dollpenguin

The Big Year's low IMDb rating and box-office take had me worried that this film would be a "lame-duck." Turns out, this movie is really good.

I am not a "birder" and know very little about birds other than what I find on a typical restaurant menu. The beginning of The Big Year made me think I would learn a little bit more about birds, but was pleasantly surprised to learn that the film is not about birds at all; it is about people, how we relate to one another, and the things that drive us to do the things we do.

The characters were more three-dimensional than those of any other movie I have seen in a long time. I think a lot of people are thrown off because we often don't know who to "root for" in this film. The characters seem like real people, albeit participating in a sport most of us do not understand and have never even thought about trying. I hesitate to even call birding a sport because there are no spectators, trophies or prizes involved.

Jack Black gives his finest performance ever imo, playing an average working-class guy named Brad who has a crazy obsession with birds. His dream of spending an entire "Big Year" spotting and photographing as many birds as possible seems odd to us (and Brad's family), but we soon learn that he is not alone with this obsession. All throughout the film, Brad offers glimpses of how birds and humans are more alike than different. Jack Black nails the dialog which manages to be insightful while avoiding any semblance of pretentiousness.

Owen Wilson plays a married contractor named Kenny who takes more pride in his world record "Big Year" than anything else in the world including his trying-to-conceive wife. He gives a believable, nuanced performance as someone who will go to any length to protect his record, yet he is far from an average scumbag villain. He reminds me more of a prescription drug addict that I might feel sorry for. Kenny is so blinded by his addiction to "birding" that he cannot see the proverbial forest for the trees.

Steve Martin gives a beautifully balanced performance as an aging business owner who has always dreamed of trying for the Big Year birding record. Martin is known mostly as an on screen "wild and crazy guy" but in The Big Year, he remains subdued as he has in previous films such as Grand Canyon and Parenthood. If you liked him in those movies, you will like him in The Big Year as well.

The Big Year was not meant to be a gut-busting comedy, but there are several humorous moments. This movie also manages to be quite touching, thought-provoking, sometimes uplifting, occasionally heart-rending, and beautiful throughout. A lot like life except with better direction, better actors, great dialog, and fantastic cinematography.

I watched Opposite Day yesterday and it was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. My wife couldn't believe how awful it was either - we both like kids movies and even a lot of movies that people say are terrible don't seem too bad when we keep in mind that they are for kids. I have enjoyed children's movies starring Pauly Shore, Jim Varney as Ernest P. Worrel, Hulk Hogan, and most recently Jackie Chan and Dwayne Johnson. However, Opposite Day was terrible; I'm talking Baby Geniuses 2 terrible.

It seemed as if the writer of Opposite Day didn't know his own plot. Situations presented for supposedly comedic effect were not indicative of the alternate reality that we were supposed to accept. The script was also filled with throwaway dialog that was humorless even for children too young to understand simple jokes.

The director seemed to think the audience was dumb (over explaining concepts that ruin the suspension of belief even in young children). Maybe he was overcompensating for the horrible writing. The shot angles were adequate, but I don't think the director had a plan.

I also think the acting would have been better with a different director - some characters in kids movies must overact to emphasize their emotions for people who may not otherwise understand (very young kids); in Opposite Day there were no subtle characters which causes the effect to be lost on young and old alike. The movie had some good actors; George Wendt, Ariel Winter, etc, but they must have been told how to perform scenes rather than the director letting their abilities carry them.

I'm not trying to over analyze the movie. I am willing to glaze over most faults I find in a movie like this. However, I should have turned this movie off way before it turned me off so entirely. I do not see how anyone can truly enjoy this this movie. It is not so much that it is stupid, it is that the writing doesn't even try to be funny.

At one point a character says "We're going to have so much fun it will be coming out our ears!" and the kids laugh hysterically. I really think that was supposed to be a funny one-liner, but can't tell. This movie lacks humor and tries to rely on sight gags that not only get tiresome from repetition, they are so dumb that a typical child will have his/her intelligence insulted. My 5yo son loves movies, but was bored with this - anyone older than him would not even care enough to make a joke like "This film is great - WAIT - it's Opposite Day!"

I really expected to like Roseanna McCoy because it had a really good premise and fine actors. Unfortunately, the way the characters were developed left much to be desired. Johnse Hatfield is introduced as a stalker, which may have been acceptable in 1949. However, I have watched many movies from that era and the way Johnse behaved (supposedly)out of desire for her would never have been acceptable.

Johnse's actions concerning Roseanna McCoy may have been begrudgingly tolerated after a long courtship. But from his first several meetings with her, it is made clear that Johnse is a loathsome and dumb, albeit handsome, brute. I understood Roseanna McCoy was supposed to be extremely naive, but some of the ridiculous choices she made left me wanting to see bad things happen to her. It did not seem like Roseanna cared about anything or anyone, including herself.

The lovers' families were feuding just like in Romeo and Juliet, but that is where the similarities end. Johnse was certainly no Romeo and Roseanna was definitely not Juliette. The love story seemed very forced, and not just because Johnse takes what he wants, world be damned. In the third act, the movie tries to create sympathy for the two characters but it is far too late. Johnse and Roseanna were the two characters I cared about least in the movie.

As other reviewers have stated, the cinematography was excellent in Roseanna McCoy. I just wish the rest of the film had been as fine as the camera-work.