Ang Lee’s Hulk: Misunderstood Masterpiece or a Brave Attempt?

Aaron Cole

January 11, 2026

            Ang Lee’s Hulk came out in the year of 2003, over 22 years ago. Upon its release, its reception was quite underwhelming. It grossed $245.3 million against a $137 million budget, and much of the audience didn’t seem to be too crazy about it. Its score on Rotten Tomatoes is 63%, which is technically positive, but not overwhelmingly so. However, people’s disappointment with the current hulk in the MCU has caused some to reevaluate the 2003 version. Some believe that the 2003 Hulk movie is underrated and was ahead of its time. The purpose of this analysis is to discuss the pros and cons of the 2003 version, as well as compare it to Edward Norton’s The Incredible Hulk in 2008 and Mark Ruffalo’s current version. The purpose is to see if the 2003 version is indeed an underrated masterpiece or if people are just so fed up with how the MCU has handled the Hulk and the 2003 one just looks good in comparison.

            The good stuff first. I like the opening credits of the movie. The musical score is also solid. Most of the action isn’t the best but there are standout moments in the desert fight. An interesting addition to this movie is that the angrier the Hulk gets, he not only gets stronger, but also bigger at times. I like that it is not the gamma radiation that creates the Hulk, but it unleashes what was inside of Bruce all along. Nick Nolte as Bruce’s father is fun watching in just hamming it up. I know Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly get a lot of flak for their portrayals of Bruce Banner and Betty Ross, and while some the criticism is warranted, they both have their moments. Eric Bana plays the awkward nerd and tortured soul well, and I like how the strained relationship between Betty and her father General Ross, played by Sam Elliot, is portrayed. The scene when those two characters meet up at a restaurant was played well by both actors. What I most like about this movie is its themes and the different ideas it discusses. I like how the movie explores trauma, and how some people will repress unpleasant memories. It’s interesting to see that while a part of Bruce is terrified of the Hulk’s power, and part of him also likes it. All the major characters of the movie are damaged in some way. While many aspects of the film’s execution is flawed, I admire that the film does attempt to take its time with its characters and establish atmosphere. The film does experiment and takes risks.

            Now on to the negative. The CGI of the Hulk does not hold up well. In addition, most of the action is underwhelming. The desert fight had some cool moments, but that is pretty much it. The final fight between Bruce and his father especially felt anticlimactic. I also think that the transitions between the scenes are sometimes awkward. I don’t like how the majority of the shots transition to comic book panels. It’s cool for a few scenes, but I feel that the movie does it too much. It just come off as distracting and gimmicky. While Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly both have some well-acted scenes, some are just dull. There is a fine line between a subdued performance and a dull performance, and the actors are unable to always pull it off. There are many scenes where the actors have the same expression on their face, regardless of what their characters are supposed to be feeling. In some scenes the subdued acting works, but not the entire movie. One of the villains, Glenn Talbot, played by Josh Lucas is a boring character and unmemorable. Bruce’s father, David Banner, is a fun villain to watch, but I feel that his motivations and feeling towards his son are a tad inconsistent. I get that he is supposed to have gone mad, but I think the conflict between father and son could have been handled better. I also think that the ideas the film presents were not fully explored. In the comics, Bruce has DID. I think Bruce’s Hulk persona should have been portrayed before the accident in the film. I think a scene of Bruce as a child, after that traumatic experience, where the Hulk persona shines through would have gone a long way in demonstrating the duality between Bruce and the Hulk. I also think the film could have been paced better. I get that the film is trying to take it time to discuss its ideas and explore its characters, but there are many slow moments. The film can also be too abstract at times.

            Now let’s compare the 2003 movie to Edward Norton’s 2008 version. The 2008 movie had much better action and was faster paced. Everything was done with urgency. The design and GGI of the Hulk looked better. I also liked how this Hulk seemed smart and was able to think on his feet whenever he was fighting. An interesting addition to how the Hulk transformation is triggered is that it happens whenever Bruce gets angry, or if his heart rate gets too high. I just like to overall attitude and facial expressions of this Hulk. I also think that the acting overall in this movie was better. I think that this film’s Bruce and Betty had much better chemistry with each other than the 2003 version. While Eric Bana as Bruce played the tortured character well, I don’t think he fully captured Bruce’s intelligence as well. Whenever Norton’s Bruce talks, you get a feeling he knows what he is talking about. I also feel that this Bruce has more agency in this movie. The film’s main villain Emil Blonsky, aka the Abomination, is a far more compelling villain than Glenn Talbot. I wouldn’t say he is one of Marvel’s great villains, but his goals are simple and clear. He craves the power that the Hulk possesses and will do anything to get it. The final fight between the Hulk and Abomination is one of the more underrated fights of the MCU. The Abomination gives the Hulk a run for his money, and the Hulk has to dig deep in order to defeat the Abomination. I wouldn’t say this is a great movie, but I do think its solid. I do prefer Bruce and the Hulk’s origin story in the 2003 version. In this version the Hulk was created in a failed attempt to recreate Captain America’s super soldier serum. If the best elements of the 2003 film were combined with the best elements of this film, while weeding out the lesser aspects of the two films, I feel like we could have gotten a truly special film.

            I know a lot of people are unhappy with Mark Ruffalo’s current portrayal of the Hulk, but it was off to a great start. I think the first Avengers movie handled the Hulk pretty well. A deleted scene in the 2008 film in which Bruce tries to take his life is addressed in the original Avengers movie and is acted well.  He also is able to transform at will, which is something he was trying to do in the previous film. In this film, he is a force of nature. He beats up Thor pretty bad and takes down a huge alien ship with one punch. However, slowly but surely, things start to go downhill. The Hulk has a pointless romance with Black Widow, and he never interacts with Betty or General Ross after the 2008 film even though they show up in later movies. Then Hulk gets beat up by Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War and then he is too afraid come out for the rest of the movie. The Hulk might lose fights from time to time, but he is never afraid to come out and keep fighting. One of the coolest aspects of the Hulk is that he continually surpasses his own limits. Now he is currently a smart version of the Hulk, which I know is in the comics but it’s not the version of the Hulk the majority of people know or love. There was a cool moment in Avengers: Endgame where he brings everyone back, but that’s really the last thing he has done of any significance. Now he has been reduced to comedic relief and a hollow shell of 2008’s version or even Mark Ruffalo’s initial appearance. Edward Norton’s Bruce and Hulk seem like completely different characters than the current version, even though they take place in the same universe and timeline.

            So, do I think the 2003 Hulk works overall? Not completely. There are a lot of interesting elements explored in that movie, but they were never fully realized. There were a lot of good things in the 2008 movie, but Edward Norton was replaced due to creative differences with the studio. Neither version of the hulk has received proper closure. I know the Hulk still exists in the MCU, but its difficult to believe that this version will ever be done justice either. It’s a shame that studios have never been fully able to capture the potential of the Hulk in live action. There are plenty of films and shows in animation where the Hulk is great in. My personal favorites are Planet Hulk and the Hulk vs. movies. I suggest giving those movies a watch. But Hulk, along with Dr. Doom are two famous comic book characters that have never lived up to their potential on the big screen. I do admire the 2003 Hulk for what it was trying to do and taking risks. I would much rather watch a movie that has interesting things in it even if it doesn’t fully work, than a safe and bland movie. I can’t be mad at it. I don’t even think it’s a bad movie, nowhere near one the worst comic book movies. I just think its underwhelming. My rating for the 2003 film would be a 5/10 and the 2008 film a 7/10.