The Big Bang

The Big Bang, although imperfect, is a well made, valiant effort from relative newcomer Tony Krantz. It welds together several recognizable genres for a dazzling technicolor coat of a flick, with one of the most interesting troupe of actors, all non type casted, in the last decade or so. You have the noirish detective yarn, the hard bitten postmodern crime thriller, and something unique as well: a constant running theme of physics, evident in both the snappy scientific jargon the actors get to chew on, and the dazzling, neo noirish color palette ranging from eye popping purples to smoky deep blues. Antonio Banderas ditches the strong silent shtick to play private investigator Ned Cruz, a fast talking wiseass who gets in way over his head when a giant Russian ex boxer (Robert Maillet, priceless) hires him to find his luscious pen pal Lexie Parsimmon (Sienna Guillory). This leads him into a dangerous web of eccentric characters including pseudo astro physicist billionaire Simon Kestral (Sam Elliott in a hairdo that would make David Bowie blush), a shady porn director (Snoop Dogg), a sexy small town waitress (Autumn Reeser, making everyone sweat in one of the hottest sex scenes I've ever seen put to celluloid), a kinky ex Hollywood star (James Van Der Beek), and more. The film jumps around in time, as any good noir should, as Ned tells his story to three relentless detectives, burnt out Skeres (Delroy Lindo), sharp, sleazy Frizer (Thomas Kretschmann, excellent), and volatile Poley (William Fichtner steals the show as the bratty, hotshot prick of the trio). There's work from Jimmi Simpson, Bill Duke, and Rebecca Mader. It's a bit muddled at times, and the inevitable style over substance claim will undoubtedly be heard, but it's got style, energy and ambition in droves, providing a neon lit verbal and visual maze of head scratching intrigue and priceless dialogue for the cast to play in. Well worth a visit.

I'm not quite sure how to rate this movie. It's very well made, with excellent (if somewhat typecast) acting from all involved. The direction shows a real sense of style, making bold use of color, hue, saturation, surreal environments, and dream-like sequences... yet all of these seem directly lifted from a David Lynch movie. Indeed, the director has even produced a Lynch movie (Mulholland Drive). The dreamy yet rocking score from Johnny Marr really gives life to the movie, yet constantly sounds like lost tracks from Achtung Baby, the U2 album. And then there's the story. I love the story, but I loved it even better when it was a Wim Wenders movie called Until the End of the World.

This movie is pure plagiarism, right down to the soundtrack (Johnny Marr, what happened?!), but it's excellently made. As an unauthorized and uncredited American remake of Wim Wenders' awesome 1991 movie, there's both a lot to love and a lot to hate.

Someone should be facing a lengthy legal battle right now, and it's a shame, because this movie is so well done. Maybe next time the director will find his own vision, instead of plagiarizing his idols.

I watched this movie for two reasons, first, I like the TV Series "The Big Bang Theory", and second, I enjoy watching most Antonio Banderas movies. Aside from this I had no clue what to expect.

The movie starts out well enough and for about the first 40 minutes or so weaves a mildly interesting plot. After a certain point the movie takes a few confusing turns where the viewer is wondering how the new direction is going to align with the plot that was woven earlier. The climax, where the plot is revealed, is surprisingly good. Though, the ending, where the two separate paths the movie had taken are brought together is, in my opinion, quite lame.

The acting is good enough. Antonio Banderas and William Fichtner are good actors and they do a decent job. The rest of the cast doesn't fail either. In the end, it is the script which is a let down. Maybe it seemed great on paper and lost its charm when brought alive on the screen.

One more thing. The script somehow brings nuclear physics into play. Why or to what end is the question the viewer is likely to ask after the movie ends. When an element as strong as science, mathematics or religion has to be brought in, I believe, making it central to the plot would pay off better dividends. For example, "Pi" by Darren Aronofsky or "Back to the Future" movies.

Overall, it is an average thriller with bits of science thrown in. It is not exactly a waste of time, if you happen to catch it on TV. Otherwise, I wouldn't go out of my way to buy or rent a DVD. You aren't missing anything.

A private detective (Antonio Banderas) is hired to find a missing stripper. A simple job turns complicated when everyone he questions ends up dead.

I can imagine Antonio Banderas looking at this script and weighing in his mind if he wants it or not. Then he gets to the sex scene, and he says, "I'm in." (And I have been told he helped in casting Autumn Reeser, so this makes it even more likely.) The script is interesting, sometimes a bit bizarre, but for Banderas that is the clincher, for sure. Other than that, despite being the main character, he is actually the least interesting part of the movie.

The press release compares the film to "Sin City" and "Big Lebowski". I can see "Lebowski" somewhat, but agree completely with the "Sin City" comparison. That was actually the first thing I thought of after a few minutes of analyzing the style. The film uses odd angles (sometimes to a dangerous extreme) and saturated colors. I thought in many scenes the backgrounds were even more beautiful than the foregrounds or the people in them.

What to say about the physics angle? I have seen many complaints online from people who say the plot was not about physics and that the same story could be told with a different topic. I raised this to director Tony Krantz and he made a clear argument that physics is not just central to the plot, but the very plot itself. If you did not get this, I recommend giving the film a second view.

The Snoop Dogg claim was deeply philosophical, but I feel it was not properly explored. Is sex with men just one after another with no real difference? And whether yes or no, how does this fit into the film's overall message? I do not know, but for whatever reason -- perhaps my background in philosophy and women's studies -- this line jumped out at me.

The supporting cast is also impressive. I mean, Sam Elliott and James VanDerBeek? Incredible. Autumn Reeser truly a joy. Elliott was actually a bit weaker than usual (I think he works best when his role is minimized) but I can never say no to him or his mustache.

I do have to call out Banderas' accent. As one reviewer wrote, "Antonio Banderas's mumbling was mostly unintelligible." I would not be so harsh, but the fact remains that I missed many of his lines because he could no deliver them. I can understand Puss in Boots from "Shrek", so I know he is capable of speaking clearly... this is my only real complaint.

Pick this one up. Great film, very good twists and turns, with a blend of intrigue and sex that will grab your attention. The DVD and Blu-Ray has a few features on it, and if you are the type who loves audio commentaries (I do), director Krantz will provide you with more than a fair share of background...

Put up the first five minutes from this movie and then put up 'murder my sweet' on and glimpse the originality. That's actually positive, getting good references. Not a good casting, good actors in wrong roles, and unnecessary lame special effects. I get it, got to keep yours eyes on screen, but that ending scene was too much. The rest of the effects, lightning, filters, psychedroad movie scenes were OK, but not really his style, Not really, but OK, though.