Film
As children we all liked to be told stories, the best of which were always those full of excitement, intrigue and humour; the ones that kept you on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happened yet. Then the best storytellers were always those friends or relatives who could really make you forget about the world around, and dissolve away into some imaginary land full of strange happenings and beings. Big Fish is, in short, just a child's fairytale - only a little more down to earth. It is a tale about a man who seems to be incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction; he's spent his whole life telling stories to all who would listen, and this is much to the disgruntlement of his somewhat estranged son. Now, perhaps a little unexcitingly, as his father nears death, the son wants to find out who his father 'really' is and what truth lies behind his implausible tales.
The true genius of Big Fish, however, does not really come from this developing relationship between storytelling father and disbelieving son (until the very end), but instead lies in the way that each individual tale is told. Be it an accidental armed robbery or the tempting of the world's biggest catfish with a wedding ring, the story of Big Fish is veritably captivating. What really stands out is the way that the stories of Edward Bloom's life are told and the way that they all mesh together. Each individual portion of the tale is told, not always in an obvious chronological order, and yet they come together to build a brilliant story. That brilliant central story is what holds Big Fish together and partly what makes it stand out from the crowd. The end result is to form a sumptuously shot fairy tale of epic proportions; and that is another of Big Fish's virtues, from beginning to end it is shot brilliantly and edited nicely, leaving very few scenes that felt un-needed.
Ewan McGregor, as the young Edward Bloom, plays a fabulous version of himself; the young, cheeky, affable ladies' man and in doing so brings life to the tall tales making the unbelievable seem really quite likely. Marion Cotillard also plays a sparkling role as the kind-hearted and softly spoken wife of the son; it's no Oscar winning performance, but she comes across convincingly.
In short, this is a great film that should appeal to a variety of age groups because it has a strong, convincing and original storyline, which is complemented by a great cast and some excellent camera work. Something a bit special.
This film seems to have sold itself entirely on its pedigree, directed by John Woo and taken from a Philip K. Dick short story - the man whose work led to Blade Runner, Total Recall and Minority Report. As a film, however, it is only reminiscent of the last of these, and the only real John Woo trademark is the appearance of a dove.
We are introduced to Ben Affleck as a reverse engineer, whose work is so valuable to companies that they wish to wipe his memory after working for them. These jaunts usually last at most eight weeks, then his oldest friend offers him a three year stint on a mystery project. Keen to never have to work again, he takes up the offer, despite initial misgivings about losing such a long stretch of his life. We jump with him to three years later. Henceforth things get a little tricky: he has apparently declined his pay; and all he has left of his three years of work is a small envelope of items of seemingly no importance. Slightly peeved, his day gets a whole lot worse when the FBI decide to arrest him. Here the John Woo action gets underway, and the direction ably engages us with the confusion of Ben Affleck's character, who, without his memory, does not know what the FBI are talking about.
The action engages at most points, and is unusually believable for a John Woo film. Ben Affleck has little to do, which thankfully seems to suit his blank-expressioned features. Aaron Eckhart does a good turn as an evil Michael Yorke lookalike. The main disappointment is the unwarrantedly happy ending, quite against the Dickian vein: but then this is Hollywood, so bad things don't happen.
Runaway Jury, adapted from John Grisham's novel, centres on the conspiracies surrounding a case in which a gun manufacturer is taken to court in response to a shooting. All sides - with the exception of Hoffman's underused lawyer Wendell Rohr - play dirty to influence the verdict. Gary Felder's direction is slick if conventional, and the screenplay contains the movie well. Slightly long at 127 minutes, the various attempts to manipulate the jury and their decision - right from their selection - still manage to keep the audience interested. A touch moralistic in places, there are also darker and funnier moments peppered throughout. There is always a certain appreciation in seeing a cast of such ability: this is the first film in which Hackman and Hoffman have shared screen time despite their long friendship.
Unfortunately Runaway Jury fails to live up to its potential. The film never really explores the questions raised by the theme of gun crime and control in America, and the talents of heavy-hitters Cusack, Hoffman and Hackman (as well as Britain's Rachel Weisz) are hardly challenged by their roles. It is unashamedly a popcorn movie, but then it never tries to deny this.
As entertainment goes, it's above average, managing to keep the pace and tension throughout, all the while offering some genuine twists and turns in the plot. Though not entirely original, and in places overly reliant on contrivances and narrative device, Runaway Jury is a surprisingly good film brought together in a competent, if not exactly exciting, manner. So if you find yourself with nothing to do, then go see it - otherwise wait till it comes out on video to rent.
22nd Jan 2004