Q: I had the opportunity to see this film twice at the 2006 Moving Picture Festival In Birmingham, Alabama. I enjoyed it so much that I watched it a second time when they had an encore screening.

When I think of the films that are shown at festivals, I usually expect them to be edgy and offbeat, often with the feel of an elaborate student project. There's nothing wrong with these types of projects of course, and I enjoy the unique styles of independent films, but sometimes I want to see a more mainstream approach to independent film-making. By "mainstream," I mean more like a film produced for national release - In other words, a movie that you would see in a regular movie theater.

The writing, directing, cinematography, casting and acting in this movie are all totally pro. There is nothing typically independent about this film. As an aspiring director, I am always looking for movies that will motivate me to stop procrastinating and push harder to get my career going. This is one of those films. As I watched The Big Bad Swim, my motivation level was incredible. I felt like my adrenaline had kicked in. The reason I felt this way was because I was so impressed with every aspect of this production. I left the theater excited and ready to start writing that long put-off project. When a movie makes me feel like that, I know it's really good. This is the first feature-length project from Ishai Setton and I found myself wishing that It had been my project. For me, that's really rare.

See this film. It's beautifully shot and directed, and the casting is excellent. Paget Brewster delivers a very believable and likable performance. She has a quality about her, a charisma, that really draws you in and keeps you focused on her any time she is on screen. She makes you feel like you know her personally as a friend. That's a gift. I think the industry is really missing out by not utilizing her acting abilities more often. Jeff Branson and Jess Weixler also did top-notch jobs. I can not say enough nice things about The Big Bad Swim. I look forward to future projects from all of those involved in its production.
A: positive
Q: When I saw the commercial for this, I was all about seeing it. Now, forgive me, but it's been so long since I've seen it that I don't recall how it went. Suffice it to say, the movie I saw bore no resemblance to the "movie" they sold me on.

I was bored, annoyed, and incredibly disappointed by this movie. And if it wasn't bad enough, they had to sink it even further with that awful reggae music. Not exactly mood-setting music for a horror movie, eh mon? I guess if you never saw the commercial (or trailer, I suppose) you may think this is some hot stuff. For my money, the commercial was way better.
A: negative
Q: This movie was not made by Who fans. Most of the great moments that fans will look forward to in the half-hour Tommy medley are simply missed or glossed over: In Christmas, they didn't show Daltry's screams after the line "Tommy doesn't know what day it is...", they showed almost *no* Townsend guitar shots in Pinball Wizard, there were excess crowd shots during the best moments of Go to the Mirror, and worst of all, in the second half of We're Not Gonna Take It (Listening to You), they robbed us of almost every shot of Pete's blazing guitar chords. Huge chunks of the film are shot from in back of the band. It's a very frustrating film to watch, and doesn't deliver the goods. I don't know if director Murry Lerner is just not a Who fan, or worse, for him at least, if he *is* a Who fan and this is all the *eight* cameras could deliver for him. To its credit, there are some rare numbers before Tommy, as well as some faves, that are very well shot, and sometimes the editing is brilliant. This might be enough to make some viewers happy, as long as you're not anticipating Tommy. The sound overall was mediocre in the transmission I watched from DirecTV; it may be different on video or DVD.
A: negative
Q: This reboot is like a processed McDonald's meal compared to Ang Lee's very good but very underrated 2003 "The Incredible Hulk".

Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a comic book movie for the thinking person. The Hulk takes some time to appear (about 40 minutes), but when he does we see the conflict at our protagonist's core. He does his best to avoid losing control, but as he admits, when he does give in to his rage, he likes it.

Now compare this to Edward Norton's turn, where there is no display of conflict in his personality, and he turns into the Hulk whenever he becomes excited and his pulse rate hits 200 beats per minute (not 183, not 197, but exactly 200). To this reviewer, this felt akin to the introduction of midi-chlorians in The Phantom Menace, which tell how strong the "force" is with one, as if mystical abilities can be gauged through a blood test. In the 2008 movie, all Ed Norton's Bruce Banner has to do is to keep his pulse rate under 200, as monitored by a device strapped onto his wrist. And for the record, it is extremely difficult to get one's pulse rate up to 200 even through a very exhilarating run, especially for a physically fit person.

Emotions drive Eric Bana's Hulk. He has repressed memories of his mother's death and his father's role in his early life. On the surface he is calm, but there underneath there is significant anger, enough rage to fuel the Hulk when it is unleashed. But the Hulk never kills intentionally, even his attackers. Mostly, he just wants to get away or close to Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). He incapacitates his shooters and in one critical scene, saves a fighter jet pursuing him from a collision.

In the 2003 movie, the visual effects are there, but as necessary. The action scenes (and there are plenty of them) are necessary to the plot, unlike the 2008 movie where action is inserted for the sake of action.

In his quest to turn it into a "fugitive" story, Ed Norton loses focus on how Bruce Banner feels about the Hulk. To him, the Hulk is a dangerous side effect of an experiment went awry. And Louis Leterrier, the director picking up on Ed Norton's cue, fails to add any emotional dimension to the Banner-Hulk relationship. The story can be summed up as: Banner is pursued and Hulk kicks butt, Banner is pursed and Hulk kick butt. Repeat as necessary.

The only thing that went against the 2003 movie is that it is perhaps not as true to the comic books as the 2008 version. However, even as I am a fan of the comics, I would prefer a movie that is not as true to the comics as a fanboy's dream but has heart over the comics-loyal but manufactured and soulless 2008 version any day.

Perhaps Ang Lee should have read more comics. Iron Man, also released in 2008, is a perfect example of a movie that is true to its comic-book roots and has heart.
A: negative