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...

Any other reviews on the extras on the DVD?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This review breaks down every extra on the two disc set:

http://www.thedigitalreview.com/foru...=&threadid=435

It also has some nice screenshots of our green friend.

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.

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

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.

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