolutely congruent to the close seriousness of the images in the small contrasted to the outrageous fantasy of the images in the large. This almost made my list of required viewing for cineliteracy, and may yet depending on what else appears this year. Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching

CD Label