User reviews

Many people have said how great they found this film, personally it didn't really do it for me.

I thought it was quite sickly actually. Plus points for the special effects; Tim Burton rarely disappoints in that area, but what got me was the obvious way it tried to toy with the viewers emotions, it tried too hard to upset me, and at the end I didn't care, I knew it was manipulating the viewer and I didn't fall for it's narrative tricks. But this isn't about how clever I am, rather, how superficial I found the acting and the writing to be. There were too many clichéd characters, and I suppose that is partly the point of tall tales, but I found it boring.

It's definitely not for everyone, it left me cold and wet. Rather like a big fish.

I guess expectations will get you more often than not. I'm a fan of much of Tim Burton's work, and the accolades declaring this to be a new "Wizard of Oz" were encouraging, but as it turns out, I was more entertained by that other recent film with the similar premise - Secondhand Lions.

Big Fish started with promise as it sets up the metaphor and mythos of its story, but about halfway through it all becomes rather ho-hum. I like where Burton was reaching with this, which was higher than Secondhand Lions was reaching, but it really failed to resonate or captivate in the way it seems to try so hard to. Secondhand Lions knew it was a light comedy, seen from the eyes of a child coming of age, and it was successful in that sense. Big Fish didn't seem to know what it was... it wasn't really all that funny... or dramatic... or romantic... though it had slight aspects of each. And with the protagonist a jaded adult (Billy Crudup), it just wasn't as captivating to experience as compared to Haley Joel Osment's youth in Lions.

Some good performances, especially Ewan McGregor as the younger Edward Bloom, but unfortunately the film is nowhere near as entertaining or resonating as other Burton fare such as Edward Scissorhands or Ed Wood. Hmm... Burton likes characters named "Ed", eh?

6 out of 10

Well, this film certainly took a while to hook me in, and actually my wife, pre-occupied with real life instead of reel life left the theater after about 20 minutes.

I had convinced her to see this with me after a friend had told me he thought this was a great romance. Ewan MacGregor does reprise his role from "Moulin Rouge" as a hopeless though far from helpless romantic. There's an "aw-shucks" aspect to his portrayal, did we ever see him smile and a cartoon beam of light twinkle off his teeth? Even if not, his romance doesn't have much bite to it.

I think the acting (and casting, are Southerners really that foreign to us, and to Tim Burton?) was no big shakes. Crudup gets one scene (towards the end) to really show his craft, but if you haven't seen "Jesus' Son" you're better served by watching that. Jessica Lange is a goddess, but here she is not much more than a Hallmark card. For her may I recommend Titus...amongst many.

And did someone really write here that Danny DeVito was subtle? Now, that's funny...

The big story here are the big stories, and Burton's always crafty realization of them. The tall tales are fun in a circus fashion. Indeed we even do get to visit a circus, and Burton remains a fan of the freak show...there's no boy here with scissors for hands, but plenty of others...the "Siamese" twins above all were enchanting.

There's just not enough other oddball twists from Burton to make this a "great" film for me, a doctor who has some prescience (Guillame/Benson lives!!), the deposed colossus skipping town, and so forth.

I did like new twists on myth as presented here. It would be interesting to see what others think of the book that this is based on. Also, the notion that the best we have to offer in our lives are our stories is a beguiling one (especially for someone working in the ranks of the Hollywood dream machine I suspect). I take issue with that message in theory, and in the realization of it here...I think that this dream has been manufactured to be consumed by so many, and thus lost its most interesting flavors.

So we end up with a cafeteria prepared big fish, that really is not that difficult to stomach, and is filling enough. As I think about it Burton's characters in the past were not a strong point (defined more by quixotic behavior than on dialogue, and detailed character portrayal...Batman was not the only comic book escapee among them), but I still think this film comes up a little lacking for Burton fans.

Lower your expectations, and give this film time to see past the "Forrest Gump" nature of it for the trees surrounding Specter and other delights...

6/10

In the words of one of the characters "Not everything makes sense, but that's the kind of story this is." And indeed so, not everything here makes sense...

Will Bloom tells the story of his Dad, who told the most unusual and extraordinary stories, which supposedly happened to him. This is a fairytale and it is magical and fantastical - complete with a giant, a witch, and a werewolf.

The film itself is a bunch of stories thrown together, and might as well have been an anthology film. 'Big Fish' is an incredibly well made and highly acclaimed film, but let me make a confession: the first time I watched it, I found it slow moving. Thinking I probably wasn't in the right frame of mind when I watched it, I decided to watch it again. Sure enough, again I found it a bit slow. Extremely well made with fantastic visuals, off course, but nevertheless a bit slow.

'Big Fish' is a film about telling stories. How much of it is true (according to Ed Bloom senior) is an entirely different story altogether. Let's just assume the film is set in a world and time when these fantastical things do happen. It is still up to Will to make up his own mind.

Ultimately, this is a love story, with Ed Bloom telling the story of how he met is wife, and the lengths he went through to be with her. (The things men would do for a girl, I thought rolling my eyes and shaking my head...)

'Big Fish' does have a heartfelt ending, but was it interesting enough (for me) despite all the magical elements and great visuals? Well, I know for a fact I'm going to offend many fans by saying 'no'. But alas, I just didn't find it interesting enough.

'Big Fish' deserves to be seen though. From great visuals to costumes and production design, this is a very good production in its entirety and I complement Tim Burton on a job well done. It's just not entirely my thing...

In Big Fish, Tim Burton deals with actors more than he has in any other movie. There is more dialogue between actors, and there is also a voiceover, placing more emphasis on human beings than Tim Burton's imaginative creations that we've seen in his other films. That being said, Burton fans will not be hugely disappointed. Burton's imagination does indeed color this movie to make it even better than Daniel August's novel. He makes a giant look like the size he is in the story (unlike Lord of the Rings' failure to make the hobbits look small enough at times) and employs stunning cinematography (that's more the director of photography but obviously Burton was working closely with him). The freaky living beings and odd situations common to this film as well, giants and circuses and siamese twins and a land like eden with delicious apple pie. Where in other Burton films the dialogue seems unresolved and out of nowhere at times, this time when that happens it makes sense because the movie is just myths and the story of people trying to make sense of the myths. Danny Elfman wrote another wonderful score, the movie has a great feel, and impeccable acting (Ewan Macgregor, Helena Bonhman Carter, Jessica Lange, Steve Buscemi, and Albert Finney all did wonderful jobs) Unlike other Burton movies, this one is not gothic or pulp at all. It's brighter, but it maintains the signature Burton darkness, and it's a good family movie. Like some Burton movies, it's also a bit moralistic, which is not always my personal preference. But I definitely recommend this one to everyone. Check it out.

I had heard nothing but glowing praise for this movie, but I found it to be only slightly entertaining. After reading through some of the other IMDB comments, I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only one who thought so.

The exaggerated stories and special effects did little for me. Even the ending was somewhat predictable. A good cast was put together to make the movie, but there wasn't any outstanding acting. I don't think there was enough of a story line or truly memorable characters for anyone to stand out.

I did like much of the soundtrack, which of course contains lots of hit songs from the 50s and 60s, like so many other movies I've seen before.

There's really nothing special about this movie. I gave it a 6 out of 10. I was considering a 7, but it's really not that good.

There are too many problems with the film. First, Albert Finney with Jessica Lange? Give me a break. That's as bad as the current Jack Nicholson, Diane Keaton matchup. No it's worse. Albert Finney has always been as unattractive as a curmudgeon, and the years haven't changed that. I thought his character was obnoxious, whether played by him or Ewan McGregor. I could care less about him.

While this movie has a few neat visuals and strong performances, (who are the Siamese Twins?) and great work by Danny Devito and Robert Guillaume. They were all wonderful. Here's to Billy Crudup too.

The story was so boring, and the main character so uninteresting, and suffering through seeing Albert Finney's mug all over Jessica's, yuck. Can't Hollywood make appropriate matches? It's so unappealing to me. I'm am very disappointed in this film. I won't see it again.

I think this is the biggest disappointment of the year for me. So many of the pieces of this puzzle are exquisite... they just don't all fit together. Burton's weirdness always seems to be at odds with the storyteller that is necessary to pull it off. Finney and Lange (who is almost unbelievably radiant these years... see Titus, see Normal) are excellent as usual. But in the end, the pacing and narrative flaws sabotage what is one of the most beautifully art-directed movies of the year. Sad but true.

I remember this film fondly as a kid, it was so mystical and wonderful. I watched it recently and honestly, it's kind of a nothing movie. It has excellent moments, but as a whole, it's isn't very well paced or written. Your memories of this film are much better than the actual film. If you have memories of this film, don't watch it again.

When I heard that director Tim Burton (Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Planet of the Apes, Sleepy Hollow) directed this tale, I assumed that an extraordinary saga would unfold on the screen as something unnatural and weird, yet entertaining. Weird it was, yet it often failed to convey a story. Rather it made some attempts at reconciling Edward Bloom's (Albert Finney as the dying old Bloom and Ewan McGregor as young Bloom) tall yarns he would tell repeatedly to anyone who would listen and especially to his son Will Bloom (Billy Crudup). Will soon learned to disbelieve all of his father's fantastic stories and ultimately became totally estranged from his father, whether as a result of shame or the lack of intimacy and connection with his father. His mother, the ever-smiling Sandy Bloom (Jessica Lange), lends little of her stellar talents to this wooden role.

The fables as they unfold are truly implausible and often border on the ridiculous. Clearly, one is left with the same mindset as the son Will, that Edward is a huge bulls***ter who may have trouble separating fact from fantasy. The story or stories are told in confusing flashbacks, sometimes in a true Tim Burton fantasy and sometimes in what appears to be a vaudeville style. The characters are indeed colorful and weird such as the ringmaster of the Circus Amos (Danny DeVito) and the Colossus (George McArthur). It borrows heavily in fantasy style from other recent fantasies like the Truman Show, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings, yet does not come close to telling a story with clarity and style.

The film jumps from clarity to confusion and back to rationality and clarity. We are touched that the son ultimately appears at his dying father's bedside and attempts to find out who his father really is. There are many seeing the picture who will be quite taken by its symbolism, fantasy, and fatherly machinations. For myself, this film could have been written in a much more coherent manner and revealing much, much more of the possible intimacy that can exist between father and son. The comedic routines are quite funny and Burton seems to have the timing down quite well. However, its humorous sequences are not enough to carry the film or to carry the story from scene-to-scene.

The ending is predictable early in the film and clichéd at best. Helena Bonham Carter's talents are wasted as Jenny, the child becoming adult who had her eyes on Edward since he was a young man. She also plays a more interesting role as a witch in this flick, but it also falls flat and gets placed on the shelf with the rest of the cast that have not been adequately developed. This is a picture that you will either love or simple discard as too much weirdness and lacking coherence. Obviously, you know where I stand.

Opens everywhere December 25th in the Bay Area.

Ed Bloom (Albert Finney) tells the same fish story throughout his son Will (Billy Crudup)'s life of catching a fish with his wedding ring. They stop talking to each other and they only connect through Will's mother Sandra (Jessica Lange). Ed is sick and Will goes home to see him. Will retells his father's stories. As a kid, Ed encounters the witch (Helena Bonham Carter). He (Ewan McGregor) is heroic as a teen and then he confronts a giant. He convinces Karl the giant to join him to leave town. He takes a detour and ends up in the hidden town of Spectre. Later, Ed meets Sandra (Alison Lohman) at the Calloway Circus.

I like the weird Tim Burton style. The movie falls into a bit of a rut as one outlandish situation takes over from another. I need the stories to be connected more with the real part of the movie. It doesn't have the needed emotional impact. It's just one crazy wild adventure after another.

(59%) An over ambitious adaptation that only partly fits Tim Burton's creative eye. The cast is strong, but nobody it seems is given any chance to make any real impact as characters are dropped only to be brought back again as and when needed in a wild attempt to link everything, and everyone, together in one neat package. With that said this is still a quality piece with good direction and production values, some nice touches every so often, and quite a lot of charm, but the attempts of poignancy feel forced as it's so hard to connect with everything this wants to fit in. Overall it is worth a look as certain people will like this more than others, but it's really not my one of my favourite Burton movies.

Well, I'll admit it...I was really disappointed with this movie, which some are calling a masterpiece. I, for one, take such a term seriously, so I had big expectations for Big Fish. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work...the stories were kind of nifty, the acting was decent, and it looked great...but I just didn't care about Edward Bloom at the end of the movie. I felt like I had been manipulated for a couple of hours, all for nothing. That being said, I didn't hate the film by any means, but it left me with a bland taste in my mouth.

One word: "cute". The movie is cute, the characters are cute, the moral is cute... damn, mr. burton, you went soft!

Visually the movie is strong, and i think it was well done all around, but as the third act started i was wondering where all this was going. While it did start to loss me, the ending grabbed me and got me back. It wrapped it all up very nicely and drove the message home in a pretty powerful way.

With that said, and while there were several enjoyable "burton" moments, i just felt like i was watching a "nice, cute" kids movie. Why did they bother with the pg-13 rating? Cut 3 swear words out and about 5 seconds of film, and this thing is PG and more directed at its target audience. I really am a fan of Mr. Burton's work, but i think "beetle juice" was edgier. And i read that someone thought the movie was violent? Did i miss something?

Its nice, its sweet, its sentimental and gets a few laughs; but i have to say that i expected more. My vote: less cute, more burton.

Big Fish is a very moving story suitable for families. It is not really just about one father and one family, but about most of everyone with a big heart and desire to go beyond the usual... Escapist in nature yet extremely enchanting as yet another typical "American Dream", the myth and adventure as told by the father very precisely describes one's often untold mixed feelings about life and death, about sudden adolescent growth and the sweet sorrows of love...

What weakens the film most is the over-simplification and Cold-War depiction of a demonetized war-time "exotic China" in which the hero suddenly becomes unnecessarily aggressive. At the same time, while the daffodil-filled scene of love and romance is detailed and touching, the over-quick solution of another layer of the story, i.e., the witch/girl/other-woman image, proves to be too shallow in terms of social awareness. There were many allusions to American history particularly in the story of bank robbery and the changing role of poet which, if more adequately explored, could have made the film a much greater one, elevating itself towards many deeper-thinking American social-critic dramatists and European philosophical buldungsroman.

This is a movie that is everything and nothing all at once. There's a moral here, but what is the moral? That's more of a rhetorical question, but the moral I've earned from this movie is: embellish the truth. So, just lie. Which, obviously movies don't have to have a moral, but for some reason to me this movie seems like it's trying to have an overall fairy-tale like moral to it. I thought it was whimsical, and did not completely hate it - not knowing what comes next seems to be its charm. There's a very fantastical air to this movie that I find is neat, even if at first I thought it was outlandish. I found it charming, even, and the characters - though frustrating at times, especially not in the flashbacks - were interesting. Sometimes the acting felt off and the pacing was something absurd there - It was enjoyable. There are still a lot of questions that are left unanswered by this film, but i'm sure you can find them if you try hard enough. That seems to be the way of the movie, anyway.

Overall, I thought the character of Bloom was interesting. I thought the ending was one of the only nice parts that I thought tied it all together really, and the humor could hit at times. I do think it would have translated better to Tim Burton's claymation style - with how that could make a lot of things pop and let the dissonance between audience member and character dissipate a little. Also, the fish wasn't even that big. There's a lot of things to like and hate about this movie.

This movie was honestly pretty confusing and felt like a brain rot. However, I did like the concept of the son trying to understand the father through his stories. Despite the complications of the stories, the overall idea of the movie was sweet in how William puts in his best efforts to fully be conscious of his actions. I really liked the general moral in the story that, "the lies we tell ourselves to keep going and the anger we feel at being lied to". It ties the story together as a whole and gives the audience a better understanding of the movie. I'd give this movie overall a 6/10 because honestly it just wasn't my cup of tea.