Where feminine hygiene is no laughing matter ...Rick's Cafe Americain

The movie comprises excerpts from a 20-hour interview of McNamara (JFK and Johnson’s Secretary of Defense) focusing on his role in World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam.  In addition to the interview with McNamara, we are shown images of what is being described and we also often hear tape recorded exchanges between McNamara and Kennedy or Johnson.  The contemporary exchanges alone make the movie worth seeing. 

McNamara’s recollections, insights and conclusions are fascinating and the filmmakers do an excellent job of blending themes.  One example is the discussion of proportionality in war, a doctrine McNamara loosely endorses.  During World War II McNamara analyzed the efficiency of bombing raids in Germany and Japan and helping to develop America’s crushing air superiority.  He discusses the devastating pre-Hiroshima fire bombing of Japan led by General Curtis LeMay (which was far more extensive than I had ever realized) and admits that the architects of the bombing raids, himself included, probably would have been tried as war criminals if we had lost the war.  He asks the question, without answering it, whether the killing of hundreds of thousands (if not more) Japanese civilians was justified in order to save American troops.  The filmmakers subtly compare this approach, with the U.S.’s approach in Vietnam, where the debate continues today as to whether we put in too many or too few troops.  (McNamara maintains that he wanted to scale back the conflict and refers to a memorandum he wrote to Johnson just before he “resigned”/was fired where he advocated scaling back operations; however, other statements by McNamara don’t seem entirely consistent with that position and McNamara’s comments on Vietnam were not as straightforward as his comments on WWII or the Cuban Missile Crisis.) Neither the movie, nor McNamara attempt to give a definitive answer, but the contrasts in approach and tactics are though provoking.

Many other aspects of the movie that could be commented on, such as an insider’s chilling recollections, aided by hindsight and additional information, of how close we came to nuclear devastation in the Cuban missile crisis, but a full discussion could fill a book.  Go see this movie or, perhaps better yet, catch it on DVD.  An extended edition version is due out soon and if it is like the extra material on the 2 disk Capturing the Friedmans DVD, waiting for (or seeing it again on) the DVD will be well worth it.  While there are some excellent visuals in the movie, you won’t lose much viewing it on DVD as long as you can watch it in letterbox.  Also, it is an excellent movie to stop and discuss at times as a lot of ground covered in less than two hours.

Fog of War was directed by Errol Morris, who also did The Thin Blue Line and A Brief History of Time, both of which I highly recommend.

The website for Fog of War is quite interesting and has excerpts from the film.

George Lucas had a limited budget and limited technology when he made Star Wars and for years complained to anyone who listened that Star Wars was one about 1/4 of what he wanted it to be.  This left fans salivating at the prospect of what the prequels might be like, with modern special effects technology.  But before Episode I came the Special Editions and we began to get a taste of George’s “true” vision.  For the most part, the Special Editions just upgraded the technology (though oddly they didn’t upgrade the most glaring special effects error in Star Wars, where Obi Wan’s light saber nearly flickers off), such as beefing up the exploding Death Star (I liked the original one better) and there are some instances where there actually was improvement.  If Lucas had left it at that, then no problem, but he went further and actually changed the story in some places.

The worst example of this is Greedo shooting first.  One of the coolest scense in Star Wars is where Han Solo, only introduced about two minutes prior, pulls his gun under the table and blows away Greedo right before Greedo is about to blast him.  But, apparently, that is not how it was supposed to happen and it only looked that way because of inadequate special effects.  Apparently, Greedo was supposed to shoot first and miss FROM POINT BLANK RANGE and only then, after being fired upon, was Solo to blast him.  This takes a great scene and makes it into one of those, “oh come on, do you expect me to believe that crap” kind of scenes that happen every five minutes in the Matrix sequels.  Lucas got lucky in that his original intentions did not come across.  But, rather than accepting this blessing, Lucas changed the movie to put back HIS vision.

There are other examples and what they all demonstrate is that Lucas simply does not get that the creator of art does not keep sole ownership of it once it is released into the wilds.  Art (whether it be written, drawn, filmed or performed) can take on a life of its own once it is made available to the world and, in my opinion, that is often one of the marks of great art, people take it and make it their own.  To then take that art and alter it long after it has had its impact (especially in a substantive rather than superficial way) is pretty fucking arrogant.

But, making an alternative version of something can be acceptable and director’s cuts have a strong history in cinema (though the Special Editions cannot really be considered director’s cuts), so while I think the substantive changes demonstrated that Lucas got lucky in many ways with Star Wars, the original is still there for everyone to enjoy if they so choose.  But this decision takes away that option and that is unacceptable.

I can speak from experience that watching a well done DVD on a wide screen plasma home theater system that projects at the exact pixel rate of DVDs absolutely blows away the VCR experience.  Lucas’ decision to not release the original trilogy movies on DVD effectively excludes them and diminishes them to a 2nd class existence on 2nd (or 3rd) class technology.  And in case there is any confusion on this, consider this quote:

“The original versions technically don’t exist,” says Lucasfilm’s Jim Ward, who is the project’s executive producer. “(Lucas) wanted to represent the films as they exist in his mind, and that’s the special-editions versions.”

Lucas could have easily thrown the Originals into a DVD set along with the Special Editions.  The recently released Aliens mega-pack contained multiple different versions of the movie.  Or Lucas could have sold them separately and probably made a lot more money.  This is not an economic decision, but a principled one.  And it shows that George Lucas is an arrogant fucking asshole.  If there was anything I would ever consider stealing so I would have the satisfaction that he would not get my money it would be this.

I just hope that Lucas will listen to his die hard fans.  The ones that made Star Wars what it is (or, perhaps I should say, was), get down off his pedestal and reconsider his decision.

George Lucas had a limited budget and limited technology when he made Star Wars and for years complained to anyone who listened that Star Wars was one about 1/4 of what he wanted it to be.  This left fans salivating at the prospect of what the prequels might be like, with modern special effects technology.  But before Episode I came the Special Editions and we began to get a taste of George’s “true” vision.  For the most part, the Special Editions just upgraded the technology (though oddly they didn’t upgrade the most glaring special effects error in Star Wars, where Obi Wan’s light saber nearly flickers off), such as beefing up the exploding Death Star (I liked the original one better) and there are some instances where there actually was improvement.  If Lucas had left it at that, then no problem, but he went further and actually changed the story in some places.

The worst example of this is Greedo shooting first.  One of the coolest scense in Star Wars is where Han Solo, only introduced about two minutes prior, pulls his gun under the table and blows away Greedo right before Greedo is about to blast him.  But, apparently, that is not how it was supposed to happen and it only looked that way because of inadequate special effects.  Apparently, Greedo was supposed to shoot first and miss FROM POINT BLANK RANGE and only then, after being fired upon, was Solo to blast him.  This takes a great scene and makes it into one of those, “oh come on, do you expect me to believe that crap” kind of scenes that happen every five minutes in the Matrix sequels.  Lucas got lucky in that his original intentions did not come across.  But, rather than accepting this blessing, Lucas changed the movie to put back HIS vision.

There are other examples and what they all demonstrate is that Lucas simply does not get that the creator of art does not keep sole ownership of it once it is released into the wilds.  Art (whether it be written, drawn, filmed or performed) can take on a life of its own once it is made available to the world and, in my opinion, that is often one of the marks of great art, people take it and make it their own.  To then take that art and alter it long after it has had its impact (especially in a substantive rather than superficial way) is pretty fucking arrogant.

But, making an alternative version of something can be acceptable and director’s cuts have a strong history in cinema (though the Special Editions cannot really be considered director’s cuts), so while I think the substantive changes demonstrated that Lucas got lucky in many ways with Star Wars, the original is still there for everyone to enjoy if they so choose.  But this decision takes away that option and that is unacceptable.

I can speak from experience that watching a well done DVD on a wide screen plasma home theater system that projects at the exact pixel rate of DVDs absolutely blows away the VCR experience.  Lucas’ decision to not release the original trilogy movies on DVD effectively excludes them and diminishes them to a 2nd class existence on 2nd (or 3rd) class technology.  And in case there is any confusion on this, consider this quote:

“The original versions technically don’t exist,” says Lucasfilm’s Jim Ward, who is the project’s executive producer. “(Lucas) wanted to represent the films as they exist in his mind, and that’s the special-editions versions.”

Lucas could have easily thrown the Originals into a DVD set along with the Special Editions.  The recently released Aliens mega-pack contained multiple different versions of the movie.  Or Lucas could have sold them separately and probably made a lot more money.  This is not an economic decision, but a principled one.  And it shows that George Lucas is an arrogant fucking asshole.  If there was anything I would ever consider stealing so I would have the satisfaction that he would not get my money it would be this.

I just hope that Lucas will listen to his die hard fans.  The ones that made Star Wars what it is (or, perhaps I should say, was), get down off his pedestal and reconsider his decision.

Daredevil (Ben Affleck) is a blind superhero gifted with bat-like radar, heightened senses and incredible acrobatic skills.  A lawyer by day, he is a vigilante by night in Hells Kitchen (my hood).  Jennifer Garner plays Electra, the love interest with semi-special powers of her own.  The bad guys are Bullseye (Colin Farrell), who “never misses,” and the Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan), the boss of the criminal underworld.  As for the plot, the bad guys are being bad (and power hungry), Daredevil kicks ass to deliver his own justice and pretty girl gets caught in the middle and kicks some ass too.

Daredevil managed to keep my interest throughout and was, at least for the first 2/3rds, much darker than I expected (in a good way).  The plot was solid and did not have any obvious holes.  I also give Davedevil props for not succumbing to the current trend of dragging out every action scene until it is completely over the top and boring.  However, Daredevil has a few downsides that result in it just being an “ok,” rather than “good,” movie.

First of all, Ben Affleck is a horrible actor, an even worse fighter (watching him run when he was supposed to be this incredibly acrobatic superhero was quite amusing) and the love scene between him and Jennifer Garner was particularly painful to watch.  Second, none of the bad guys were particularly interesting.  Bullseye just throws things and Kingpin, who I remember from Spiderman comics, was underdeveloped and underutilized.  Third, while the plot is fine, it is basic and there is very little development of any character other than Daredevil.  Also, while the movie is dark in the beginning and middle, it does not have the guts to take that darkness all the way to the end, which feels like a sell-out. 

All-in-all, not a bad movie to catch on T.V., but that is about it.

One little oddity that I have to comment on.  In the opening scene, Ben Affleck is prosecuting a guy for rape, but in the next “laywer” scene he and his partner are discussing not getting clients who pay.  Nice that no one producing this movie caught that “prosecuters” work for the city and don’t have private law practices.

Regarding the Hi-Definition HBO movie experience (on the wide screen plasma with surround sound), it is pretty sweet, but does not match a good DVD.  However, I think a large part of that is simply because the Hi-Def movie feed fills the whole screen, which results in an obviously wider viewing angle than your typical T.V. movie because it truly utilizes the 16:9 aspect ratio, but you can still tell that you are not getting the entire screen.  Daredevil teased me by starting out letterbox and then shifting after the credits were over.  I wish they would just show the movies in letterbox, but I am not going to hold my breath on that one.  Bottom line, the Hi-Def movie experience is pretty good, especially when you are just flipping channels and stumble across a movie to watch, but if you have invested in the wide screen home theater system, get the DVD for movies you really want to see but missed in the theater.

Daredevil (Ben Affleck) is a blind superhero gifted with bat-like radar, heightened senses and incredible acrobatic skills.  A lawyer by day, he is a vigilante by night in Hells Kitchen (my hood).  Jennifer Garner plays Electra, the love interest with semi-special powers of her own.  The bad guys are Bullseye (Colin Farrell), who “never misses,” and the Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan), the boss of the criminal underworld.  As for the plot, the bad guys are being bad (and power hungry), Daredevil kicks ass to deliver his own justice and pretty girl gets caught in the middle and kicks some ass too.

Daredevil managed to keep my interest throughout and was, at least for the first 2/3rds, much darker than I expected (in a good way).  The plot was solid and did not have any obvious holes.  I also give Davedevil props for not succumbing to the current trend of dragging out every action scene until it is completely over the top and boring.  However, Daredevil has a few downsides that result in it just being an “ok,” rather than “good,” movie.

First of all, Ben Affleck is a horrible actor, an even worse fighter (watching him run when he was supposed to be this incredibly acrobatic superhero was quite amusing) and the love scene between him and Jennifer Garner was particularly painful to watch.  Second, none of the bad guys were particularly interesting.  Bullseye just throws things and Kingpin, who I remember from Spiderman comics, was underdeveloped and underutilized.  Third, while the plot is fine, it is basic and there is very little development of any character other than Daredevil.  Also, while the movie is dark in the beginning and middle, it does not have the guts to take that darkness all the way to the end, which feels like a sell-out. 

All-in-all, not a bad movie to catch on T.V., but that is about it.

One little oddity that I have to comment on.  In the opening scene, Ben Affleck is prosecuting a guy for rape, but in the next “laywer” scene he and his partner are discussing not getting clients who pay.  Nice that no one producing this movie caught that “prosecuters” work for the city and don’t have private law practices.

Regarding the Hi-Definition HBO movie experience (on the wide screen plasma with surround sound), it is pretty sweet, but does not match a good DVD.  However, I think a large part of that is simply because the Hi-Def movie feed fills the whole screen, which results in an obviously wider viewing angle than your typical T.V. movie because it truly utilizes the 16:9 aspect ratio, but you can still tell that you are not getting the entire screen.  Daredevil teased me by starting out letterbox and then shifting after the credits were over.  I wish they would just show the movies in letterbox, but I am not going to hold my breath on that one.  Bottom line, the Hi-Def movie experience is pretty good, especially when you are just flipping channels and stumble across a movie to watch, but if you have invested in the wide screen home theater system, get the DVD for movies you really want to see but missed in the theater.

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.

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.

Demonlover stars Connie Nielson who, for all the sexual elements in the movie, is not presented in a very attractive (physically) light, certain not in comparison to her gorgeous and, ironically, more sexual character in Gladiator. She plays an aggressive, corporate climbing, utterly without morals, cold as ice mega-bitch.  So does Chloe Sevigny, Gina Gershon and, to a lesser degree (since she mostly just gets played), Dominique Redmond.  All these characters share another quality, in that they are one-dimensional.  They are utterly ruthless and willing to resort to murder, but the movie never provides us with much of any motivation for their actions.  Presumably the motivation is money and power, but I find it somewhat disturbing that Demonlover feels no need to give any motivation for their extreme, to say the least, conduct.

I found the corporate espionage angle, which revolves around two competing internet porn distributors stopping at nothing as they vie for the attention of a French company that has struck a sweet deal with a major Japanese pornographic anime company, to be completely over the top and unrealistic.  I am quite certain that there is plenty of industrial espionage going on in the world, but I don’t think that Demonlover’s portrayal of double and triple agents, moles, murderers and other espionage tactics worthy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War is at all believable, especially when all we are talking about are two companies vying for a porn distribution contract.  The lack of believability quickly turned that plot angle into a yawner.

There are other aspects to the story, such as sexual power plays, hook-ups and a very hardcore, ultra-secret bondage and torture website, but none of these elements brought much to the table.  If this had simply been a B-movie aiming to provide some intrigue and deviant titillation, it probably would have worked better.  But the makers of this movie aimed much higher than B-movie and hit much lower.

Demonlover stars Connie Nielson who, for all the sexual elements in the movie, is not presented in a very attractive (physically) light, certain not in comparison to her gorgeous and, ironically, more sexual character in Gladiator. She plays an aggressive, corporate climbing, utterly without morals, cold as ice mega-bitch.  So does Chloe Sevigny, Gina Gershon and, to a lesser degree (since she mostly just gets played), Dominique Redmond.  All these characters share another quality, in that they are one-dimensional.  They are utterly ruthless and willing to resort to murder, but the movie never provides us with much of any motivation for their actions.  Presumably the motivation is money and power, but I find it somewhat disturbing that Demonlover feels no need to give any motivation for their extreme, to say the least, conduct.

I found the corporate espionage angle, which revolves around two competing internet porn distributors stopping at nothing as they vie for the attention of a French company that has struck a sweet deal with a major Japanese pornographic anime company, to be completely over the top and unrealistic.  I am quite certain that there is plenty of industrial espionage going on in the world, but I don’t think that Demonlover’s portrayal of double and triple agents, moles, murderers and other espionage tactics worthy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War is at all believable, especially when all we are talking about are two companies vying for a porn distribution contract.  The lack of believability quickly turned that plot angle into a yawner.

There are other aspects to the story, such as sexual power plays, hook-ups and a very hardcore, ultra-secret bondage and torture website, but none of these elements brought much to the table.  If this had simply been a B-movie aiming to provide some intrigue and deviant titillation, it probably would have worked better.  But the makers of this movie aimed much higher than B-movie and hit much lower.