samkan A film can be a well intentioned disaster. A true turkey may still exude sincerity. Hard work and serious thought can be evident despite descent into a cinematic mess. A movie can be terrible without me taking it personally. But I can count on one hand the number of films that I have seen that did not have any right to be made. GIGANTIC is one of them.If glib means showing little forethought or preparation, lacking depth and substance, being superficial; if pretension is making unjustified or excessive claims of value or standing; if facetious means jesting in a clumsy or inappropriate manner, then GIGANTIC's poster should appear next to the dictionary entries for each such word.Misters Nagata and Aselton appear to believe that every idea they have is clever and that throwing together a few dozen such ideas, be they subplots, humor vehicles or inane bits of dialog, is homework enough. The two share the delusion their audience is embracing their work with subtle understanding. They mistake confusion as nuance or ambiguity. Just what was it that suggested to Adam and Matt that, in this instance, they had the material and ingenuity enough to create something remotely approaching a feature length film? Dano still manages to shine. Goodman and Asner are still funny. Deschanel cannot act. Never could. After over a hundred IMDb User Comments I've only seen fit to enter two or three as scathing as this one and I get trashed every time. Could not stop myself. GIGANTIC compels me so.

tedg 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.

mjwurz Gigantic left me with a strange sense of satisfaction. I enjoyed the light banter that provided the balk of the jokes within the film. Dano and Deschanel are an immediate hit accompanied by Goodman's abrupt modern performance. The story is a simple boy meets girl plot with some subtlety epic spice, for instance the overlying story of Brian's attempt at adopting a Chinese baby. The script is coarse with much cursing and quick racial slurs, but it's not overbearing and allows for the deep topics to come off as lighthearted.Matt Aselton did a good job at introducing heavily gigantic topics in a nonchalant manner. The title is very befitting of the gigantic life changing situations Dano and Deschanel are presented within the story. The overall movie is shot in the typical indie fashion, providing many modern art like scenes that leaves the audience with an appreciation of the movie from an artistic standpoint: one particular scene-the view point in the city passing by while Goodman is on his back in the car.A few unanswered questions: Why a Chinese baby, and why has he wanted this baby for so long? What is the deal with the homeless man targeting Dano...does he even exist, is this a metaphor?Overall good starter film, nothing terribly standout...perfect for a rainy day.

threehourboner I'm Paul Dano. Despite what you believe from Little Miss Sunshine, I can speak. Words are still pretty useless since I'm so EMO. I want a Chinese baby, preferably girl. I met my dream girl and we immediately did it without pretense. Her dad is friends with The Dude and he has back problems that is a metaphor for Wall Street or greed or something. I do mushrooms with my dad, and The Snuggler tries to kill me on occasion. There's a black guy. Oh yeah my movie starts with a non-veiled metaphor involving drowning rats that is supposed to set up what the movie's about. And we threw in a title that doesn't make sense. Eat it up, you retarded geniuses! Stuffs r all blue and cinematography and god and the bible (I gave up watching after an hour.)