IMDb > Gigantic (2008) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Gigantic More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 45 reviews in total 

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

All had no reason

Author: mvpetri from São Paulo, Brazil
2 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It isn't a good movie. Paul Dano is too boring in Gigantic. Zooey is Zooey. I wonder if she is exactly the same in real life. In all movies of her that I saw she was like all the other. Fortunely I like her a lot but if I didn't I wouldn't have guts to see any other movies with her.

I started to see this movie only to see Zoey and, sadly, I finished by the same reason. The movie has no motivation. She said she loves he, but I can not imagine how. His character is boring. Both do nothing to know each other. After, she missed a dinner and everything collapsed.

A bunch of things was forgotten too. The research and the hot blonde, for example. An homeless try to kick his ass out. Seemingly with no reason at all.

Well, that is how I define this movie. Nothing has a reason. I don't know what was in the director's mind, what the writer was thinking when made this script, but they thought we could find out. Well, I can't. Like me, watch if you don't have any plans at 4a.m. and like Zooey Deschannel

For now, I'm sorry about my bad English.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

interesting at least

Author: sfiver from United States
5 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Supporting cast makes this film interesting. John Goodman, Ed Asner and (all to briefly) Jane Alexander. Just in case you've not read the other reviewers: Unconventional mattress salesman meets rich girl. Mattress salesman wants Chinese baby to fulfill his life. Rich girl wants ... ? These two characters fall into love as they attempt to understand it. The End. Again, John Goodman as the mafia-type father of Happy, played by Zooey Deschanel, adds luster and laughs. Asner is the 80-year old dad of mattress salesman Brian, played by Paul Dano. Unconventional character even more so then his son. Asner has fun with the role. Ms. Alexander is the only near-normal, mother-like character as Brian's mother. She seems to be the only character who understands what's happening. This is not some offbeat film. It has excellent production values, editing, music, photography, etc. Equally important, it keeps your attention on various levels. Sub-plots so-to-speak. But, no spoilers here. The story is offbeat. Furthermore, while Mr. Dano carries his "offbeat" role as the uncanny, maternal 20-something with sympathetic depth, Ms. Deschannel does not connect with her character at all. She certainly has promise and frankly I look forward to seeing her in other roles. Unfortunately, she is only "eye-candy" and to some extent reduces the entire production. The film is still worthwhile, but only a 4/10 for supporting cast and story.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Film grossed a whopping $200,000. I think I know why...........

Author: sijoe22 from United States
10 July 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

...........but not as bad as many out here say.

Movie had a number of funny lines, causing me to laugh out loud, which I rarely do, but did this movie contain a real story? Some under-achieving sad sack (think Obama supporter) goes about his meaningless life, wanting to adopt a Chinese baby, and at the end, the "hero" does. No, I'm NOT kidding, that's about it.

One other thing I didn't get was that bearded bum kicking the chit out of him every so often, with no explanation as to who he was, or why he singled out sad sack.

It took me reading a few reviews out here to figure out that there WAS no bum after all; this was just a way of showing ole Sad Sack that he had been beaten up by life for a long time. Look for the signs, you'll see.

Again, not the worst film I've ever seen- not by a long shot, but save your money if you see it pop up on any PAY movie channel.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A Dreamed Answer

Author: paulccarroll3 from United States
7 July 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I saw this film for the first time,and two nights later I woke with the memory of the answer to the mystery behind the Homeless mans' attacks.

In the film Brian was said to be 15 years younger than his brothers, that He was a child that was born late in his parents marriage. After killing the homeless attacking man Brian turns to the two witnesses,as he's holding a bloody knife in his hand,and says,as they're backing away,that this has been going on a long time,or words to that effect.

In my dream it became clear that the homeless man was a bastard son,who was never recognized by Brians'father, who then watched Brian be raised in his place. His attacks are from hatred and jealousy. Brian ironically wants to bring new blood into the family by adopting an baby. Of course, none of this was in the film,but neither was any other explanation,so it's just as valid as a possible suggested solution.

As to the point of why Happy was so upset by Brains adopting a child,I saw this as a feeble attempt to keep to the standard boy meets girl, boy loses girl,boy wins girl back, rom/com plotting, and I didn't buy it for a minute.

This isn't a great film but it's pleasant and interesting enough to watch once every few years or so.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Faux-Indie flick seemingly devoid of any individualistic messages!

Author: Kevin Hudson from United Kingdom
5 July 2013

This decent faux-indie film is ruined by pro-capitalist & anti-poor propaganda. Some of which is implicit (even subliminal) & some of which is overtly explicit.

Firstly, one message of this film seems to be that capitalism is good, in fact it gets you laid. Secondly, another message is that homeless & working people are bad, they attack you in the street for no reason! This is evidenced in one scene where the guy says to the other that he got laid with a girl who's father bought a mattress from him & the other guy's reply is "God bless capitalism". To me, a blatant association of our elitist political system with sex.

At certain points in the film the lead is attacked by someone whom he describes as a homeless guy, but is at times dressed as a worker. Whether the guy is a figment of the lead's imagination or not, the negative subliminal association of poor/working person & uninitiated violence is made.

Later, they crack open a piñata & he says he has them made to look like dictators. Now it's very easy to point at the crimes of others. Why didn't he have some evil American politicians made like Nixon or Kissinger (who helped killed 5 million+ in Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos) or some figures of British Imperialism (who killed just as many as Stalin)? No, only non-capitalist murderers are worthy of our attention & that is the type of blatant propaganda you expect from Hollywood Blockbusters.

Where is the anti-consumerist, anti-materialist, anti-elitist & anti-status quo message I expect from productions with a supposedly individualistic non-conformist perspective?

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Promising, but kind of stupid

Author: Ruadhan McElroy from United States
11 September 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film had a promising premise, a dry-comedy examination of relationships through two quirky hipsters and their eccentric families. That's what I went in expecting, cos that's really all the copy on the back of the DVD box says.

The film introduces Brian, and it's established that his father was in his fifties when the 28-year-old Brian was born, and Brian is hoping to adopt a baby. Then there's a bizarre scene wherein Brian is beaten pretty badly by The Hobo as he's heading toward a ferry. Then we meet Al Lolly, who's apparently wealthy enough to buy a $14K mattress from Brian, and who is just kind of used to saying whatever pops into his head, even if he knows it's offensive. After "ribbing" his ostensibly gay assistant, Al reserves the mattress and mentions that he'll be sending down "his girl" to pay for it, speaking as if she's some kind of secretary. When his girl, who identifies herself as Al's daughter, Harriet a.k.a. "Happy", arrives, she's almost inaudibly soft-spoken and implied to have less of a verbal filter than her father (though in her own way) and soon falls asleep on the mattress; when she wakes up, over two hours later, they arrange to have the mattress delivered, but the next day, the delivery driver calls in sick and Brian is assigned to go deliver, and is then almost immediately suckered in to driving Al, who is laying down on the hardwood floor, to his back specialist cos Harriet "can't drive in NYC". Brian and Harriet make the most emotionless small- talk since some of Burt I Gordon's stinkers in the clinic's waiting room, then Harriet emotionlessly propositions Brian for sex, and then they immediately duck back out to the parking garage for a quickie while Al is told that his back problem is stress-related.

Brian's father is equally quirky and it's implied all over the place that his brothers are self-made millionaires. In fact, save for The Hobo, who inexplicably beats down Brian four times in the film, with no established pattern as to why, there's not a single character in this film who isn't incredibly privileged; even Brian's prospective adoption is of a Chinese baby, and absolutely no reason is ever divulged as to why a single and apparently heterosexual young man is so hell-bent on adopting a baby other than an anecdote from Brian's father that, on Brian's eighth birthday, his parents got him some toy or another, and Brian retreated to his room, crying, because "he wanted us to get him a baby, a Chinese baby".

Wow. Just wow. And when he finally does get his baby (after ample strings pulled by a friend of his with the agency), his entire family treat the poor little girl like a Pomeranian puppy, Brian's father commenting to his mother "we gotta get one of these".

One of the only two scenes with realistic emotion are when Harriet attempts to break up with Brian, for some vague reason I've already forgotten, and Brian is broken-hearted about it. When he leaves the Lollys' apartment afterward, he's encountered by his Hobo for the fourth and final time, and stabs the guy in self-defense. When Brian staggers up from the body, the shot of the alley from a distance reveals no body, which is either a technical goof, or an implication that there never was a Hobo -- in which case, why is Brian sporting bruises almost consistently from the first beating onward? I have absolutely no idea what this character was supposed to be representing, if anything, though his regular appearances which include an implication that he's followed Brian from NYC to somewhere upstate, my money is on "figment of the imagination" -- in which case, FIGHT CLUB did that kind of imaginary- abuser/friend-gone-wild thing twenty times better; there was some consistency to Tyler Durden, there is none with GIGANTIC's Hobo. The second with real emotion is when Brian's mother talks Harriet out of a panic episode and explains that "nothing's normal".

Apparently the scriptwriters are "from literary backgrounds" and thought they were writing a film like a novel, forgetting that novels (like FIGHT CLUB) are typically better than the films that are made from them simply because of the time that is taken to carefully explain certain things; there is little to no explanation of anything in GIGANTIC; while it seems to aim for a character-driven rather than plot-driven film, the end result is that it just kind of meanders about without much to really endear the characters to, much less make one care about what happens to them. By the time Brian finally got his baby, I was more annoyed that yet another privileged, upper-middle-class white boy has scored a seat on the Trendy Foreign Baby bandwagon and, like so many before him, is content to treat the kid like an accessory rather than a person.

It has kind of an absurd charm in places, but in the end, its grasps at straws of pseudo-existentialism ends up with those moments just petering out as kind of stupid. It's a promising idea, but obviously the writing failed this idea; the direction seemed fine, cos there's only so much you can do with some of these lines.

I'm giving it 5/10 cos like I said, it has a decent premise, and the direction is fine; the actors do well, all of them, really, but there was only so much that could have been done with the apparent script that I have to blame the film's problems on writing alone. I usually like these quirky little character pieces, but this simply didn't deliver on such promises; the leads, who are the focus of the film, are ultimately kind of bland, and their families seem like caricatures of eccentricity.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Slightly more enjoyable than a pap smear

Author: rooprect from New York City
11 January 2012

This is the kind of movie that makes you want to grab the first emo kid you see on the street and forcibly give him a perm.

Take all the indie movies ever made. Take the worst scene from each one. Slap them all together, and there you have "Gigantic". It suffers from all the clichés that make people hate indie films: mumbling characters that irritate the crap out of you, no script to speak of, jokes where the audience is evidently supposed to imagine the punchline, and so much cynicism you wonder why the writer didn't just kill himself when he was 16.

Throw in a bunch of homophobic wisecracks, anti-Semitic slurs, racial slurs of all shapes & sizes, and an opening scene of animal cruelty (American Humane did not monitor this film), and here you have a bona fide painful experience.

I think I laughed more watching "Platoon" than I did watching this dud of a movie.

Please don't think all indie films are like this. If you want to see a hilarious non-Hollywood rom-com, look for a film called "Buffalo 66" with Christina Ricci and Vincent Gallo. For Zooey fans of course there's "(500) Days of Summer". Skip this and watch something, anything, else.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Trying way too hard to be cool

Author: Harperian from United States
20 November 2010

I am in to quirky comedies, but this one is beyond lame. I love Zooey, but it was painful watching her and Paul Dano play their typical personalities in this wannabe symbolic bullsh!t quirky comedy. I was very disappointed and found myself washing dishes and smoking a cigarette while my girlfriend hung in there. Zooey's quirky personality is played out in this movie, and Paul Dano is a horrible casting role for the protagonist, if you can call him that. I hate to sound so down on a risky film, because I appreciate them going outside the box, but this is so beyond pandering to the indie crowd it makes me sick. I can give it a four out of ten being completely honest. There are some smart parts in this movie, but that's not enough to save it from a sorry plot and poor casting.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Enjoyed the characters (only)

Author: tacopony-1 from United States
14 September 2009

I really enjoyed the setting and the characters played by Goodman, Deschanel, Dano, and the entire supporting cast.

But many parts of the plot were not believable, or even nonsensical.

The film resorts to passé plots (quiet boy meets sexy rich girl), but where it is inventive, it's inexplicable (the stalker, the lifelong interest to adopt, ...).

Goodman is a favorite of mine anyway, and his character here serves to balance the meekness of the other leads.

It was worth my time, however if it wasn't able to get Goodman or the other leads, it would have been a forgettable film.

TP in Texas

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Gigantic Flop

Author: imothers from Vancouver, Canada
28 March 2010

I can't really say this movie has anything to recommend it as entertainment. There isn't a cohesive plot - there are a lot of scenes that are just "there" but you wonder why? The characters are all very flat - little to no development. I couldn't get interested in any of them, which is unusual. There was no comedy and no romance in this movie for me. There isn't really any compelling action, and most of the camera work is ordinary - nothing interesting there to hold your attention. Sometimes a movie like this is saved by brilliant dialogue and scriptwriting - not this one, the script is average and the delivery flat. No one seems to care very much. There are a couple of scenes with violence, which to our family were disturbingly gratuitous - the violence just happened without any reason, or explanation afterwards. The consequences of the violence seemed way too small considering what was depicted as happening, which was also disturbing.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history