DVD reviews of "Hulk"

[Kinyo]

Heres a good review for the The Hulk at http://www.hometheaterinfo.com/hulk.htm

Enjoy!

[Adam Tyner]

I believe you mean http://www.hometheaterinfo.com/hulk.htm ;)

DVD Talk's review can be found at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=7919

[Kinyo]

sorry

[Adam Tyner]

Not a problem. :)

[Iron_Giant]

DVDtalk's review was much better.

I was going to buy it with or without either review.

[JM1]

I picked this up at the weekend, early UK release.

I had not seen it at the cinema.

You know why I bought it?

Because it was touted as a big summer blockbuster, but it was coolly received by critics and the public alike. Deemed a failure, in fact.

Which in truth usually means it is not a big, dumb action movie with no plot to speak of.

It's the same syndrome as the first Mission Impossible movie. On the face of it, it's a big, dumb, summer blockbuster - yet it's directed by Brian De Palma. Did anyone seriously not expect him to mix it up a little and do something different?

So, yer standard summer moviegoer sits down, bucket of popcorn in hand and waits to be entertained. Then about 20 mins in, he wonders where all the explosions, car chases and witty throwaway one liners are...then the realisation dawns on him that there is actually a plot and a story to follow.

Damn - did'nt expect that, he says. Now I have lost the plot. Too late now.

So away he goes and tells everyone it was rubbish, and impossible to follow.

And some critics were guilty of that too.

Same with Hulk - I mean it's directed by Ang Lee, fer christs sake.

And I thought it was very good indeed. Well acted, great effects, superb comic book style editing, and an interesting take on the legend.

I sincerely hope that in years to come, despite the initial perception of movies such as this as failures, they will be recognised in years to come as the masterpieces they are.

I somehow doubt that Harry Potter will...

[starving dvder]

I am a fan of the TV series and the cgi hulk just looks too fake for my liking. Unless one of my buddies has this to rent, I am not going to bother with this one.

[JACOB]

you are missing out on a great movie.

JACOB

[Josh Z]

I wish I could agree. I really wanted to give this movie the benefit of the doubt, but I can't for the life of me understand what Ang Lee thought he was going to accomplish with the material.

I give him credit for trying to do something different with the comic book movie genre, but the film is shockingly dull and the CGI effects are going to be considered laughably unwatchable in less than 5 years' time.

[JACOB]

I doubt that. I think it will be a underrated classic in the years to come.. you should give it another chance.. you might like it.

JACOB

[ckolchak]

I give him credit for trying to do something different with the comic book movie genre, but the film is shockingly dull and the CGI effects are going to be considered laughably unwatchable in less than 5 years' time.

i had a much different reaction in the theater.
thought the effects were very impressvive in all but a couple instances.
most of the group i saw it with though hated it.

i think if you have grown up with parent (especially father) issues, or have difficulty opening yourself up to intimate, mature relationships, the film will have more resonance.
i've given up thinking that in time away from the hype, more people will begin to appreciate it.
i do think that will happen, but some of the performances and plot points are so low key, that i can easily understand many not digging it.

one of the most powerful scenes i've seen in a while occurs in this film.
when Banner is surround by troops on the street in SF and he has this exchange with Betty

"you found me"
"you weren't that hard to find"
"yes i was"

the first two lines are uttered in the trailer and it looks to be nothing more than a throway joke.
Banners reply completely took me off guard and sums up a large theme of the film.
made more of an impact on me than any of the action sequences.

[PJsig08]

Originally posted by Josh Z
I wish I could agree. I really wanted to give this movie the benefit of the doubt, but I can't for the life of me understand what Ang Lee thought he was going to accomplish with the material.

I give him credit for trying to do something different with the comic book movie genre, but the film is shockingly dull and the CGI effects are going to be considered laughably unwatchable in less than 5 years' time. Yup....definitely started off VERY cool....but damn was I bored and wanting to get the HELL out of the theater around the end of it. Maybe it'll be better on DVD and with the fast-forward button.

[Kumar J]

Liked it very much.Will get this DVD.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by JACOB
you are missing out on a great movie.

JACOB
rotfl

[Adam Tyner]

Please try to have your replies contain more substance than a single smiley graphic. Further replies along those lines will be removed. Also, let's hold off on the "this is a good movie!" "no, it's not" back-and-forth -- I'd prefer comments to be more substantial than that.

[MasterofDVD]

I liked the effects but I thought far less of the story and the comic book style it was shot it. I like comic book movies but I was surprised by the way in which the made the film look like a comic book.

I want this movie because of the effects but if I buy it I probably won't ever watch the last 30 minutes of the film after the initial viewing.

[John Spartan]

The cinematography in this film is incredible. I don't mean the comic panel stuff (isn't that editing anyway?) though that was brilliant as well, but the actual shots. It is jaw-droppingly beautiful while looking nothing like what you would see in a typical handsome blockbuster.

My god, in the first half of the main action sequence there is just amazing shot after amazing shot. First, they take a simple deserted town and somehow make it look striking, enormous and mysterious. Then they shoot a missile attack in a way that I have never seen before When they bomb Bruce's old house, the way the smoke trail billows out just before the house explodes is incredibly gorgeous take on the usual explosion stuff.. The way they shoot the hulk jumping around is again just perfectly executed.

It's worth seeing the film just for the visuals. Story-wise, I thought it was quite dramatic and intense, but I suspect ckolchak's comments about who it would really resonate with are on target.

Also, the ending is what truly hurt the film in my opinion. If they had fixed it, most viewers would've likely had a better reaction. It probably cost a lot yet it doesn't deliver what it was supposed to. ie, the release of all the building tension in an exhausting, pull-out-all-the-stops battle royale. It seems half-hearted and leaves the viewer unsatisfied.

[tinlunlau]

i had mixed feelings about this movie since watching it tonight on DVD. i appreciated all the drama but then, there was too much drama, i liked the comic panel effect, then there was too much of that. my eyes were going around the screen trying to keep up with it, thus, keeping me dizzy and asking for sleep.

i'll give it a second chance after a 2nd viewing.

now...what i hated was the inclusion of those Sunny D ad's. they had no place in this DVD!

[RDYoung]

I saw this in the theater. Thought the effects were good, as well as the style. I did think it was dull, though. I understood why it had to be that way, but realistically, I had 10 year old kids agreeing with me. Plus, I wasn't all impressed with the father arc that the movie took, and many folks I know didn't really understand the final battle.

Also. Too...Many...Ringing...Phones...!


Anyway. I liked it, but only so I could watch the hulk jump around.

[dxwwf3]

Yes I also didn't really understand the ending either. But I still really enjoyed the film. This is a straight forward drama with some action scenes thrown. Usually movies like this are the other way around. I liked the film for alot of reasons but one of the biggest reasons was that it dared to be different. I think I'll enjoy it more with more watches (even though I'll probably never fully understand the last 15-20 minutes)

[ckolchak]

on first viewing, i took the ending to be in the same kind of vein as the phantasmagorical ending of 2001.
the resolution of the conflict is illustrated in an expressionistic rather than a strictly objective way (to butcher some art metaphors).

in other words, it seemed to me that it was meant to be somewhat of a non-objective 'head trip', because the true resolution of the conflict (in the son) is an emotional, internal one.

who knows? maybe a second viewing will make me dismiss the film like most other people have done as a boring mis-fire.

[Cosmic Bus]

Got it a few days ago. The movie was even better than I remembered it being -- I'd rated it an A- originally and would probably give it a solid A now. In terms of sharpness and detail, Hulk himself looks better on DVD than in the theater and the murky ending sequence is much clearer, although still weird, at home.

I stand by my claim that this is the second best comic book movie ever made, right behind Batman. Good storyline, character development and actions scenes, brilliant editing and cinematography, and Danny Elfman's score is superb. Simply put, Hulk is an immensely enjoyable flick for the non-ADD crowd.

Supplements don't usually interest me, but the ones on here are actually pretty nice. I especially liked the featurette on the dog fight: the looks on the production team's faces during Ang's initial pitch are priceless, and seeing him get all worked up during the mo-cap sessions is pretty awesome. :) I'm curious to listen to the commentary, as well.

[mee2]

The Hulk was a great movie, but for some reason i think it would have been better received by the general moviegoing audience if Michael Bay or Bruckheimer had directed it, and if the closing credits were sung by Aerosmith.....

[theman1971]

I'm kinda split on Hulk. I thought it was kinda dragging on when seeing it in the theater. But yet at the same time, I like the story of a man struggling to find himself, his past, his future, and most of all, someone to love.

I thought Bana did a good job at portraying a troubled man. I also thought the CGI was pretty good at giving Hulk the facial expressions of a troubled Dr. Banner.

Thong

[fumanstan]

I was a little dissapointed with the film in theaters, but didn't hate it. Just picked it up on DVD... i think this film will be one of those that i'll enjoy more and more when i watch it on DVD, just like Daredevil for me.

[Iron_Giant]

Watched Hulk at my lunch break:
1. Video - a little grainy in some of the indoors sceens, but other than that it look very good, not great
2. Sound - the rear speakers had a good work out when the hulk is trashing stuff. Things were flying past my head left and right. Some of the clearest (funnest) surround sound I have ever heard.
3. Extras - No time to check them out...

[edytwinky]

Any other reviews on the extras on the DVD?

[Willh51]

Hulk was okay, I really liked it a first but after a while, the fades and picture changes got old and it dragged a little bit. I probably would have liked it more if it weren't for the weird ending, not the ending ending, but the thirty or so minutes before it. I give it a B- and I'm getting it from the Kraft deal so I can't lose.

[Chris Blount]

I thought Hulk was a pleasant surprise. Not the usual
"comic book to movie" fare. The effects were definitely great. I do agree however that the movie ran long.

[PalmerJoss]

Excellent dvd IMO. I don't know why people are complaining about the movie itself--it's not Spiderman by a longshot. The Hulk doesn't save people or do much of anything that is heroic, he is a big, brooding, angry person/creature and I feel that Ang Lee did an excellent job of putting that on screen. What did people expect? The Hulk to become a superhero? I was glad that he wasn't turned into a typical superhero like Spiderman was. If there is a sequel I will look forward to that.

[ckolchak]

Liked the film even more seeing it a second time on this disc.
disc itself looked and sounded great- a very solid effort.
surrounds were pretty active,
on the whole, i found the transfer more satisfying than Spidermans last yr (although that film did look very close to how i remember it in the theater).
as far as the extras, the chopped down segments from some tv special are OK, i did like the editing featurette, although its also pretty light-
the only extra that i found sucked, sucked in a huge hulk-sized way:
the artist interpretations of key scenes and storyboards.
whoever produced this should go back to the mail room.
we are treated to four very different artists interpretations (in sequential comic panels) of a scene from the movie. while the actual scene plays out in the corner of the screen.
problem is we don't actually get to appreciate the artwork as they feel they have to zoom and swirl into and out of each panel, and shake the camera to "simulate" more action- this is the most brain dead, retarded thing i've ever seen.
it renders the art here completely unwatchable.
pathetic.

other than that, absolutely loved the film this time, seeing it alone and not having to justify anything afterwards to a group of friends who didn't like it.
i thought it played much stronger this time.
this film skirts brillance time and time again-
the opening scenes are a perfect homage to silver age comic book exposistion in both style and syntax.
its broad, its theatrical (as is Noltes performance later in the film) for a life time fan of comics, especially silver age stories, the film often plays like a love letter to that art form.
on second viewing the ending seemed much more straight forward- i'm suprised people are having so much trouble with this-
however the set-up contains the films hugest contrivance and weakest part-
Banner would have been well doped up at the least, and there was no reason that Ross would allow Notles character to even try to provoke his son.
the first second he raised his voice or got in his face, they would have turned on the juice-its a huge contrivance that they didn't.
thats the only part that weakens the film for me.
other than that, its a fine piece of art-one of the most affectionate and thoughtful tributes to the art form that i've ever seen.

[Sierra Disc]

If anyone cares, here's a review I wrote for the paper I work at:

Ang Lee's "Hulk" no smash

Ang Lee’s “Hulk” is like a bodybuilder sitting on stage reading you excerpts from the works of Sigmund Freud.
It’s an interesting spectacle, but in the end you wonder if there’s a point to it.
The director of the poetic “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” seemed an inspired choice to helm the latest Marvel Comics superhero movie, about hapless scientist Bruce Banner and his unwanted transformation into a raging, radiation-mutated green beast.
The combination could’ve yielded greatness — a movie that, like “Crouching Tiger,” combined mythic grandeur with pulse-pounding action and adventure.
What we got, however, is a muddled, overblown mess.
Totally mismarketed as a carefree kid’s movie, complete with Hulk toys, squirt guns, video games and “Got Milk?” ads everywhere, Ang Lee’s “Hulk” is actually a somber, talky drama inflated with its own pretentions.
Bruce Banner (Australian Eric Bana) is an emotionally repressed scientist working at breakthroughs in nanotechnology with his former girlfriend Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). An accident in the lab leaves Bruce horribly transformed, with his suppressed emotions finding release in the raging monster called the “Hulk.”
A mysterious scruffy mad scientist (Nick Nolte) and Betty’s father, the authoritarian U.S. Army General “Thunderbolt” Ross (Sam Elliott) are both seeking to use the Hulk to their own selfish ends, while Bruce just wants to find peace.
The “Hulk” story is of course just a take on the classic “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” tale about a man’s dark side breaking loose. That inner monster theme has always made great fodder for movies, and the “Hulk” comic books have persevered for more than 40 years.
But Ang Lee feels the need to pile on a whole catalog of psychological, scientific and symbolic explanations for the Hulk’s existence. Sometimes a Hulk is just a Hulk, OK?
Bana has solid presence in his first big Hollywood leading role, but as written the character of Bruce Banner is too passive and unappealing. Oscar winner Connelly seems to be sleepwalking through her pallid love interest role, while Nolte overacts appallingly, literally chewing on the scenery in one pivotal scene.
And then there’s the Hulk itself.
Fanboy critics on the Internet have been complaining about the “fake” look of the Hulk since the first trailers, and I’m sad to say this is one of the rare times those armchair directors are right.
The computer-generated green dude never looks quite real, compared to Gollum in “Lord Of The Rings” or heck, even Jar Jar Binks. It’s rubbery and stiff, and you never feel the awe you should at a 15-foot monster. The Hulk has no personality, no sense of reality. Even a puppet like Yoda seemed more real, somehow.
To make matters worse, many of the film’s crucial Hulk scenes are set in murky darkness, making it hard to tell what’s going on.
Movies like “Spider-Man” and the “X-Men” series have proved you can do comic book films seriously, giving them emotional depth yet making them entertaining spectacles.
But “Hulk” goes too far in search of seriousness. It’s a movie that feels as repressed as Bruce Banner, never quite breaking loose.
The title character doesn’t appear until nearly the halfway mark. The movie moves in fits and starts, with thrilling adventure coming, fleetingly, only in its final 45 minutes, when the Hulk goes on an entertaining rampage in New Mexico and San Francisco.
Some of the scenes are beautiful to look at, particularly those set in rocky desert, and the production design is generally top-notch. But the audience I was with laughed at scenes of the Hulk bounding clumsily through the desert, not the intended effect, I’d imagine. And let’s not even talk about the Hulk Dogs (I’m serious, sadly). A totally ludicrous, incomprehensible final battle sequence erases any remaining good will “Hulk” had.
Lee and cinematographer Frederick Elmes attempt an innovative way of framing the movie. Scenes shift with fluid frames and transitions, similar to what’s seen on television’s “24.” But the sliding panels and boxes are distracting more often than not, and used so inconsistently in the movie there’s no real reason for the technique.
I’m not one of those to obsess over tiny changes like the fanboys who scream bloody murder because Batman’s boots are the wrong color. But most of the pop melodrama that makes the “Hulk” comics so durable is tossed out here for Ang Lee’s tortured revamps, which feel unnecessary and needlessly complicated.
Is this a father-son melodrama? A warning tale about the evils of science? A popcorn action flick? A romance? The Hulk is so muddled that it fails both as summer blockbuster escapism and as serious character study. We never really care about Bruce Banner.
“Hulk” doesn’t lack for ambition, but it’s fatally flawed. It’s a shame, because Ang Lee has proven talent, and there’s some good ideas here.
People go into “Hulk” expecting, to use the character’s stock line from the comic books, “Hulk Smash!”
Here, it’s “Hulk mish-mash,” and it’s a terrific disappointment.
** of four.
(Rated PG-13 for scary moments, action, mild language.)

[jackson walker]

Is this the most expensive art-house movie ever made?

[Ky-Fi]

I'm clearly in a minority here, but this just worked on every level for me---probably my favorite comic book movie. I read the comics as a kid, and I remember being so disappointed with the the dull, tepid Hulk and Spiderman live action tv shows of the 70's, as they seemed so far removed from the comics.

This movie had so many cool, bright colored comic book/sci-fi images, with all the amoeba/jellfyish stuff, the mushroom cloud explosions throughout, the green/purple color schemes in numerous places. I didn't mind the slow pace, because I liked the story, the cast, the performances and the dialogue, and it felt like it gave me time to get into the characters and story instead of just getting an action scene thrown in every 5 minutes. All the comic-book split frames, wipes and transitions were completely effective for me. The whole desert base scene REALLY brought me back to the comics, and I thought the desert battle was simply the greatest superhero action scene ever filmed---FINALLY a comicbook character is able to show on-screen the power he has in the comics. I found the musical score very effective, too. I suppose the CGI wasn't completely perfect throughout, but because the Hulk is so much more of a fantastical character, I felt the CGI worked MUCH better here than in Spiderman, which I really didn't care for.

[JM1]

I am very surprised no one has mentioned the mutant dog attack sequence.

I watched the movie again last night, and I would say I think this is one of the most perfectly exeuted CGI sequences I have eseen in a long time - and I am not even a big fan of CGI.

It has a visceral energy to it, it really brought these creatures to life in a way I have not seen done in a movie before. I particularly liked the way that you actually found yourselves feeling a little sorry for the "dogs", when they were being smashed into trees - it actually made you believe they were real dogs, and you reacted the way you would if this happened to a real dog.

Effectively, it made them real. And that's rare for me to say that about a CGI creation.

[Rich H]

I had a Smashing Time watching The Hulk!

First the bad points: It was too long. Length in itself is not a problem, but The Hulk had many scenes between the human characters repeating the same theme (Father/Son/Father/Daughter conflicts...okay, I get it Ang Lee...)

Secondly Eric Bana was something of a black whole character...nothing really visible there to command your attention.
Veeerrrry bland. And given he spends a lot of time on screen, that's not a good thing.

Thirdly, the Father/Son fight at the end was, well, inexplicable. It was a confused maelstrom of FX in place of a climax.

But...the film making was a delight; continually inventive and surprising in it's use of comic graphical language, it's themes, even the music wherein Elfmen interjects an unexpected Indian/Arabic element. The Hulk interspersed jaw-dropping action set pieces with moments of lyrical, dream-like qualities, which, instead of rejecting I found fun to be sucked into them.

It was a hoot seeing comic book antics Jack Kirby's style come to life (every big, hose-riddled machine in there was a tribute to Kirby).

Then there's the Hulk himself. I just re-watched The Hulk last night on DVD with some pals who hadn't seen it. We were all blown away. Yeah...of course...The Hulk is CGI, and...big news here: we all recognize a CGI character when we see it (when it's trying to imitate human form). So when people complain: "He looked CGI" I have to say..."and you were expecting"? For instance, LOTR's Golem was fantastic. But I never forgot he was a marvel of CGI. Likewise with The Hulk. I didn't expect, nor did I need to utterly believe I was seeing a real Hulk. What do people think were the alternatives? A big bodybuilder in make-up? Would that have been more convincing? Really. Think about the problems involved, and imagine the alternatives. Is there any achievable way the Hulk could have been realized that WOULD have been more convincing (and still be The Hulk?). I wouldn't have believed it if it was a guy in Hulk make-up either. So, I accept the glories and current limitations of special FX. When a CGI attempts to bring The Hulk to life, I prefer to meet the FX halfway; instead of concentrating on the fact the FX do not perfectly convince, I appreciate what they DID achieve. The Hulk was an amazingly three-dimensional creation, and the detail in the CGI was breathtaking - you can see hairs, sweat, dirt on his skin; muscles and bone moving under his skin.

And the action depicted in The Hulk was mind boggling - right out of the comics I read as a Kid. Hulk swinging tanks. Hulk jumping for miles. Hulk smashing the ground creating minor earthquakes. Hulk battling jets. Even though the Hulk's movements were often tell-tale animated, they nonetheless conveyed a tremendous sense of power and attitude. Watch the movie again and you can observe in the Hulk a startlingly varied range of subtle touches that make his movements human, with dramatic intention. Especially Hulk against the tanks. Hulk doesn't talk, and the character is all about rage. Yet watch how beautifully his body language translates what is going on in his head...even in what seems to be mindless smashing scenes.

So I couldn't disagree more with Sierra Disc about the Hulk having no personality in the film. The close-ups were amazing, radiating a combination of confusion/regret/shame/memory/fear
...a hell of a lot more than Lou Ferrigno ever managed.

So that's my rant. It seems to me people have become both A. sick of CGI (and that's understandable), but also B. spoiled by CGI, which is a slightly different matter. For instance, I remember before seeing Attack Of The Clones, reading all sorts of people saying it was disappointing with all it's fake FX. Then I saw it and...oh my God...it depicted fantastical worlds with a depth, detail and reality like nothing before. I thought "Just what on earth are people expecting these days?"

Same with the Hulk. I'm amazed that more people, when seeing a fantasy film, put all the demand on the film to suspend their belief, and if it doesn't look almost perfect theni it's a failed film and a waste of their money. With the Hulk I would have hoped more people would be aware of just what WAS accomplished on screen, and it is an amazing and, to me, an often wondrous accomplishment. (Maybe I just see the glass half full).

Cheers,

Rich.

[Patman]

I enjoyed the vignette on the CGI dog-attack scene. Plus, the vignette of Ang Lee Hulking out was pretty humorous stuff. I'm convince Ang Lee decided to do the film because he knew he'd get to Hulk out. He's basically the actor doing most of the physical Hulk movements in the film.

[stevek]

Rich I couldn't agree with you more about the technology, I'm glad to see there is a bit of a backlash against the CGI backlash. Given the state of todays' technology, what more could you ask for? The level of detail that is possible now is impressive. This technology is allowing filmmakers to catch up with the imaginations of the great comic book writers and artists. Which is why all of these movies are getting made now.

Batman & Robin was slammed for the way it treats the characters - it mocks the heros and the villains' dialogue is an endless of stream of puns and one liners. Here is a movie that takes its characters seriously and gives them plausible problems and backstories. They even attempted to make the science more plausible. Could it have been tightened up a bit? Certainly. But "boring" is not a word I would use to describe the final product.

There is a 25-minute sequence that starts when Bruce breaks out the tank at the desert base and ends in San Francisco that no kid who read Hulk comics in the 60s and 70s (including me) ever thought they could capture on screen. I can't believe anyone would think a bodybuilder painted green would be preferable to the Hulk we see in this film.

I thought the extras were decent, it has the feeling of one long documentary that was cut into several featurettes. The different artists' renderings were underwhelming. I haven't checked out the commentary yet.

[roger_d]

Sorry, but this has to be one of the worst movie i've ever seen. i was falling asleep. This is what you call a very very bad TV movie.

[MikeM]

Originally posted by edytwinky
Any other reviews on the extras on the DVD?
This review breaks down every extra on the two disc set:

http://www.thedigitalreview.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=435

It also has some nice screenshots of our green friend. :)

[Dazed]

I think I'll have to rent it. I saw it in the theatre and thought it was kind of OK but will give it another try. I dont want to buy it as there are much better films coming out to spend money on (T3, X2, LOTR TT EE etc etc)

I have to agree with Rich H about the climax of the film which was just a confusion of FX work with no real point. Instead of reworking the script to get a decent ending, they simply threw all the CG they could in a hope the audience would be amazed. Well, it didnt work on me.

I also found the split screen was overly used. I understood what they were trying to do, but in this case less would have been more.

I'd rate this film on par with Daredevil as one the weaker of the recent superhero movies.

[thematrix]

Did the Hulk come with any kind of booklet or slipcover ??

[Neitzl]

I really liked this move. I didn't go ga-ga for it as I did for X-Men 2, but this was really good. I didn't mind the exposition at all, I really got into it. I thought the CGI was awesome. I'm usually a stickler when it comes to CGI, Episode II was the worst I've seen given the budget on the project, but the Hulk looked impressive. I loved the close up on his face and thought his expressions were awesome. The dog fight scene had me saying "Holy Cow!" and lots of "Wow!" throughout. I loved how visceral it looked, in that the Hulk really looked damn angry, and his movements were fantastic. Also, how he disposed of the dogs was just incredible, especially the first dog he "punched out", heh.

What I didn't like, and someone mentioned it, was the big set up of Nolte meeting up with Bruce at the end. I mean, no way! It was purely plot driven and really made no sense.

As another mentioned, the Hulk running from the copters in the desert all the way to the Bridge was just an awesome sight to see. I thought everything looked great and the CGI was done perfectly.

I really hope there's a Hulk 2. It can only get better.

The extras were ok. I need to listen to the commentary, I usually love commentaries, and I hope Ang Lee doesn't disappoint.

Great dvd, really good movie.

[fumanstan]

Originally posted by thematrix
Did the Hulk come with any kind of booklet or slipcover ??

No. There's a small booklet of coupons, but not a traditional insert.