Yeah, I had the same thought. The only discernible difference I could find is that it appears as if she ages normally, and then gets a bout of retrograde amnesia when she hits 30, forgetting everything after her 13th birthday.
At least I hope that's what happens. I don't want to find out this movie is just BIG-ETTE.
My first thought, too, as well as most wags, but I have to say, I saw that trailer at the theatre the other night, and I'll say one thing for Jennifer Garner - which I never found to be true in the past, but she was really genuinely charming in it - so, from my warped perspective, would make this a league ahead of BIG.
...so, from my warped perspective, would make this a league ahead of BIG.
Again you show your absolute hatred for all things Tom Hanks.
sigh
Equal parts comedic brilliance and heartfelt drama, Tom Hanks' performance in BIG is amazing. It's a testament to the film that it's mentioned in the same breath with other, more "Oscarworthy" films on his resume.
To be fair, we should be comparing 30 GOING ON 13 to other films in the genre (child in an adult's body) that predated BIG, since the latter wasn't the first film (nor will it be the last) to employ this device.
>>Again you show your absolute hatred for all things Tom Hanks.
I do! It's all true. I believe that BIG would have been good escapist fantasy for slow 12 year olds, maybe as a tv movie of the week, but was destroyed by Tom Hanks smug smarmy face - a face that deserves a poke or two!
Having said that, I really did enjoy "Joe Vs The Volcano" and I pretty much liked "The 'Burbs", and when I was younger, I recall laughing at "Money Pit" and "Bachelor Party" - and I tell you what - my obsession with the Coen Bros will force, nay, compell me to see their latest, despite the fact that it stars Hanks - and, I have to admitt, the trailers make Hanks look good - so, maybe I'll be turning a new leaf with my hatred for all things Hanks, huh?
It's a testament to the film that it's mentioned in the same breath with other, more "Oscarworthy" films on his resume.
And it should be, considering both he and the screenplay were nominated for Oscars. He probably would have won, too, if it weren't for Dustin Hoffman's "Wopner's on in 10 minutes" routine. The rest of the competition wasn't really that fierce.
Agreed, although that was a good year for Supporting Actor noms all around. In 1988 along with Hanks and Hoffman, there was Gene Hackman for MISSISSIPPI BURNING, Edward James Olmos for STAND AND DELIVER (I thoroughly enjoyed both films and performances) and Max von Sydow for PELLE THE CONQUEROR (which I haven't seen).
Somewhere along the line, Tom Hanks must have run over Mike's dog or made goggly faces at his sister 'cause anything, and I mean anything, that has Hanks' name on it is automatically mud in his eyes with the exception of THE LADYKILLERS...and that's only because it's directed by the exceptional Coen Bros. I have my work cut out for me when we all gather in April for another LA JBF outing.
I'm not a big fan of Hanks either. He is one of those actors who really just does not do it for me -- and just when I start to change my mind turns around and does something (like "Ladykillers") that costs him all the ground he's gained.
Nicolas Cage is another such performer, to give you a frame of reference. I will get to the point that I start to think "You know. . . this guy really is pretty good. . . " and then I find out he looks in the mirror and sees Superman.
Well, truth be told, Tom, or "Bear-Hug", as I used to like to call him, and I had a long relationsh-...
No, no, that's not it. I don't know why I don't like him, really. I guess it's just like how some people like chocolate and some like vanilla - I can say that I find him to be smarmy and smug, and unappealing - to the point where any time I try to watch him in a film, those features are so distracting that I can't enjoy the film.
But I'm open to seeing things a new way - Lay on, MattDuff, and woe to he who first cries 'enough with the Tom Hanks!'
I'm not a big fan of Hanks either. He is one of those actors who really just does not do it for me -- and just when I start to change my mind turns around and does something (like "Ladykillers") that costs him all the ground he's gained.
Wow. Interesting. I feel the exact opposite. I've been a fan of his since BOSOM BUDDIES. I'm of a mind that his work in NOTHING IN COMMON (costarring Jackie Gleason in his last role) is incredibly underrated. Although PUNCHLINE is not the best film on his resume, there's a scene with Hanks confronting Sally Field's character in a diner that is one of my all-time favorites. BIG is a work of comedic genius to me, in that he was able to so convincingly capture the essence of what it was like to be a 13 year old boy. JOE VS THE VOLCANO, FORREST GUMP, PHILADELPHIA, APOLLO 13, and ROAD TO PERDITION are among my favorites. THE LADYKILLERS looks to me to be another addition to this list of his films (the Coen Bros directing/writing it sure won't hurt!)And the fact that he choose Jimmy Stewart (my favorite actor across the board) as his role model is only the icing on the cake.
Not trying to convince you of anything, mind you. Just wondering if it was your dog he ran over!
Matt Reed
This message has been edited by MattReed on Feb 21, 2004 11:09 PM
Similar to BIG in one obvious respect, but the situation is completely different. Instead of the world encountering a 30 year old man who grew up overnight -- A 13 year old jumps across the timeline of her own life (a la Slaughterhouse 5) to awaken at the point where she's 30.
Instead of having to learn to pass herself as a 30 year old with no past, she has to play catch up with a past that everyone else but her is quite familiar with.
Similar? Yes, but respectably different.
That Freaky Friday comment is more apt. This is Freaky Friday 1/2 -- with time-travel.
Putting to one side for a moment that Forrest Gump was meretricious tripe, I thought Hanks was quite good in it, but only nabbed the Oscar because of Hollywood's propensity for favouring the - how shall I put it? -performance of a "disadvantaged" individual, preferably with as many physical handicaps which can be factored into the performance as possible. And even there, I thought Hanks' Gump was a much more obvious creation than Ernie Hudson's similarly afflicted handyman in "The Hand Which Rocks The Cradle", a performance of great subtlety in a much lower profile film.
That Freaky Friday comment is more apt. This is Freaky Friday 1/2 -- with time-travel.
******
The identity switching in "Freaky Friday" is what derails that comparison. As with other films that have switched parent and offspring, "Freaky Friday" is about one generation learning to understand the other -- about the daughter, in this case, learning what it is all about to be the mom, and the mom learing what it is all about to be the daughter. "13/30" does not have this element. Like "Big" it is about a child learning to respond to the adult world, but doing so from a child's perspective. There will doubtless be some Important Lessons Learned, as in "Big", but the "walk a mile in my shoes" element that distinquishes "Freaky Friday" is absent.
The "time travel" element is something that distinguishes this movie from "Big", but I suspect little attention will be paid to the Garner character dealing with how much the world has changed in 17 years.
Of course, as a little boy trapped in a man’s body, it was (at least theoretically) charming and funny and goofy for Tom Hanks to be seduced by adult women. (I don’t remember all the details anymore, having not particularly liked “Big,” but I don’t think he actually bangs anyone in the film, does he?) In contrast, if the premise is reversed—having a grown man seduce a 13-year-old girl, even if she looked on the outside like totally hot Jennifer Garner—would come off as downright creepy and raise plenty of questions about pedophilia! Although I haven’t gotten around to viewing the trailer yet, I gather from the comments on this thread that the flick in question isn’t simply a reversal of “Big.” But if they ever actually want to do a reverse-gender sequel to “Big,” might I suggest Roman Polanski as director, with a soundtrack by Jerry Lee Lewis and R. Kelly!
"But if they ever actually want to do a reverse-gender sequel to “Big,” might I suggest Roman Polanski as director, with a soundtrack by Jerry Lee Lewis and R. Kelly!"
The trailer has a scene which seems to indicate how they are handling "that" element.
What raises my curiosity level even a little bit about the basic premise of this movie is this:
In BIG, Tom Hanks' character wished himself into an adult body. He became, overnight, a physically mature version of himself. In 13/30, Ms. Garner's has jumped 17 years -- but the character has apparently lived those 17 years, too. In other words, JG's 13 year old is "possessing" her 30 year old self. Now, the key difference there is that, unlike BIG, we do not have a man with boyish characteristics everyone finds charming, we have a woman who will be giving all the indications of having had some kind of severe mental breakdown. Will the movie address this?
(I'm reminded of a lesser episode of "Twilight Zone". A man who is constantly annoyed by the noise of the world basically "wishes" it all away -- the world becomes totally silent. But only for him. In the end, he is taken off to the nut house -- yet, from a real world perspective, what has happened is that he has suddenly become deaf . The reaction of his friends and co-workers -- that he's gone crazy -- is anappropriate. I wonder if the producers of 13/30 were savvy enough to address -- from within their comedy context -- this aspect of their story?)
Ok, it's derailing this a bit, but I thought the best Twilight Zone episode was the one with Bruce Willis in a bar, making a phonecall and accidentally calling his own number, when HE answers.
Turns out he's split into two people - all his good and worthy attributes are in the guy at home, while the self-destructive and selfish guy is at the bar.
Eventually the guy in the bar fades away and the guy at home is the only one left. A great allegory for a war within yourself, where you decide to 'clean up your act'.
____________________________________________
You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different.
