...most overlooked and best film, in my opinion anyway. Don't get me wrong, if it's got Tim's name on it I'll watch it, but Big Fish, to me, is his masterpiece and also the most easily accessible film he's ever done. Most of this films are very quirky... this one certainly is no exception, but we relate to his characters so much more. This film has so much magic and it's one I can watch over and over again.
I've made it my plot to see every Tim Burton movie. So far I only seen Batman, Corpse Bride, Alice In Wonderland, Big Fish, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Ed Wood and Mars Attacks. I predict that Big Fish will be near the bottom of the list of Tim's movies that I enjoyed.
If you love Big Fish, I have no problem with that, but I just found this movie to be a bore.
The main problem I had with Big Fish is that the story doesn't move us from A to B. What we learn in the beginning is that an old man named Ed loves telling weird stories to his son, and in the end we learn... that Ed loves telling weird stories to his son. I suppose the wrap up moral of the story is that you don't need to know the real details of your fathers life, as long as he's himself, you know all you need to. Our we suppose to pity Will for wanting the REAL details of his father's life? All he wanted to know was real things, so what if it's boring? at least it's real. I'd be exactly the same way with my father. I've got another question, since Ed's story of how he met his wife is very preposterous, why didn't Will ask her what really happened? I will admit, I fell asleep towards the end of the movie, so if there's something I missed, PLEASE TELL ME!
My other problem with the story is that 90% of this movie is just the fairy tales Ed tells. I'd be more acceptable of the movie if the stories he told were a little more interesting. The tale with the giant was cute, but the whole plot where he tries to get his girl is just down right boring. What am I suppose to think when he wins this girl's heart other then "That's nice, we haven't seen this story before "? Maybe it should have been a musical, or make it more abstract or dark to emphasize the magical aspect and then it would have worked.
The only good thing I can say about the film is the visual look. It's BEAUTIFUL!
My Novel: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/emo-alan-dj/1107079914?ean=29400328262 93
I missed the magic. The story is ok –but drags in places. The montage of young Ed artificially built him up too fast. The sub-stories had potential but they just didn’'t go anywhere. Disjointed scenes from the two main storylines felt pasted together and wasted time that could have been used to develop the sub-stories.
The actors playing background characters (i.e. the boys and townspeople) were obviously selected for their very stereotypical looks that fit in with the "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" style scenes, backdrops, and costumes. But they felt artificial. Was this deliberate?
I noticed some truly unbelievable elements that were also possibly deliberate. For example, the black doctor in an early 20th Century white Southern maternity hospital when Ed was born; Ewan McGregor playing an 18-year old when he was over 30 years old; and the odd story characters that appeared in real life at the end hadn’'t aged a bit!
The story tries to make Ed'’s son grow to understand his father’'s character so that they can connect – I didn'’t think it really worked at the very end that well. But it was somewhat touching.
I guess the theme is: romantic whimsical imagination is nicer to live in rather than harsh dull painful reality.
Some scenes are beautiful in a rehashed Tim Burton kind of way. But I liked "Sleepy Hollow" much better.
“There is NO such thing as a free lunch.” - Milton Friedman