Hulk vs. Spider-Man 3



Why do I have to choose between these two awful comic book movies?

Can I pass here?

They were both awful, but Spidey 3 was by far less awful.

Both were slightly misguided--Spider-Man 3 far more so--but Hulk was a stronger movie and more in-keeping with the character.

Spider-Man 3 was pretty convoluted and ridiculous at times (to be expected in a comic book film, but even more than usual here) and is far and away the weak link in that trilogy. But it is still a far, far superior film than Hulk was. My favorite aspect of Hulk is how Ang Lee often paneled the screen, giving the movie a comic book feel, but that's not enough to give it the win here.

Hulk was boring and pretty bad. But it doesn't even come close to the level of suck found in Spider-Man 3.


I can't believe I'm picking Hulk over Spiderman but Spiderman 3 was pathetic.

Easy choice picking the Hulk

Both were disappointing, but Spider-Man 3 far less so

I (mostly) liked "Spider-Man 3." I could've done without The Sandman being shoehorned into Uncle Ben's story, and I'd have preferred a better payoff for Harry Osborne, but at least I could actually see what was happening, unlike half of "Hulk."

Ang Lee's Hulk is definitely the most (and possibly only) underrated and misunderstood of the Marvel films. It's far from perfect, but it's still better than Sam Raimi's efforts to conclude the Spider-man trilogy.

Hulk sucks big green balls.

Dont even get me started on the Hulk movie

hulk all the way

Hulk is not great, but in no way is it Spider-Man 3 bad. Not even close.

That was a pathetic little comment. Hulk's biggest problem is that it is too long, and does bore in spots. But it's got that great, unique editing, some good casting, and a couple of decent action sequences. Spider-Man 3 is not without it's moments, either; for the most part, I liked Sandman, and Harry becoming the Hobgoblin, but they were crammed into a movie with too many villains, and Venom suffered more than the rest. And the fact that they screwed up Venom so completely makes Spider-Man 3 - an otherwise "decent" movie - lose major, major points with me.

Hulk is one of those movies you appreciate more after the fact One of those you look back on and say "Oh I get it". That doesn't happen with Spiderman 3. Spiderman 3 is just bad.

at least hulk was trying to give us a complicated look at Bruce banner and sure it didn't go to well and the film was boring and had laughable affects but it was still better then spider man 3

Yes, Hulk WAS 'THAT' bad. Spider-Man 3 looks like a good movie in comparison. Hulk was a boring, boring drama. A BAD boring, boring drama.

"at least hulk was trying to give us a complicated look at Bruce banner" --- "One of those you look back on and say "Oh I get it."" --- "underrated and misunderstood" :( You're all knucking futs.

Both Suck but Hulk was just hard to get through

No winners here...

I think Hulk is quite underrated. So I'll choose it.

Ooooh tough one. I guess Spider-Man 3 would win simply because I remember it better. Sure it has some utter tripe in it, but I can remember enough good stuff (Sandman effects, a couple of decent action sequences etc) to make it at least worth watching in the background on TV when I have nothing to do. Conversely, I remember NOTHING from Hulk, so Spider-Man 3 wins for now.

Probably Hulk.

Spider-Man 3 is better than the dumbs dumbs can admit. Far better than Ang Lee's poop shoot.

Spidey 3, not even close. Eric Bana is terrific as an actor, too bad they put him in such a lackluster film as Ang Lee's coma of a superhero film.

Hulk had some good stuff, SM3 is just garbage.

Two waste bad forgotten beyond from the era, hulk is more disapproving waste of lack of crap plot.

both sucked but SM3 sucked more