Gigantic

After reading the comments and reviews on this page for the film Gigantic, I felt compelled to register an account on IMDb and add my own voice to the apparently confused chorus. My reaction to the film itself was strong, but not nearly as strong as my reaction to the comments people have been adding to this page. If I had gone to check IMDb site for the film before seeing it, as I usually do, I probably would have been turned off by the low rating and negative comments, and wouldn't have ended up seeing this little gem of a film. And that would have been too bad, because it really is a nice little film; One that has qualities that apparently inspire vitriol in some viewers, but their anger and 'disappointment' just bewilders me.

What is not to like in this film? The cast is amazing. The performances are top-notch and completely appropriate for the tone that director Aselton is trying to create. I've read comments that have mentioned 'believability' of certain scenes and plot points, but I think these types of viewers were doomed to misunderstand the film from the very beginning (and isn't it always these viewers who do choose to comment? bashing on what they don't understand). And that's not even to say this is some kind of elitist 'quirky indie' film as most people suggest. It's to the point now where 'quirky' is just another derogatory and pejorative term for something outside the realm of someone's expectations, experience, and capability of understanding. It's a term the narrow-minded use.

Gigantic is well worth your time and money. It's shot beautifully. It has some great performances that create genuine laughs, not from absurdity for its own sake or from cheesy one-liners, but from the performance choices themselves and from the character development. Did I mention Matt Walsh was great as well? The whole cast is wonderful, and I personally look forward to whatever Aselton does next.

Gigantic is a different movie and this factored with some great direction and strong performances made the movie quite interesting. Paul Dano and Zooey Deschanel made quite an unassuming yet refreshing pair. But it's Ed Asner and John Goodman who actually work their magic and steal the show. The film however disappoints in various levels mostly in all the side stories - for one thing although I couldn't believe I was seeing Galfianakis again this year, I couldn't quite make out of what to do with the homeless man every time he appeared. They could have done away with the character completely and the film would have been so much better. Similar such scenes exist throughout which are probably meant to convey some meaning probably but serve more of a distraction. Nonetheless the movie was absorbing and the direction was sleek. 6/10.

Brian Weathersby (Paul Dano) sells insanely high price mattresses in NYC. It's an indie of his life with all kinds of random quirky characters. Happy Lolly (Zooey Deschanel) is the daughter of Al (John Goodman) who purchased a mattress for $14k. He wants to adopt a Chinese baby. She's flaky. They hit it off.

This is filled with great actors I love. They seem to be doing good work. I should like this, but the story is a series of meandering scenes that drives aimlessly. They crawl along without any sense of drama. It's a battle of the quirky characters, and nobody really wins in this.

I'm surprised at the so many negative reviews that Matt Aselton's 'Gigantic' received, as I found it to be quite a charming, funny, absorbing and well-made little film. I suppose not everyone appreciates subtle storytelling and that much of 'Gigantic' is open to interpretation (for example the homeless man, whom I interpreted as Brian's alter-ego).

The quirky premise may appear a little awkward on the surface. I can see why some people interpret it as 'a cry for attention' but the film does not dwell on that. It's very story oriented and focuses on issues such as family relationships and growing up. The characters are quirky but easy to identify with. The sharp dialogues are wonderful and funny.

'Gigantic' is a well made film. The soundtrack and cinematography are a good fit. Soundtrack itself is worth a buy. The art direction is toned down. Aselton tones down the colour to give it a cold look as the warmth is expressed in the interactions of the characters. The lighting is used efficiently.

The cast has done a commendable job. Even though many have disliked Paul Dano's performance (most of them commenting that he wasn't quirky enough), I felt quite the contrary. He downplays the part very well. Zooey Deschanel is nothing short of excellent. Even though she has played similar characters before, her approach to playing Happy is very different. John Goodman, Ed Asner and Jane Alexander and Zack Galifianakis are great.

Aselton's debut is a fun and absorbing watch and it lingers in mind long after the end credits have rolled....though perhaps it's not for everyone given the negativity, but so what. For me it was worth the chance.

The fashionable movies these days rely on finding an edge in convention and dangling a foot in the unknown waters on the other side. Wes Anderson and Jason Reitman and Judd Apatow are practitioners of this dynamic. The strategy is plain, with the skill coming from the balancing act.

So far, those three have done nothing but take a stable genre and story form and walk it to its edge. There is amusement along the way. I like these. But they don't go deep. They are afraid to hurt. We've had a few years of this now and already the technique has become the default in the least valuable of films: romantic comedies.

What we need is someone who knows how to find that edge and go to it. Someone who doesn't just dip a toe, but who jumps back and forth fearlessly carrying back insight. We need more Igby from the other side, but brought back.

This young filmmaker is just what I hoped for. The filmmaking is assured. The arcs are broken as intended. It suitably confuses the newspaper critics. It hurts in places.

I won't fall into the trap of summarizing what is shown, because what matters is what is not shown. Its the empty spaces in the narrative.

Why is someone familiar beating up our hero? Who is this endearing, broken soul that Zooey plays? What role does that gay guy play, the guy we meet at the beginning and never see again? What are those lines that seduce, are never said, but are remarked on as if they need not be?

There is a fold here: the sister runs a TeeVee shopping show; Zooey's character helps in an unknown way. In keeping with the gaps, we never know where the fold goes. There is a device from a standard romantic comedy: having a child. It happens but we have no idea how to register it against out romcom templates.

Some may think these are signs of a broken movie or an immature writer-director. They seem to me to be effective, deliberately engineered gaps that define an unknown, moving edge we are taken to and baptized in the open ignorance we bring.

Zooey really does understand what is going on. She's the perfect actor for this experiment.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.