rouzanna

I don't quite share the enthusiasm of the reviewers claiming that the movie is a must-see, but it is not trash either. It's actually a black-humored comedy and rather good for a change. I disagree about wasting 98 minutes of your life, because if you don't find the movie attractive in the first 10 minutes, then stop watching it - it's not your kind of a show. I wouldn't compare it to the Addams Family, one of my all-time favorites, but something in the setting, darkness, characters, and pace makes the two somehow alike. Though, indeed, I, too, would prefer less toilet and bowel movement humor, but it relates to the major part of the plot, the health efficiency theory of the masterful mother-former owner of the hotel who used to run (and seem to still run) it, so not much complaining there.

My opinion - give it a try, chances are that you'll be entertained. But if it doesn't work for you - well, the "Off" button is still on your remote.

After I managed to sit through the movie, the first thought that came to my mind was that this is exactly the sort of a movie that will be commended by the critics. Well, I wasn't wrong.

This, however, doesn't help the fact that I personally found the "Big Fish" to be a complete, utter and utmost waste of time, and was relieved to see quite a few negative reviews here. Otherwise, I would have thought it's just me. I had to watch the movie to the end, simply because my mother wanted us to - surprisingly, she quite liked it! I see now that watching it to the end was for the better, as the final scenes being somewhat relieving is about the only reason why anyone would bother to give the "Fish" anything higher than a one.

The plot is a simple one.

***SPOILER ALERT*** There is a son (Will), who tries to find out more about what kind of a person his father (Ed) really was/is while the latter is on his deathbed. Almost everything Will knows about Ed comes from the stories his father was telling him over and over again, since he was a little boy, and Will doubted any of these stories were true. So, Will just recites those to us, in the meantime questioning his father about the real story of his life. When, after another stroke, Ed becomes unable to respond to those inquiries, Will feels it would also be reasonable to approach other people asking questions about his father. Doing so, he finds out not all stories are lies, and finally gets to respect and love his father. Moreover, he suddenly inherits his father's knack for rambling and gives Ed a comfortable death by telling a story of an end that Ed always wished for. So, when Ed turns into the Big Fish and gets a new beginning, we are supposed to cry (and so, I suspect, the most sentimental members of audience actually did).

*** SPOILER END*** Now, I'm not generally considered an insensible person, but the way the movie deals with the things that concern all humans seems just ridiculous. If the "Big Fish" were just a fairytale for teenagers I would not have any problems. But the movie is for grown ups, and all the fanciful fragments claiming to be perceived as tenderly romantic look contrived, unnatural and, above all, immature. To mention just one, the part where Ed serves Calloway for who knows how long, sweating his guts out for no pay, but only to learn ONE thing (mind you, not knowing if the thing would be true) about the girl he fell in love, per month of service. I couldn't help comparing the situation with Jacob serving Laban for years, but hello - the guy at least knew he would marry the girl. Not to mention, we all know how the things turned out.

Ewan McGregor is anything but convincing as young Ed. As the movie progresses one gets to realize that wide open bright blue eyes cannot compensate for every weakness this piece has to offer. Ewan McGregor is not alone here - acting is not among the strengths of the "Big Fish" (if you can find those at all, for that matter). Even Jessica Lange looks static and kind of numb as Ed's wife. Steve Buscemi could have improved the overall sad impression had he had a bigger role. But thank God he was there - the other reason why I gave it three stars. Let me go no further and stop right here. If you've read this review to the end, then please spend your time doing or watching something else - even smaller fish will be better.

It's a great movie, even for a person who's not much into the history. Makes one think about political and social processes that one witnesses today, and reasons behind global decisions that are often hidden.

Rufus Sewell is excellent as Charles, royal but still very human, which just makes you feel an affection for the person he portrays. Rupert Graves is extremely convincing as Buckingham. The movie has an excellent pace, a very appropriate one for a historical drama, and never boring, which is (honestly) a rare thing to find in the genre. Also, makes you want to dig into the history of the period, which I did.

Overall, very much worth seeing.

I read through the comments left on this movie, and was surprised why critics was so absolutely against it. It is not boring and primitive as many other sci-fi movies tend to be, has its own sense of pace, and, of course, Spacey's and Bridges' great performances make it quite worth watching even despite sometimes poor script. The characters are good, with very attractive personality of Mark Powell who is extremely dedicated to his profession, thus getting you involved in the investigation process. I also like the end of the movie - thoughtful, sad and ambiguous, as ambiguous as that of Spacey's most movies. Overall, I would recommend this one and rated it 7/10.

I saw this movie only once, in 1985 on TV, still when in USSR. About two decades have passed now, but I still remember this great adaptation from Dumas' famous novel (one of my favourites), and I was very surprised to see it was shot in 1971 - they did a great job, which I would very much like to see again and even buy (unfortunately, it is not available anywhere). Nicolas Silberg was great as Bussy, I would say very beautiful and convincing. And the spirit was very much Dumas' one!

Mark Zakharov being my favourite director, I would say this is not one of his best movies. And maybe this is just because I don't like the plot (you know, all of that Caliostro things), because the cast and the quality of acting is impressive. Also, there are a number of funny statements in the movie, and a bit of romance. Overall, you could watch this one if you need another Sunday-style-mild-comedy. But I would rather recommend Tot Samiy Munchgausen, which is by far the best of Zakharov's movies. Still 6.5 out of 10.

Most of the time it would be difficult for one to describe one's favourite piece of anything: favourite movie, book, composer or even dish. It is normally the same for me, however, when it comes to movies I always answer "Tot samiy Munchgausen" is my all time favourite. You could hardly find another movie full of such an amazing combination of perfectly matched ingredients, ie. humour, romantics, superb screenplay, incredible cast with the best Russian actors involved and, of course, the best (in my opinion) Russian director Mark Zakharov who brought these all to be a masterpiece. The movie makes you laugh and think all at the same time. Every word, phrase and scene are full of such deep meaning that makes you watch this movie over and over again. I don't know if the movie was ever translated into English, or French, but I would so much like all people could see this. This one just gets 10 of 10.