Movie Journal: Gigantic

I watched Gigantic after taking a look at its marketing campaign, so my immediate question that had to be answered was: Did the campaign accurately portray and sell the finished film?

The answer is yes, absolutely.

The movie is funny and offbeat without ever descending into parody or a portrayal of quirk for the sake of quirk. Instead, while all the characters act in what would be considered odd ways they never go over the edge into being just ridiculous. More to the point, they all stay true to their motivations and remain grounded in the reality of this film’s universe, which is even more important and the lynchpin of such directors as Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach.

Dano and Deschanel have obvious chemistry and – and this is essential to the movie’s success or could have been a cause of its failure – are able to deliver the highly stylized dialogue in a way that’s natural and believable. That’s a testament to their skills as actors as well as to the accuracy of the casting.

The campaign lays out the movie’s story pretty well so I won’t rehash it again. But let me say there’s a twist that comes in the movie’s last 10 minutes or so that makes you rethink some of the basic assumptions about the characters. It’s an interesting twist but is the one thing about the movie that doesn’t work for me and actually takes away from everything that’s preceded it. I dig, in general, things like that which shake up your beliefs but this movie didn’t need it.

Aside from that, though, Gigantic is a very good flick that, if you’re in one of the areas where it’s screening, is well worth going and checking out.

By Chris Thilk

Chris Thilk is a freelance writer and content strategist with over 15 years of experience in online strategy and content marketing. He lives in the Chicago suburbs.

1 comment

  1. Hey Guys,
    I’ve been thinking about the movie “gigantic” which I rented & watched last night. I grabbed it based on the good actors and a bit into the movie I wondered why they chose to be in it. After some deliberation I realized John Goodman’s character revealed himself to be Wall Street, literally Wall Street, horizontal pavement and all it represents (e.g. skyscrapers perpendicular to his horizontal transported prone position.) The other characters and dialogue seemed to be a montage of cultures/countries and economies.
    Let’s take Brian, he was the new, young American wanting above board relationships with China since he was eight years old; probably after having seen the nightly news of Tiananmen Square. Do the math.
    Okay you’ve probably guessed Mai’s character. When we think of Mai, we think of Spring; when we think of Spring, we think of emerging; and, when we think of gigantic, yep, that would be China.
    Moving on, what about the Old Guard? That would be Brian’s brother, in bed so to speak with the Japanese making deals under the table with Russia and China and always carrying his rifle (Cold War) though distasteful, hence, vomit.
    Maybe we should see Brian’s attacker as Terrorists impeding the young American’s goal of embracing the world; striking at will, difficult to identify, difficult to injure, requiring face-to-face understanding of the Terrorists issues to gain resolution.
    How about Happy? She is the daughter of Wall Street, the conduit of money and will be the link with baby China Mai.
    Got to leave now, but let me know if you find other things along this line about the characters or what you think about my take on this movie…

Comments are closed.