If there has been a noticeable trend with recent Marvel films, it’s been focusing on the past. No Way Home united all 3 of the big-screen Spider-Men while Deadpool & Wolverine had a huge focus on the Fox X-Men. Both of these cases will likely continue with Avengers: Doomsday and Secret Wars. Needless to say, it’s a bit disheartening that rather than developing a strong core presence, Marvel has been focused more on bringing back the past for short-term bursts of success. However, I feel that there is value in looking back at the past retrospectively rather than simply bringing it back for cameos. The film that got me thinking about this in particular was Ang Lee’s 2003 film Hulk.

Hulk is an odd beast since, while it came out around the same time as the huge revitalization of Marvel films in the early 2000s, it’s arguably the least remembered. The Raimi Spider-Man films are considered classics, the X-Men films have their fans, Blade is recognized for starting the trend first, and even films like the Ben Affleck-led Daredevil still have fond focus given to them to the point of having Jennifer Garner come back in Deadpool last year. Hulk, though, has practically been forgotten by the general public and a lot of the geek circles. The only thing that gets discussed is the bizarre editing and the serious tone that many claim clashes with the material. However, watching it recently, I feel that while this film is flawed, it’s arguably very ahead of its time, even if it seems like it did bite off more than it could chew. It is genuinely more compelling and well put together than most superhero fare as of late, and I feel it deserves its flowers, especially since Hulk has been practically sidelined as a character for the entirety of the recent superhero boom.

The film is simple in its approach story-wise. It’s an origin story of the Hulk focusing on Bruce Banner’s repressed trauma regarding his past as well as his relationships with Betty Ross and his father, David. Bruce is born with different genetics due to his father doing human DNA testing on himself. David tries to kill Bruce out of fear of his genetic instability, but is arrested, and Bruce grows up not knowing his biological parents, both due to the age he was separated from them and traumatic repression. When he is hit with gamma radiation during a nanomed experiment, his altered genetics are unlocked, and he transforms into the Hulk when angry. With him being targeted by both the military and his father, he has to grapple with his situation as well as mentally uncover and confront his repressed trauma.

In plain terms, this is the standard approach a Hulk story should take. Focusing on both the monster but also the internal psychology of Bruce and how it ties into his transformations, both metaphorically and literally. His relationship with both Betty Ross and his father gets a lot of focus and is handled well. Hulk as a concept is not just a smashing monster, but a dive into the emotions and relationships of Bruce Banner, and the latter tends to get ignored a lot of the time. Some people argue that this film is boring since it focuses far more on character than Hulk action. I disagree since I think the character interactions are immensely compelling and that the pacing of when the Hulk comes out is well-placed. Yes, some might find it odd that a Hulk film has moments that are quiet and almost introspective, but I feel that it embodies the character in terms of focusing on the tragedy and emotion. Even the great score by Danny Elfman is quieter and tragic feeling in many places.. It’s in line with both the best of the comic and the old TV show. Ang’s approach of a more somber and almost tragic film is far more compelling than simply having Hulk fight the entire movie (though, I will admit, the monstrous Hulk dogs, while having a cool fight, are probably the one choice I have more pause with).

As for the actors, I feel that they are all great across the board. While Eric Bana doesn’t give the most striking portrayal compared to most iconic actors with other superheroes, he does a good job both in making Bruce likeable and showing how emotionally fractured he becomes. The same applies to Jennifer Connelly as Betty, where I buy her close relationship with Bruce and her fractured one with her father. Sam Elliot is perfect casting for Thunderbolt Ross in terms of demeanor and look. The best performance in the film comes from Nick Nolte as David Banner. He portrays the manic swing between a regretful father figure and a deranged individual very well, especially by the end of the film, where he gets to do a black box theater monologue for a few minutes. There’s a real palpable tragedy with Bruce and David’s relationship, both in how they got to this point and how broken they both are.

Regarding the controversial editing, well, I can agree at the very least that this will be the thing that will drive people to either take or leave the film. Either it doesn’t bother you and you vibe with it, or you find it distracting and that it doesn’t fit the type of film this wants to be. I’m in the former camp and more in the spot that it didn’t bother me too much. The most infamous example of the bizarre editing is when one character is caught in an explosion and is put on a still frame outlined in white. While that is a ridiculous moment, I feel that the overexposure on that particular edit has gotten me numb to it, so it doesn’t bother me. And honestly, most other editing choices are more interesting and dynamic. Using different sections of the screen, like comic panels, to show different points of view and angles of something was engaging. Transitions using the scenery and items created a sense of dynamic visualization. Some of my favorite choices came with the almost abstract imagery, with still images, especially in the climax. It may have been a bit too ambitious and avant-garde in a way that most audiences were and probably still aren’t willing to approach, but I feel it works more often than not and is still an interesting choice compared to what a traditional approach for this movie would have been. It sticks in your mind and makes the film far more distinctive even to this day.

The VFXs have also been a point of discussion in the sense that while they are impressive for the time, they do show their age. Hulk does look a bit off, but I still feel that aside from the aged graphics, it’s still a good look for the character, both in design and presentation. It helps that Ang Lee himself did the motion capture for the character, so the actions and emotions are deliberate. There’s a sense of weight and size to Hulk that comes across as well-planned and detailed rather than simply being a CGI creature thrown in during the last months of production. Most of the other effects do look good. This is mostly because older films tended to have a mixture of practical and computer effects more than modern films, which just use CGI to an intense degree. There’s more weight to things as a result, even with Hulk jumping around. I feel that at this point, accepting older-looking effects as flawed is necessary since there can be appreciation found in older craft, both in how they worked around their limitations and in what practices worked better than compared to the factory process VFX pipeline of today.

In all honesty, this film made me realize why so many fans of Hulk are frustrated with the representation the character has received in the past decade or so. His last solo film was in 2008, and he has been sidelined to a supporting role since then due to licensing conflicts. He was saddled with a disliked romance with Black Widow in Age of Ultron. Planet Hulk was adapted in Thor Ragnarök without any of the strong and dramatic character elements. Even his side characters appeared in Captain America: Brave New World without him. It sucks that a character that was once probably the second most iconic Marvel hero behind Spider-Man has become an afterthought. This film made me realize the strong dramatic potential of the character and that Marvel hasn’t taken advantage of it. Heck, the fact that they rushed Banner balancing the Hulk in the MCU says a lot about how poorly he’s been treated as of late. Hulk isn’t a character that’s just a destructive monster, but a look into trauma and repressed emotions symbolized through the transformation. This film is probably the best portrayal of how deep the character can be if given the proper spotlight.

At the moment, I feel some burnout with recent superhero films. There are always some good ones, and I’m excited for some upcoming ones, but it feels like the overall output is not very ambitious from a filmmaking and storytelling perspective. I have gotten my fill of the standard type of superhero movie and want new ones to get more interesting talent behind the camera and try new things. Given that Marvel is doubling down on nostalgia, I feel more disconnected than ever from their recent output. This is why I found Hulk to be extremely engaging since it scratched that itch of an auteur-driven comic book film that is different in its execution. It’s so strange, but that strangeness is intensely appealing to me. It helps that I found the film itself a compelling story, and character-wise, so it isn’t a case of style over substance either. I completely get why it’s bizarre, and almost anti-blockbuster approach turned people off at the time and may still today. However, I do feel that as long as you keep an open mind, it’s a film worth looking at, especially if you want something different. I am glad I gave it a watch since not only did I find a great film, but a deeper appreciation for its source material that I never thought I would have.