Twenty-three years. That is how long it has been since Eric Bana first tore through his purple trousers on the big screen. It’s funny, honestly, how we talk about superhero movies now compared to back then. In 2003, the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" wasn't even a glimmer in Kevin Feige's eye. We had X-Men, we had Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, and then we had the Hulk Eric Bana version—a movie so strange, so psychological, and so divisive that people are still arguing about it in Reddit threads today.
Most people remember it as a "flop." That’s technically wrong, by the way. It made $245 million on a $137 million budget. Not a disaster, but not the billion-dollar behemoth Universal Pictures wanted. But money aside, the film itself is a fever dream of Greek tragedy and comic book panels. It didn't want to be The Avengers. It wanted to be King Lear with a giant green guy.
The Tragedy of Bruce Banner's DNA
Ang Lee was an inspired, if totally bizarre, choice for a summer blockbuster director. Fresh off the massive success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, he didn't care about "quippy" dialogue or setting up a sequel. He wanted to talk about trauma. Specifically, he wanted to talk about how our parents' sins are literally baked into our blood.
Eric Bana plays Bruce Banner with this incredible, simmering internal pressure. Unlike Edward Norton’s twitchy fugitive or Mark Ruffalo’s "I’m always angry" professor, Bana’s Bruce is a man who is emotionally repressed to the point of being a ghost. He’s quiet. He’s stiff. He looks like a guy who hasn't taken a deep breath in fifteen years. When the gamma radiation hits him during that lab accident—saving the life of his colleague Harper—it isn't just a physical change. It’s a cork popping off a bottle of twenty years of repressed rage.
The movie spends a huge amount of time on the childhood of Bruce. We see his father, David Banner (played with terrifying, unhinged energy by Nick Nolte), experimenting on his own biology and passing those traits to his son. This is a crucial distinction. In the comics and other movies, Bruce is a normal guy who gets "cursed." In the 2003 film, Bruce was never normal. He was a ticking time bomb since birth. The gamma was just the catalyst.
Why the Hulk Eric Bana Design Still Looks Better Than You Remember
People love to dunk on the CGI in this movie. They call it "the Shrek look." Honestly? That’s a bit unfair. Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) was doing things in 2003 that were genuinely revolutionary. They used a technique called "subsurface scattering" to make the skin look translucent, allowing light to pass through it like real flesh.
The Problem with the "Bright Green"
The main reason people hated the look of the 2003 Hulk was the color palette. Ang Lee insisted on a very specific shade of lime green that matched the early Jack Kirby comics. In the dark, moody lighting of a modern Marvel movie, he would have looked great. But under the bright California sun? He looked like a neon sign.
The Scale and Movement
One thing this movie got right—and I will die on this hill—is the sense of weight. When Eric Bana’s Hulk jumps, he doesn't just fly. He builds momentum. He creates craters. There is a scene where he’s leaping across the desert, and you can feel the sheer kinetic energy of a multi-ton creature moving at high speeds. It feels more "real" than the weightless CGI brawls we see in some modern superhero films.
The Comic Book Aesthetic: Love It or Hate It?
Ang Lee did something that no director has really tried since: he made the movie look like a comic book. I’m talking about the "multi-panel" editing. Sometimes you’ll see three different angles of the same scene on the screen at once. One box shows a close-up of Bruce’s eye, another shows Jennifer Connelly’s reaction, and the third shows the military helicopters.
It’s jarring. It’s weird. At times, it’s even a little bit annoying. But you have to respect the swing. Lee was trying to bridge the gap between the medium of print and the medium of film in a literal way. It gives the movie a rhythmic, almost jazz-like flow. It’s art-house cinema disguised as a popcorn flick.
Jennifer Connelly and the Emotional Core
We can't talk about the Hulk Eric Bana starred in without mentioning Betty Ross. Jennifer Connelly brings a level of gravitas to this role that usually isn't found in "the love interest" characters. Her relationship with her father, General "Thunderbolt" Ross (Sam Elliott, sporting the greatest mustache in cinematic history), mirrors Bruce’s relationship with his own father.
The movie is basically a story about four people with massive daddy issues who just happen to have tanks and gamma bombs at their disposal. When Betty stands in front of the Hulk to calm him down, it isn't just a "Beauty and the Beast" moment. It’s a moment of shared recognition. She sees the scared little boy inside the monster because she’s also a "child of the military" who had to grow up too fast.
What Went Wrong with the Marketing?
The biggest hurdle for the 2003 film wasn't the movie itself—it was the expectation. The trailers made it look like a high-octane action movie. Kids went to the theater expecting to see "Hulk Smash" for two hours. Instead, they got a 138-minute psychological drama about repressed memories and cellular biology.
The first hour of the movie has almost no action. It’s all dialogue, lab equipment, and brooding stares. By the time the Hulk actually shows up to fight those mutated gamma-dogs (which, okay, were a bit silly), half the audience had already checked out. It was a movie for adults marketed to children. That’s a recipe for a "rotten" score on Rotten Tomatoes, regardless of the quality.
The Legacy of 2003 vs. The 2008 Reboot
In 2008, Marvel Studios tried again with The Incredible Hulk starring Edward Norton. That movie was a direct reaction to Ang Lee’s version. It was faster, leaner, and much more of a traditional action movie. But if you look back now, which one is more memorable?
The 2008 version feels like a generic action movie of its era. It’s fine, but it lacks a soul. The 2003 version, despite its flaws, is a singular vision. It feels like it was made by a human being with something to say, not a committee trying to maximize toy sales.
Key Differences in Portrayal
- Eric Bana: Played Bruce as a victim of his own biology. Very internal.
- Edward Norton: Played Bruce as a brilliant man on the run. Very cerebral.
- Mark Ruffalo: Plays Bruce as a man who has accepted his curse. Very weary.
Bana’s performance is often overlooked because he didn't get a sequel. He’s an incredible actor (go watch Chopper or Munich if you don't believe me), and he brought a tragic dignity to the role that hasn't really been replicated. He made you feel the physical pain of the transformation.
The Incredible Hulk's Scientific Context
The "Gamma Sphere" in the movie is actually based on real-world particle accelerators, though obviously dialed up to eleven. In the film, the accident happens because of a hardware failure combined with Bruce's heroic instinct.
Interestingly, the film touches on the concept of "Nanomeds"—small robotic entities designed to heal wounds. This was a very "early 2000s" sci-fi trope, but it adds a layer of biological horror to the movie. Bruce isn't just a monster; he’s a biological anomaly whose cells are in a constant state of hyper-regeneration. This is why he grows larger as he gets angrier; his cells are literally duplicating and expanding at an impossible rate.
Why You Should Rewatch It Today
If you haven't seen the 2003 Hulk since you were a kid, you owe it to yourself to give it another look. Now that we are drowning in "formulaic" superhero content, the weirdness of Ang Lee’s vision is refreshing.
It’s a movie that takes big risks. Does the giant cloud-father at the end work? Maybe not. Are the "Hulk Dogs" a bit much? Probably. But the scene where the Hulk is sitting in the middle of the desert, finally at peace, just looking at the horizon? That’s pure cinema. It’s a quiet moment in a loud genre, and it’s something we rarely get anymore.
🔗 Read more: Why Can You Kick It Lyrics Still Define the Spirit of Hip-Hop 35 Years Later
Things to Look For in Your Rewatch:
- The Score: Danny Elfman’s music here is haunting and world-music influenced. It’s not your typical "hero theme."
- The Lighting: Notice how the colors shift from cold blues in the lab to hot oranges in the desert.
- Nick Nolte: Just watch his performance. He’s chewing the scenery, sure, but he’s doing it with such commitment that it’s impossible to look away.
Actionable Next Steps for Fans
If you want to dive deeper into the world of the Hulk Eric Bana brought to life, there are a few things you can do to appreciate the film’s unique place in history:
- Watch the "Making Of" Documentaries: The behind-the-scenes footage of Ang Lee doing the motion capture for the Hulk is fascinating. He literally acted out the movements himself to ensure the character had "soul."
- Read the "Hulk: Grey" Comic: If you like the psychological aspect of the 2003 movie, this comic run by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale captures that same melancholy, early-days vibe.
- Compare the Desert Chase: Watch the tank battle in the desert from the 2003 film and then watch the airport fight in Civil War. Note the difference in how "weight" and "impact" are portrayed.
- Check Out Eric Bana's Other Work: To see the range of the man who played Bruce, watch Black Hawk Down or the aforementioned Chopper. You’ll see the same "quiet intensity" he brought to Marvel.
The 2003 Hulk isn't a perfect movie. It’s messy, it’s overly long, and it’s occasionally pretentious. But it’s also beautiful, ambitious, and deeply human. In a world of "content," it’s nice to remember when superhero movies were allowed to be "films."