AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is one of the best movies I have seen. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It is very fast past. See it. It is one of the best movies ever.

Jim Mullen Tate (TheFearmakers) The early days of modern cinema Marvel when there were no constant one-liners ala Tony Starkasm... Yes, Robert Downey Jr. is funny but soon enough, every damn superhero had to share in his constantly glib persona. Even the recent Star Wars movies use it. Lighten up all the lighting up already... Let's get back to basics...HULK, the first big screen solo effort, is underrated and pretty good in several ways, taking forty-two minutes until Eric Bana, as scientist Bruce Banner... with the inevitable rage built-in from birth... turns into what Sam Elliott's tough General calls "The Big Man." Taking so much time for the payoff might seem crazy to some, but even KING KONG waited forty-eight minutes to reveal that titular beast. The reason for this is... Suspense...Thankfully, until the long-drawn climax pitting the military verses a sunny desert leaping Hulk (backed by Danny Elfman's worst score), he's kept mostly in the dark, outside, or within softly-lit interiors: like the laboratory he breaks out of to start the ball rolling. While the side-characters, including ingenue Jennifer Connelly and smarmy villain Josh Lucas, aren't altogether fleshed-out, Bana plays Banner interestingly enough so the transformations matter. Also let it be noted that he and Mark Ruffalo (AVENGERS) share a slight swarthy resemblance to the only human to play the creature: the iconic Lou Ferrigno... Unlike this poorly received blockbuster's poorly received reboot, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, in which brooding and melancholy Edward Norton attempts to lean more towards the TV series that even includes The Lonely Man piano theme, there's a villain-behind-the-villain here, usurping the nefarious Military so not to be one-dimensional, common, and downright predictable...Enter the always-gruff Nick Nolte, raspier than ever as Bruce's mad-scientist father, David. That's right, David Banner... taken from Bill Bixby's television turn since the show's developer, Kenneth Johnson, found the original name's alliteration too corny. And sure, this HULK gets a bit sappy and melodramatic at times, especially during flashbacks. But it doesn't let enough of that same downtime stagnate (albeit overusing initially cool but eventually distracting multi-screens) to make one forget what/who the movie's really about: There's an omnipresent vibe that that Special Something is right around the corner. And it wasn't a joke back then. (cultfilmfreaks.com)

joshuaspalding-52111 This film has a solid cast and brilliant director. Ang Lee understood first of all that this was a COMIC BOOK film, explaining the cut screen in multiple scenes, as though you were reading a comic. If anyone understands the archetype of anger, they will understand this film. The film also used cutting edge CGI for it's time, to make hulk look as real as possible. In addition, the film explains briefly in the opening credits how David Banner creates the Super cell, by combining specific species genetics, and then his own. Ang Lee includes the attributes that are unique to Hulk: He metamorphs when triggered by emotional stress, he becomes even larger when angrier, and his strength only increases as he becomes enraged. He can run incredibly fast, and leap incredibly far. Yes, he is incredible! His skin is resistant to great stress from bullets, tank rounds, missiles, and even nukes! His skin, if damaged, repairs itself at an alarming rate. His mind does not think clearly when he is angry. Does anyone's? On a side note: So how was Hulk so coherent in Ragnarok? "He has the mind of a five yr old"? Than how the hell did he know how to fly a complex ship that took him to that distant planet?? Lame move Marvel! With these things in mind, I must point out the great disservice marvel has also dealt Hulk in the latest installment of Avengers:Infinity war. The hyper brief battle looked like a video game clip, poorly done. Then, we never see Hulk again in the film, aside from Banner struggling to control him? Since when has Bruce Banner ever been able to control Hulk?! Hulk will never shy from a fight. I understand that Thanos has the infinity stones, but that does not mean he can defeat Hulk in a matter of seconds, that was just insulting to Hulk's character. There is no way that the "power stone", packs more of a whallop than a nuclear blast. Besides, Hulk would have become enraged after that first counter attack from Thanos, and become stronger, and the fight would have continued for some time, until Thanos would eventually be destroyed by Hulk. Granted, Thanos was nearly unstoppable with all the stones, yet Thor was able to lodge his axe in Thanos chest. Which brings up another point. Odin pointed out that Miljonir was not the source of Thor's strength, so why did he need a new axe to suddenly have his power back? Anyhoo, if you have patience and emotional intelligence, you will understand the "angst" this film Hulk, provides. Great film!

DCfan I recorded this movie on TV two years ago to watch after my holiday in Spain and after when I came back I watched it. It was an okay film and it does show how Bruce Banner became The Hulk.However, the special effects in this movie were just bad and the acting wasn't even that good compared to the one after it. But warning ahead, in one scene when Hulk turns back into Bruce he is shown to be butt naked. So if you have children watch it with them.