In the storybook past, Edward ages from a teenager, encountering a Witch, a Giant, a Mermaid, and the love of his life, Sandra.
Back in the present, Josephine finds a deed to a house in Ashton signed by Jenny Hill and Edward.
He convinces the ringmaster to hire Karl, and then agrees to work for the circus for free in exchange for one clue about Sandra each month ("Closer to Her").
Upon learning Amos' big secret, Edward finally convinces him to tell him what he wants to know: Her name is Sandra Templeton, she goes to Auburn University, and she loves daffodils.
In this flashback, Edward returns to Ashton to learn that the town is going to be flooded, and he finds that the citizens and the mayor refuse to leave.
Variety called it "a wholly satisfying show: meaningful, emotional, tasteful, theatrically imaginative and engaging," and concluded: [B]y taking Edward's tales as the jumping-off point for the theatricality of production numbers, the show makes a case for the musical form itself as a means of privileging imagination over ordinariness.
[23] Chris Jones of the Chicago Tribune wrote: [I]n the best moments, you feel like you're watching something deep and powerful, sourced by a work of fine literature, propelled into awareness by a potent film and, most crucially of all, a story that makes us feel we can control, if not transcend, the story of the end of our lives.
With the indefatigable, deeply engaged and seemingly irreplaceable Norbert Leo Butz driving its storytelling and willing the show's crucial emotional subtext into being by sheer force of talent and will, "Big Fish" arrives on Broadway as an earnest, family-friendly, heart-warming and mostly successful new American musical[25]Despite the quality production values, Joe Dziemianowicz of the New York Daily News felt that Susan Stroman's dances were pedestrian, writing: " 'Big Fish' is a singing version of catch-and-release.
"[26] Ben Brantley of The New York Times wrote: Here, though, [Director Susan Stroman] seems to be drawing almost randomly from her bottomless bag of tricks.
[27] Elysa Gardner of USA Today agreed: Somehow, though, the effect isn't as dazzling, or as moving, as you would hope -- particularly given the talented players involved in this production […] In the end, though, this Big Fish lacks the imagination or cohesion to reel you in like one of its hero's yarns.
[28] Thom Geler of Entertainment Weekly had a more positive take on those same aspects: It's no spoiler to say that imagination wins out, particularly in director-choreographer Susan Stroman's visually lavish production, which boasts dancing circus elephants, a mermaid who pops up from the orchestra pit, and tree trunks that ingeniously morph into a coven of witches.
Don Holder's lighting, William Ivey Long's costumes, and Benjamin Pearcy's projections are often wondrous to behold .
For the most part, though, Big Fish finds theatrically inventive ways to reel audiences into its central love story.
[29]Michael Dale of BroadwayWorld.com praised its "clean humor:" Wholesomeness gets a bad rap on Broadway these days, usually regarded as the kind of unbearably sweet and inoffensive entertainment that sophisticated theatergoers must endure while taking their conservative grandmas out for a night on the town.
[…] But Big Fish, the new musical that tattoos its heart on its arm, displays no fear in plopping its unabashed wholesomeness right in your lap.
Its spirit is steeped in Rodgers and Hammerstein decency that propels an evening that's adventurous, romantic and, yeah, kinda hip.
Jeremy Gerard of Bloomberg wrote: The part is custom made for Norbert Leo Butz, who hasn't had such a meaty role since 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.'
His ingratiating singing and dancing bespeak the rare man comfortable in his own skin, and he has that indefinable charismatic spark that defines a star.
[31]Variety reviewer Marilyn Stasio wrote: "Norbert Leo Butz is cutting loose in another one of his don't-dare-miss-this perfs in 'Big Fish,' a show that speaks to anyone pining for a studiously heart-warming musical about the efforts of a dying man to justify a lifetime of lousy parenting to his alienated son.