Where peace is not a pie ...Rick's Cafe Americain

I really feel for the people who would have to move if the arena is built.  I’ve never been to Freddy’s - a bar in the destruction zone - though it looks like the kind of place I would really like.  It really looks like a horrible abuse of eminent domain, so I hope that the residents and business owners can fight hard enough to get real compensation.  Because I know that I’ll get the benefit without much cost because the arena is slated to be built in the northwest corner of Prospect Heights and I live in the very southeast corner, I shouldn’t be such a selfish prick.  I should stand screaming at the government for abusing the public and presenting us the distractions of bread and circus.

But I can’t help it.  There is going to be an NBA team in my neighborhood and I am fuckin’ giddy.  Bring on those damn circuses! The NBA will be here, and it will be fantastic.

Mom was from Coney Island and Dad was from the Bronx.  Although I grew up in Queens, all of my friends in high school lived in Manhattan, which seemed so much cooler at the time. I longed to rid myself of my borough roots and achingly looked across the river to the day that I could say that I live “in the City.”

Then I had to pay for it myself.  University subsidized housing made it possible during law school but after graduation I refused to bankrupt myself to live in a walkup shoebox.  So back to the boroughs I went.  I have accepted that I am a boroughs guy and really, really like Brooklyn.  I can’t bring myself to look at this realistically and think that the Nets coming to my ‘hood is nothing but great.

I am being immature. I know that I will regret it as the bills come due but for now I am pleased.

Instead of starting with the lessons learned, I’d like to start with the hand that I will never get again, and I didn’t play it when I had the chance.  In the big blind with J♥-5x, I was able to check to the flop.  The flop came Q♥-K♥-x.  With a bet and two calls after I checked, I grudgingly decided that I had to lay down my cards.  I wistfully thought about the draw for a flush, but what were the chances ...  T♥ on the turn.  Ha ha! Very funny, poker gods!  You got me!  Maybe I should have stayed in after all! No, I’m just jok ... A♥ on the river.  And so there it is: my phantom royal flush.  I know in my head that I played it right (at least two of the players had better pairs than me after the flop), but I will always look back and wonder what might have been ...

Of course, all that might have been was a 5th place finish.  It was early in the game and there wasn’t a lot of money in the pot.  It is hard not to romanticize a Royal Flush though.  (I’ve only had one natural Royal before. In a freeroll, the board was A♠-J♠-Q♠-T♠-K♠.  Damndest thing I’ve ever seen.)

Back to table image.  The first hand was perfect. I was dealt 88 on the button and played it into an early win. Half the table limped around to me and I raised preflop to knock the hand down to three players.  The board was all rags and while nobody was betting, all three were calling.  I knew my snowmen would stand up, and they did.  My next few preflop raises didn’t go as well.

A quick review of my stats said that I won 5 of 6 showdowns. You would think that meant that players would start to respect my raises, but you would be wrong.  I waited for good starting hands - JJ or QQ or KQ♣ - but without fail I got callers, and without fail the board always showed at least one overcard.  When the table respects your raises it is possible to reraise and steal back the pot.  When everything you bet gets called, it is time to take your second best hand and muck it.  And muck it.  And muck it.  Flop after flop kept killing my raises.  It was nice that the players kept calling eachother to the river - I got to see that my hand wouldn’t have improved (and would have lost every time), but it was still frustrating to keep folding my good pairs to what I knew was a hand like K4offsuit.

In a sit and go, of course, just outlasting the stragglers is part of the game and I was getting no help from the hand of fate.  The rest of the table just kept trading money back and forth as I was slowly bleeding to death.  I watched two players get blinded all in a total of seven times without losing.  I only survived once - when my pocket aces held up.

I lived through one rollercoaster in the interim. I limped in with A♣7♣ on the button.  The flop came 7-9♣-9.  The short stack raised, I reraised and put him all in and he called with J2o. (Don’t ask me why.) A J on the turn gave him a short lease on life, but a third 7 on the river filled me up and knocked him out of the tournament.  It was a short lived success, and that was the only time that the river was my friend all night.

And so it goes.  I didn’t bet once when I didn’t have the best hand and I got sucked out over and over.  For a while I thought I should just show my cards instead of mucking them so I could get a little respect for my raises.  Or maybe I could just scream “I’m playing tight, you bastards!” in the chat. 

So when the board came up T-8-5 after my desperation all-in preflop raise holding 66, and the other two all-ins were holding T8o and J8o, and I was passed by two players who hadn’t really made a decision to play a pot in the last thirty minutes, I didn’t even give myself the catharsis of a Dean scream in the privacy of my own home. I just sighed and watched another fin drift away. 

Don’t listen to my brother when he says that I cursed at the computer. A lot.

The film is a cross between documentary style and drama, sharing elements of each, while not exactly being either.  It is easily on of, if not the, most powerful and important movies ever made on revolutionary/terrorist activities and the controlling forces response thereto.  Additionally, the views of Algiers, especially the Casbah, are a cinematic delight.  The visuals of crowds and the many scenes of interaction between French forces and resisting Algerians are astonishing when one realizes that there is not one single piece of newsreel footage in the entire movie.  If this movie had been made today, it would be technically impressive.  The fact that it was made 40 years ago, was shot on location and used amateur actors makes it is one of the most technically impressive feats of filmmaking I am aware of.
The movie that jumps to mind to compare it to is Schindler’s List, though it is more documentary and less story than Schindler’s List.  I found The Battle of Algiers to be more impressive, more powerful and more important of a movie than Schindler’s List.* Interestingly, the Pentagon screened it last October for potential Baghdad occupiers and it is easy to understand why.**

If you are concerned about knowing too much, see the below footnote on the italicized text.*** Otherwise, read on.

The balanced nature of the movie is one of its most important features.  We are shown the formation and organization of the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) and the strategies, tactics and goals of the resistance fighters/terrorists.  We are also chillingly shown the results: assassinations and bombings that bring home the chilling reality of similar events in Northern Ireland and Israel.  The French paratroopers (fresh off embarrassment in Vietnam) arrive to restore order and we are shown their strategy sessions and watch as they systematically crush the rebellion by capturing low level FLN members and then torture them to snake their way up the FLN’s pyramid structure to identify and then eliminate its leaders.
The movie does not preach and does not judge or portray either side as per se good or evil.  The viewer is often left to draw his/or her own conclusions.  In one powerful scene, a captured, high-ranking FLN member is queried by a reporter as to whether it is morally reprehensible to use women with baskets to plant bombs against civilian targets.  His response is to ask the reporter whether it is morally reprehensible to attack undefended villages with bombers.  “Give us your bombers and we’ll give you our baskets,” he says.  In another scene, reporters are querying the leader of the French paratroopers about his harsh repression and torture tactics.  His responds that the question is whether France should be in Algeria, a proposition he asserts all the reporters favor.  If France is to be in Algeria, he says, then his tactics are necessary and must be accepted as the consequences and requirements of staying.

You will be sickened by the tactics of both sides as you watch this movie.  But you will also ask yourself, if you are being honest, whether, if you were fighting for Algeria’s independence, would you not do these things in retaliation or if you believed them necessary to gain your independence?  Or, if you believed that the FLN was nothing more than a terrorist organization, would you be opposed to the brutal tactics used to crush it – tactics which are probably similar to those currently being used by the U.S. in Iraq or by the Israelis.

To the extent the movie does show a bias, it clearly would answer the French commander’s question in the negative; the French should not be in Algeria.  But the movie appears to respect that, acting with the opposite premise, the French commander’s actions are not necessarily any more morally reprehensible than those of the FLN.  You will find yourself sympathetic to the Algerians at many points during the movie, and if the movie leans either way it certainly leans towards the rebels.  However, The Battle of Algiers does not pull any punches in depicting the nature of their terrorist acts and moral ambiguity in this movie is rampant and appropriate.

Interestingly, the score was done by Ennio Morricone, who did the score for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.  I did not know this before seeing the movie, but it made perfect sense when I learned this.

* Admittedly, I am of the view that Schindler’s List was overrated.  It was an impressive, powerful and important movie, but it by no means blew me away and I think the Pianist, for example, is a significantly better movie.  This caveat should not in anyway diminish from my opinion of the greatness The Battle of Algiers.

** Apparently, the Pentagon flier stated “How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas . . .Children shoot soldiers at point blank range. Women plant bombs in cafés. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.”

*** The italicized text does not give away the movie or the flow of events, but tells some of the movie’s substance and tells you what to expect.  If you want to view the movie completely fresh, skip ahead to the next normal text section, but if you want to have a more complete historical perspective and better understand why this movie is so important, read on.

The film is a cross between documentary style and drama, sharing elements of each, while not exactly being either.  It is easily on of, if not the, most powerful and important movies ever made on revolutionary/terrorist activities and the controlling forces response thereto.  Additionally, the views of Algiers, especially the Casbah, are a cinematic delight.  The visuals of crowds and the many scenes of interaction between French forces and resisting Algerians are astonishing when one realizes that there is not one single piece of newsreel footage in the entire movie.  If this movie had been made today, it would be technically impressive.  The fact that it was made 40 years ago, was shot on location and used amateur actors makes it is one of the most technically impressive feats of filmmaking I am aware of.
The movie that jumps to mind to compare it to is Schindler’s List, though it is more documentary and less story than Schindler’s List.  I found The Battle of Algiers to be more impressive, more powerful and more important of a movie than Schindler’s List.* Interestingly, the Pentagon screened it last October for potential Baghdad occupiers and it is easy to understand why.**

If you are concerned about knowing too much, see the below footnote on the italicized text.*** Otherwise, read on.

The balanced nature of the movie is one of its most important features.  We are shown the formation and organization of the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) and the strategies, tactics and goals of the resistance fighters/terrorists.  We are also chillingly shown the results: assassinations and bombings that bring home the chilling reality of similar events in Northern Ireland and Israel.  The French paratroopers (fresh off embarrassment in Vietnam) arrive to restore order and we are shown their strategy sessions and watch as they systematically crush the rebellion by capturing low level FLN members and then torture them to snake their way up the FLN’s pyramid structure to identify and then eliminate its leaders.
The movie does not preach and does not judge or portray either side as per se good or evil.  The viewer is often left to draw his/or her own conclusions.  In one powerful scene, a captured, high-ranking FLN member is queried by a reporter as to whether it is morally reprehensible to use women with baskets to plant bombs against civilian targets.  His response is to ask the reporter whether it is morally reprehensible to attack undefended villages with bombers.  “Give us your bombers and we’ll give you our baskets,” he says.  In another scene, reporters are querying the leader of the French paratroopers about his harsh repression and torture tactics.  His responds that the question is whether France should be in Algeria, a proposition he asserts all the reporters favor.  If France is to be in Algeria, he says, then his tactics are necessary and must be accepted as the consequences and requirements of staying.

You will be sickened by the tactics of both sides as you watch this movie.  But you will also ask yourself, if you are being honest, whether, if you were fighting for Algeria’s independence, would you not do these things in retaliation or if you believed them necessary to gain your independence?  Or, if you believed that the FLN was nothing more than a terrorist organization, would you be opposed to the brutal tactics used to crush it – tactics which are probably similar to those currently being used by the U.S. in Iraq or by the Israelis.

To the extent the movie does show a bias, it clearly would answer the French commander’s question in the negative; the French should not be in Algeria.  But the movie appears to respect that, acting with the opposite premise, the French commander’s actions are not necessarily any more morally reprehensible than those of the FLN.  You will find yourself sympathetic to the Algerians at many points during the movie, and if the movie leans either way it certainly leans towards the rebels.  However, The Battle of Algiers does not pull any punches in depicting the nature of their terrorist acts and moral ambiguity in this movie is rampant and appropriate.

Interestingly, the score was done by Ennio Morricone, who did the score for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.  I did not know this before seeing the movie, but it made perfect sense when I learned this.

* Admittedly, I am of the view that Schindler’s List was overrated.  It was an impressive, powerful and important movie, but it by no means blew me away and I think the Pianist, for example, is a significantly better movie.  This caveat should not in anyway diminish from my opinion of the greatness The Battle of Algiers.

** Apparently, the Pentagon flier stated “How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas . . .Children shoot soldiers at point blank range. Women plant bombs in cafés. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.”

*** The italicized text does not give away the movie or the flow of events, but tells some of the movie’s substance and tells you what to expect.  If you want to view the movie completely fresh, skip ahead to the next normal text section, but if you want to have a more complete historical perspective and better understand why this movie is so important, read on.

Forgive the Orwellian rechristenings of my poker colleagues; I can’t turn down a request from a friend.  The Churchwarden and I sat down with Helmut Newton and Leo Bloom.  Rick had to work again and a sixth player bailed, so we were playing at a short table once again. The Churchwarden and Leo took a fairly severe pounding the last time out and were looking for redemption.  I was looking to recover from the pounding I took in the No Limit Debacle.  Helmut had done his share of winning lately, so even though I could insist to him that playing loose would eventually cost him he was in a position to disagree.  Strategy, says he.  Piffle, says me.  But the only place to settle this dispute was at the table, so to the table we go.

I would have made a better argument had I not started playing junk.  Not total junk, but semi-junk. K5, Q8 - the stuff I know that I’m not supposed to play.  What can I say?  We were playing 4 handed 1-2 hold ‘em and I confess to getting a bit bored since there was very little conversation.  I confess that I am a fan of coffeehousing at the table, as long as the people out of the hand don’t start theorizing about the hand in progress.

Like I said, it was a quiet day.  Helmut came out gangbusters.  He took down the first five hands - 2 straight wins, a river and 2 times the table folded to him.  10 minutes after we first started dealing and he is running away with the table.  Time for bourbon.

I really don’t remember the rest of the night.  What I do know is that Churchwarden started playing tight and solid, and I refused to respect a preflop raise from Leo to my peril.  (My 55 didn’t stand a chance against his cowboys.) After that solid start, Helmut spent the rest of the night pissing away his chips.  Two hands from his slide to the bottom stand out and both involve me.

I have A6c and am head to head with Helmut.  Flop comes Kx-6x-4c.  Helmut checks.  I’m not a particularly good reader of people, but I know that my sixes are strong.  I bet, he calls.  Jc on the turn. He ain’t got no J and now I have the nut flush draw. I bet again, he calls again.  8x.  He checks, I bet, he calls. And turns over ? 85c. So he called me with a draw to a gutshot straight after I opened three times. Would you have guessed that I had a K?  I sure would have.  Man did I want a club to come on the river, but Mick knows the deal.  Does revenge come? Yes, yes it does.

Holding 67o in the BB, Helmut calls from the SB and we are head to head.  Flop is 2-4-5 rainbow. Helmut bets.  Even though I figure he has a low pair - those are the hands he plays - I call.  Between the open-ended straight draw and (I thought) 6 additional outs, one bet seemed reasonable. Turn is a 3. Jackpot!  Now I have the stone nuts and we cap the betting.  River is useless, he checks, I bet, he calls and turns over 46.  And made some noise about me getting lucky.  I concede that my draw was a little lucky (and if a 6 had hit the board it would have cost me a lot of money), but what was he doing calling pre-flop with 46?  Or refusing to respect 2 reraises?  I have no regrets. If Helmut is going to live by the chase ...

The tally is strange.  In the final accounting, I wish I had lost an extra quarter to Leo and Churchwarden.

Churchwarden +$45.25
Leo Bloom +$45.25
Ugarte +$0.50 (Yes, that’s right four bits.  For four hours.  I could have been stitching Nikes.)
Helmut -$91.00

Here is the part where I honor those that came before me.  I have to give multiple shoutouts to those who have shouted in my direction:

Hello back to Pauly at Tao of Poker.  You can also check out his general blog Tao of Pauly.  Pauly’s a New Yorker, so I figure that we’ll play eventually.

London Froggy of Vagaries is, well, in London - so I doubt that we’ll play any time soon.  But who knows.  It might be fun to lose sterling instead of dollars.

Grubby at Poker Grub is running the Hammer Challenge.  Are you man enough to win the extra prize in Round III? Is grubby in NY also?

Iggy at Guiness and Poker is ... I don’t know where Iggy is.

Felicia Lee runs a yahoo group about her play out in Nevada. Not on Yahoo? Go here.

Finally, it took so long to post this that in the interim my cash cleared the pokerstars account.  So I played for a little while at the 1-2 table at 7am yesterday.  Stupidest $20 I ever threw away; did it in about a minute and a half.  Next time I’ll play when I’m awake so I don’t have to bury it at the back of the grovel.

I would be happy to post as much of it as I can (assuming Rick approves) and work on the logistics of putting such a massive thing together.  Or perhaps it will go somewhere else.  But spread the word, and let’s start in pieces.

And I want to make clear, and this is important.  NO B.S.!!!  I don’t want anything that is not accurate.  That cannot be checked.  This is not about smearing Bush.  This is about setting the record straight.

I would be happy to post as much of it as I can (assuming Rick approves) and work on the logistics of putting such a massive thing together.  Or perhaps it will go somewhere else.  But spread the word, and let’s start in pieces.

And I want to make clear, and this is important.  NO B.S.!!!  I don’t want anything that is not accurate.  That cannot be checked.  This is not about smearing Bush.  This is about setting the record straight.

I posted earlier today with expectation that Kerry would win, Edwards would finish 2nd, with Dean 3rd and Gephardt 4th, but I expected the numbers to be a lot closer.  Gephardt cratering is not a big surprise, the writing was on the wall and I am sure that affected his support.  But Dean’s distant third is certainly a surprise. 

Does this kill Dean?  I don’t think it does, but New Hampshire is now do or die for Dean.  The other big loser is Wesley Clark, who was expecting a Dean win and a show down in New Hampshire.  Now he has to also face a surging Kerry and Edwards and it is going to be hard for him to get attention in New Hampshire because rather than the media focusing on a Clark/Dean showdown, the stories are going to be about whether Dean can bounce back, whether Kerry will make it two in a row and on the Edwards surge.  That does not leave a lot of time for Clark and (1) from what I have seen he does not have the personal charisma to demand the attention and (2) his best argument for nomination was that Dean was unelectable and that cannot be the message anymore.

More Predictions

Earlier today, I predicted that a strong 2nd place would eventually help propel Edwards to the nomination.  I am going to stick with that prediction.  I think he will do no worse than third in New Hampshire, clean up in South Carolina and then out campaign Kerry to the nomination.  I think Dean will do ok in New Hampshire, but run out of steam in South Carolina and then fade away (though a Dean comeback is still a possibility, but he has to win New Hampshire convincingly and I think that will be hard).  I think Kerry will win New Hampshire and then get in a two-way race with Edwards.  Clark will be in the mix in New Hampshire, but I think his campaign will simply never fully get off the ground.

Why Edwards?  It is simple.  He is young, attractive, charismatic, has a positive message, is a great speaker, he is from the South (which is important in electoral politics), his anti-insider message will resonate and appear sincere, and this bounce in Iowa has gotten him on the map.  And I think, ultimately, that people will conclude that he is the person most likely to beat Bush. 

I posted earlier today with expectation that Kerry would win, Edwards would finish 2nd, with Dean 3rd and Gephardt 4th, but I expected the numbers to be a lot closer.  Gephardt cratering is not a big surprise, the writing was on the wall and I am sure that affected his support.  But Dean’s distant third is certainly a surprise. 

Does this kill Dean?  I don’t think it does, but New Hampshire is now do or die for Dean.  The other big loser is Wesley Clark, who was expecting a Dean win and a show down in New Hampshire.  Now he has to also face a surging Kerry and Edwards and it is going to be hard for him to get attention in New Hampshire because rather than the media focusing on a Clark/Dean showdown, the stories are going to be about whether Dean can bounce back, whether Kerry will make it two in a row and on the Edwards surge.  That does not leave a lot of time for Clark and (1) from what I have seen he does not have the personal charisma to demand the attention and (2) his best argument for nomination was that Dean was unelectable and that cannot be the message anymore.

More Predictions

Earlier today, I predicted that a strong 2nd place would eventually help propel Edwards to the nomination.  I am going to stick with that prediction.  I think he will do no worse than third in New Hampshire, clean up in South Carolina and then out campaign Kerry to the nomination.  I think Dean will do ok in New Hampshire, but run out of steam in South Carolina and then fade away (though a Dean comeback is still a possibility, but he has to win New Hampshire convincingly and I think that will be hard).  I think Kerry will win New Hampshire and then get in a two-way race with Edwards.  Clark will be in the mix in New Hampshire, but I think his campaign will simply never fully get off the ground.

Why Edwards?  It is simple.  He is young, attractive, charismatic, has a positive message, is a great speaker, he is from the South (which is important in electoral politics), his anti-insider message will resonate and appear sincere, and this bounce in Iowa has gotten him on the map.  And I think, ultimately, that people will conclude that he is the person most likely to beat Bush. 

Big Fish is both a collection of fairytale like stories, telling the tall “tale” of a man’s life, and the story of a son trying to understand and know this man, his father.  Billy Crudup gives an effective performance playing Will Bloom a (probably) 30 something man whose wife is about to give birth and who wants finally to “understand” his father before he becomes one.  However, Will feels that he only knows his father through the many tall tales Ed has been telling Will (and anyone else who will listen) since he was born.  While Will loved these tales as a child, he is now frustrated because he feels that he does not know the man his father really is/was.  Ed, played by Albert Finny, who, as always, gives an excellent performance, is unapologetic and refuses to acknowledge that his stories do not accurately reflect his life.  The movie shifts back and forth from present day to the fairytale like stories of Ed’s life.  In the “tall” tales, Ewan McGreggor, who does a good job portraying a man filled with confidence and determination, who also possesses the naivete and innocence of a small town boy, plays Ed.

The fairytale stories lie somewhere between Forest Gump and Paul Bunyon.  However, the stories do not collectively blend together as effectively or interesting as in Forest Gump and none are as fantastical or interesting as a Paul Bunyon style tall tale.  Ultimately, this is why Big Fish is nothing more than a mildly entertaining movie.

The “real life” story in Big Fish plays a much larger roll than it does in movies such as The Neverending Story, Labyrinth or The Princess Bride.  However, the father/son tale does not do anything particularly new, original or interesting on its own, and it only moderates improves the fairytale.  Thus, it is on the strength of the fairytales that Big Fish must be judged and the reality is, is that this fairytale is simply not as interesting as the one in The Neverending Story, Labyrinth or The Princess Bride.* You may have noticed by now that I use the word “interesting” quite often in this review.  I would edit out my overuse of a single word, but I found that my desire to use it repeatedly accurately reflected my ultimately feeling on Big Fish; it simply was not interesting enough to really grab me.

Neverthless, I applaud Tim Burton’s ambitious attempt of aiming a fairytale story at an adult audience.  While movies such as The Princess Bride and Labyrinth leapt to mind when I thought of movies to compare Big Fish to, those movies are fairytale stories aimed at children that adults can appreciate.  There is no doubt here that Burton’s fairytale is aimed squarely at adults.  While I don’t think the result was all that it could have been, I also think that that task is harder than simply making a children’s movie that adults will also love.  Thus, I am glad to see this movie achieving commercial and critical success.  Hopefully, it will help spur more ambitious and original projects out of Hollywood and less formulaic crap.  (Ok, now who’s spinning a fairytale?)

* I acknowledge the possibility that I am exaggerating the quality of these movies.  The Princess Bride is, of course, a timeless classic and much more than “just” a fairytale, but I have not seen The Neverending Story or Labyrinth in many years and it is possible that, at 29, those movies might not grab me as much as I remember them doing.  I will have to check them out again sometime and report back.

Big Fish is both a collection of fairytale like stories, telling the tall “tale” of a man’s life, and the story of a son trying to understand and know this man, his father.  Billy Crudup gives an effective performance playing Will Bloom a (probably) 30 something man whose wife is about to give birth and who wants finally to “understand” his father before he becomes one.  However, Will feels that he only knows his father through the many tall tales Ed has been telling Will (and anyone else who will listen) since he was born.  While Will loved these tales as a child, he is now frustrated because he feels that he does not know the man his father really is/was.  Ed, played by Albert Finny, who, as always, gives an excellent performance, is unapologetic and refuses to acknowledge that his stories do not accurately reflect his life.  The movie shifts back and forth from present day to the fairytale like stories of Ed’s life.  In the “tall” tales, Ewan McGreggor, who does a good job portraying a man filled with confidence and determination, who also possesses the naivete and innocence of a small town boy, plays Ed.

The fairytale stories lie somewhere between Forest Gump and Paul Bunyon.  However, the stories do not collectively blend together as effectively or interesting as in Forest Gump and none are as fantastical or interesting as a Paul Bunyon style tall tale.  Ultimately, this is why Big Fish is nothing more than a mildly entertaining movie.

The “real life” story in Big Fish plays a much larger roll than it does in movies such as The Neverending Story, Labyrinth or The Princess Bride.  However, the father/son tale does not do anything particularly new, original or interesting on its own, and it only moderates improves the fairytale.  Thus, it is on the strength of the fairytales that Big Fish must be judged and the reality is, is that this fairytale is simply not as interesting as the one in The Neverending Story, Labyrinth or The Princess Bride.* You may have noticed by now that I use the word “interesting” quite often in this review.  I would edit out my overuse of a single word, but I found that my desire to use it repeatedly accurately reflected my ultimately feeling on Big Fish; it simply was not interesting enough to really grab me.

Neverthless, I applaud Tim Burton’s ambitious attempt of aiming a fairytale story at an adult audience.  While movies such as The Princess Bride and Labyrinth leapt to mind when I thought of movies to compare Big Fish to, those movies are fairytale stories aimed at children that adults can appreciate.  There is no doubt here that Burton’s fairytale is aimed squarely at adults.  While I don’t think the result was all that it could have been, I also think that that task is harder than simply making a children’s movie that adults will also love.  Thus, I am glad to see this movie achieving commercial and critical success.  Hopefully, it will help spur more ambitious and original projects out of Hollywood and less formulaic crap.  (Ok, now who’s spinning a fairytale?)

* I acknowledge the possibility that I am exaggerating the quality of these movies.  The Princess Bride is, of course, a timeless classic and much more than “just” a fairytale, but I have not seen The Neverending Story or Labyrinth in many years and it is possible that, at 29, those movies might not grab me as much as I remember them doing.  I will have to check them out again sometime and report back.