Ed Harris plays a man who tells tall tales about his life. His son, Billy Crudup, wants the truth. That tension drives Big Fish, Tim Burton’s 2003 fantasy-drama, and it’s the one thing the movie gets right. The rest is a mess of whimsy, sentiment and a script that can’t decide whether it’s a fable or a family drama.
The setup is simple. Edward Bloom, played by Harris, is a traveling salesman with a gift for storytelling. His wife, Sally, thinks he’s lying. Their son, Will, thinks he’s exaggerating. As Will watches Edward near death, he tries to separate the stories from the man. The film jumps between present-day interviews, Edward’s youth, and a magical world where fish talk and giants exist.
Burton directs with his usual visual flair. The sets are elaborate, the costumes are theatrical, and the color palette is saturated. The problem is that none of it serves the story. The fantasy sequences look beautiful but feel pointless. They’re there to show off, not to advance the plot or deepen the characters.
Trailer, via TrailerTrackerEnglish.
Edward Bloom’s Stories
Edward’s stories are the heart of the film. He tells tales of a giant fish that saved him, a circus performer who could stretch her limbs, and a town full of strange people. These stories are meant to reveal Edward’s character. Instead, they obscure him. We learn more about the myths than about the man himself.
Harris is excellent in the role. He plays Edward as a charismatic liar who genuinely believes his own stories. There’s a warmth to his performance that keeps the audience engaged even when the script stumbles. The problem is that the script never gives him a chance to stop lying. The film’s central question — is Edward’s life a lie or a legend? — is never answered.
Bonham Carter is wasted as Sally. She’s given little to do beyond react to Edward’s stories. Her scenes are mostly passive, and her character feels like a plot device rather than a person. Crudup fares better as Will. He plays the son’s frustration with nuance, but the film doesn’t give him enough material to make the conflict feel earned.
“I’ve lived a big fish life.”
That line, spoken by Edward, captures the film’s ambition. It also sums up the problem. A big fish life is a life of excess, of myth, of things too large to contain. The film itself is a big fish, swallowing its own tail and losing sight of what it means to be real.
The Fantasy Sequences
The fantasy sequences are the weakest part of the film. They’re gorgeous, but they don’t connect to the main story. A talking fish, a giant, a circus performer — these characters appear and disappear without leaving a mark. They’re fun to look at, but they drain the emotional weight from the film’s central conflict.
The film also struggles with tone. It wants to be a fairy tale, a family drama, and a comedy all at once. The result is a muddled mess. Scenes that should be sad are silly, and scenes that should be funny are heavy-handed. The film’s attempt to balance multiple tones is a failure.
The Music
Alfred Newman’s score is lush and orchestral. It swells during the fantasy sequences and pulls back during the quieter moments. The music is well done, but it’s overshadowed by the film’s other shortcomings. A good score can elevate a bad movie, but it can’t fix a bad screenplay.
The songs in the film are a mixed bag. Some work, some don’t. The film’s use of music is competent but unremarkable. It doesn’t add anything new to the story, but it doesn’t detract either.
The Ensemble Cast
The supporting cast is strong. The film brings together a talented group of actors and puts them in a poorly constructed story. The result is a collection of performances that are better than the movie they inhabit.
The Message
Big Fish is trying to say something about memory, storytelling, and the distance between parents and children. It’s a noble goal, but the execution fails. The film’s message is buried under layers of whimsy and sentiment. By the time the credits roll, the audience hasn’t learned anything about memory or storytelling. They’ve just watched a lot of pretty pictures.
The film’s final act tries to tie everything together. It fails. The ending is abrupt and unsatisfying. It leaves the audience wondering what the point of the whole thing was. The film’s refusal to answer its own questions is frustrating.
The Verdict
Big Fish is a visually striking film with a weak core. It’s a film that looks better than it feels. The performances are strong, but the script is a disaster. The fantasy sequences are lovely, but they distract from the story. The tone is inconsistent, and the message is unclear.
The film’s strengths are undeniable. The visuals are stunning, the performances are strong, and the premise is interesting. But those strengths are undermined by a script that can’t hold together. The film is a disappointment, not because it’s bad, but because it’s so close to being good.
If you want to see a great Tim Burton film, skip Big Fish. Watch Edward Scissorhands or Pee-wee’s Big Adventure. Those films have the same visual style and the same sense of wonder, but they have stronger scripts and clearer goals. Big Fish is a lesser entry in Burton’s canon, a film that shows promise but never delivers on it.
The Numbers
- Runtime: 125 minutes
- Release Year: 2003
- Director: Tim Burton
- Lead Actors: Ed Harris, Billy Crudup, Helena Bonham Carter
- Score: 5.8/10
Big Fish is a film that’s easy to watch but hard to recommend. It’s a beautiful failure, a movie that looks like a masterpiece and sounds like a fairy tale, but underneath it all, it’s a hollow shell. The stories are entertaining, but they’re not the truth. The film’s insistence on myth over reality is its downfall. It’s a big fish that swallowed itself whole and spit out nothing.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
