Big Fish

Every other year you get a movie that oozes magic and charm. Think "Chocolat". Think "Amelie". Think "What dreams may come". Perhaps even, "Being John Malkovich". And this year, it's time to think big... "Big Fish", to be precise. All four of these movies have some things in common. Merely describing the premise is not nearly enough to do justice to the mood of the film. And the mood, the emotional reaction of the audience, is in many ways much more important than the actual content. Still, there's no way around it in a proper review: We meet a disillusioned young man and his father, a charming old guy who knows exactly how to tell stories to fascinate first-time listeners and children. Unfortunately, there's barely any of those left, as he retold his magical stories once too often. When his health and life are beginning to fade away, his son wants to finally learn the truth about his father. Meanwhile, we hear his life story, as he tells it... Tim Burton is probably best-known for visual eye candy movies. Few directors can compete with the imagination he's shown in movies like Batman, Nightmare before Christmas and Sleepy Hollow. Outside the realm of darker, more gothic visuals, Tim Burton has so far been somewhat less prolific. Planet of the Apes was an expensive embarrassment, and Ed Wood is a decidedly acquired taste. Big Fish, then, is a new direction for him. Yes, it is eye candy, or perhaps even eye H"agen Dazs. But this time, the movie has much more of a soul than his monkeyplanet. This soul is achieved by two means: a great story (or collection of stories) and great acting. If you don't believe that the story is great, watch the audience. At key moments, everyone was chuckling or laughing, at others, I heard dozens of sniffs and tissues being unpacked around me. Yes, this is heartwarming stuff that a colder, more cynical soul would call cheese. Finally, Burton has found a story worthy of his talents again. And, better yet, he did not forget to encourage his cast to act. For a case study of such failure, see Christina Ricci's completely flat performance in Sleepy Hollow. In Big Fish, the cast is so carefully selected that failure is simply not an option. Ewan McGregor (playing the father in his youth) may not have much more to do than smile, be charming and sustain a Southern US accent, but he does it brilliantly. Much more important are the performances of Albert Finney and Jessica Lange, playing the aged father and mother, respectively. And they both deliver character performances worthy of prizes.

After cheerleading so enthusiastically for this movie, perhaps it is time to take a step back and look at it from a more critical perspective. Yes, it managed to enchant the audience, but it did so the Hollywood way. Special effects and big budget feature heavily. This is in stark contrast to the seemingly much less organized and much more intuitional charm of Amelie. This movie is also much more comfy about its pace - it takes its time just like a good storyteller would, but perhaps leaving behind the five-second-attention-span MTV generation kids in the process. On the other hand, I am tempted to say that its biggest vice is that there just isn't enough of it. Given the episodal structure of this movie, I can almost imagine what it would have felt like as TV series, or multi-part TV movie. I am not sure whether to wish for this to happen or shudder at the thought of "Big Fish: The Animated Series" or some such atrocity. Every story told in this movie is perfect, and a series of such perfect stories would be wonderful. Yet can perfection be sustained for a large number of stories? Either way, I wonder what is going to become of Big Fish - a franchise or a single movie. It definitely is more deserving of praise, awards and viewers than any other movie released during the past six months, including LOTR-RotK.

The whole story of a man's life is something large, but this movie managed to be entertaining and comical telling a story by dividing it into many stages so well told it feels like it's a little fairy tale, so many aspects and many temporal lines in 2 hours that feels like just a single hour.

The story itself is touching and beautiful while the time placement (involving the wardrobe used and design of the places as well) totally transports the audience to those years, it's colorful and complements the "adventure vibe"

This is undoubtedly a great movie to watch with the family, so every single member can appreciate each other stories and how they all got intertwined.

I often find that in order to be captivating, a film these days needs to be stressfully suspenseful or have a complicated story line. This film had neither, and yet I found myself hoping it wouldn't end while at the same time, anxiously awaiting its conclusion. I have to admit, I was distrustful of Burton as many of his more recent films have had less-than-satisfying conclusions. Nonetheless, I went to see Big Fish (3 days before its release in Canada) with no expectations and was astounded. This movie is an absolute treat for our hearts, ears and especially our eyes with each cartoon/fantasy-like scene painted with Tim Burton's reliable brilliance and magical touch. Ewan McGregor is pure sunshine and Albert Finney gives one of the greatest performances of the year- he *is* Big Fish. But I suppose that when you strip away the beauty, the doll-house sets and all the abracadabra of cinematography and modern day technology, all you have is a very simple story, and therein lies the heart of this film; that one can create their own legacy, "the story of my life." Not through either extreme of extraordinary adventure or unbelievable lies, but through the art of storytelling- and THAT is what this film is about. It is through our *stories* that we are immortal.

Go see this movie, bring the kids, bring your date, bring your parents! It is for everyone...everyone who appreciates a visually and emotionally beautiful irregular story about a regular person's life.

***** 5 stars!!

I've had high hopes for this movie since I first heard about it some time ago. After all, most of the Tim Burton movies I've seen (barring Planet of the Apes) have been really wonderful. To say the least, Big Fish did not disappoint me. The story - by no means complex or suspenseful - was simple enough to allow the viewer to really take in the fantasy and mythology in Edward Bloom's tales. One didn't need a surprise ending or secret identities to make this film enjoyable. Rather, it was the simplicity and universal nature of the story that made it interesting. While some reviews have mentioned that the film can seem choppy at times, I didn't see this at all. The transition seemed smooth and logical, and while sometimes I found myself wishing for more scenes of younger Edward Bloom, I never felt bored by any of the movie. Nothing seemed to 'drag'. I was also quite impressed with the quality of acting in nearly the entire cast. Billy Crudup didn't really hit his stride until the end, but he was tolerable through the first three-quarters of the movie. Albert Finney did a great job of portraying a lion on his last legs, bigger than his body but unable to show it. Jessica Lange was amazing and added the emotional oomph that Billy Crudup often failed to provide. And while Ewan McGregor's role was not particularly difficult, at no point did he overplay the character, and his accent (to my ear anyway) never slipped. Though this wasn't as dark as Sleepy Hollow or as bizarre as Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice, Big Fish definitely had the Tim Burton touch in its scenery. The colors - whether dull for Elder Bloom's time or bright for Younger Bloom - matched the mood perfectly, and everywhere you looked (especially in Bloom the Younger's timeframe) there was something else to marvel at. Tim Burton fans will not be disappointed.

When watching the movie I thought this movie was a copy of the legendary Forrest Gump with the added bonus of being more fanciful. However, that's not what the film is intended for, Gump just narrates his real stories and nobody believes it, Edward, on the other hand, adds a touch of fantasy and children's stories to his deeds, that's the difference between the two, one just wants to tell the facts of his life the other tries to re-signify or enhance the facts of his life, or at least transform simple things of our daily life into adventures never seen before.