TC Candler's Review C-

More style over substance from Tim Burton...

This is a polarizing film. Half of the critics really liked it and the other half were thoroughly bored by it. The general public warmed to the film a little more than the professionals, but it still didn't blow up the box office with huge numbers. The public's word of mouth couldn't propel it past the $100 million mark. It has the quirkiness of an independent feature, but the budget, cast and look of a blockbuster. It seems like a film tailored for Academy members and yet it only garnered one Oscar nomination in a minor category. Tim Burton's 'Big Fish' is a bizarre and surreal journey into the exaggerations and slanted half-truths of a very strange man. I think your opinion of that strange man will likely determine which group you agree with... the enchanted bunch or the underwhelmed bunch.

I was shocked to find myself underwhelmed by this film. I was really looking forward to it. I am generally considered to be a a romantic and an idealist. Both of those traits seem a perfect match for a film like this one. However, I think that 'Big Fish' is the most disappointing film of 2003 (tied with the horrendous 'Matrix' conclusion). By no means is this the worst film of the year, but when compared with my expectations it pales spectacularly.

As I've said, your enjoyment of this movie relies heavily on your like or dislike of the main character, Edward Bloom (played by MacGregor as a young man & Finney as an elderly one). I found him to be a babbling windbag with no sense of genuine human contact or communication. He has alienated his now grown son (Crudup) by repeatedly telling tall tales and corny exaggerations of semi-true stories. It seems to be his only form of conversation. He is like that irritating friend who interrupts what you have to say every two minutes to tell you a story that has nothing to do with the current proceedings. He is a man incapable of listening to anyone else. He is obsessed with himself and has no fucking clue that everyone else is tired of his crap. The only one who seems to tolerate him is his doe-eyed wife (Lange), a woman of stunningly little depth or substance. She just sits and smiles as her blow-hard husband rambles on about the same old stories. His chatter borders on torture. Luckily for me, Edward Bloom is on his death-bed... however it takes 125 minutes for him to squeeze in a few more yawn-fests before he kicks the bucket.

Does the film look fantastic? Of course it does... it is a Tim Burton film and his flare is quite pronounced. But this film merely seems like an exercise of his capabilities. There is no real substance or weight here. I didn't care about anyone in this film... although I did pity the son for having to put up with his father for all those years. I found myself drumming my fingers twenty minutes into the running time and the boredom never let up. Quirkiness does not automatically qualify a film to be interesting. 'Big Fish' is a shining example of that. I was not magically enchanted by this film. It is intended to be a feel-good film, but left me feeling bored, depressed and underwhelmed.

***

Other critics in agreement with this film's utter mediocrity...

Chicago Sun-Times / Roger Ebert:
Albert Finney, who can be the most concise of actors, can also, when required, play a tireless blowhard, and in "Big Fish," his character repeats the same stories so relentlessly you expect the eyeballs of his listeners to roll up into their foreheads and be replaced by tic-tac-toe diagrams, like in the funnies. -- When Burton gives himself the guidance and anchor of a story, he can be quite remarkable ("Ed Wood," "The Nightmare Before Christmas," "Sleepy Hollow"). When he doesn't, we admire his visual imagination and skillful techniques, but isn't this doodling of a very high order, while he waits for a purpose to reveal itself?.

New York Times / A.O. Scott:
The most curious thing about this magical-realist fable...is how thin and soft it is, how unpersuasive and ultimately forgettable even its most strenuous inventions turn out to be.

San Francisco Chronicle / Mick LaSalle:
A long-winded indulgence in tear-and-a-smile whimsy, elevated above the merely irritating and saccharine by compelling art direction.

Washington Post / Desson Thomson:
A disappointingly dull thud of a fantasy.

Washington Post / Stephen Hunter:
Big Fish stinks from the head.

Village Voice / J. Hoberman:
An abundance of dull exposition building up to the son's attempt to cap his father's whoppers climaxes with a tedious flurry of Fellini-esque endings and Spielbergian fillips. The magic doesn't work twice -- or even once.

Time / Richard Corliss:
The film fairly groans from all the narrative gamesmanship and lavish romantic gestures...The unbewitched viewer may groan as well.

The Hollywood Reporter / Kirk Honeycutt:
A misfire. The film that wants to be lighter than air instead crashes to earth with the swiftness of a concrete parachute.

Variety / Todd McCarthy:
The imaginatively illustrated but precariously precious film offers up a string of minor pleasures but never becomes more than moderately amusing or involving.

Salon.com / Stephanie Zacharek:
It's nicely made, well shot, and reasonably well acted, yet it's enough to filet the life force right out of you. We need stories in order to dream, and to live. But that doesn't mean we have to buy every crappy one that comes down the pike.

The New Yorker / Anthony Lane:
What is most disappointing about Big Fish is the nervousness of its fantasizing--a strange unwillingness, new in Burton's work, to trust the wit of the audience.

***

© Written by TC Candler

How We Rated This Film TC Candler - C- Richard Propes - A Jacob Hall - A-

Richard Propes' Comment

I am a Tim Burton fan, and I'd consider this one of his finest. The film features an outstanding performance by Ewan McGregor, who I am slowly becoming a fan of due to recent films. The film also features solid performances by Billy Crudup and Albert Finney, and the usual Burton flair for visuals. Other fine supporting performances are turned in by Alison Lohman, Jessica Lange, Helena Bonham Carter, Robert Guillaume, Loudon Wainwright and the always wonderful Steve Buscemi. This film features the wonderful Burton touch for characterization, which is a wonderful balance to the visuals. I wouldn't call this a perfect film, but a welcome return to the Burton I know and love.

Jacob Hall's Comment

The acting alone makes the movie, but Tim Burton covers the warm, tasty cake with scrumptious frosting. The film is visually beautiful. The atmosphere in the "real" world is nothing special, but in the stories everything comes to life. From shadowy forests, to circuses, to fields, to Korea, the film is a marvel to look at. The special effects get the job done, but aren't flashy like "Lord of the Rings." They're simple, and somewhat magical.

In short, do yourself a favor and see this movie. It is one of the best examples of storytelling in a long time. The ending teared me up, and I assure it will do the same to you.