Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
- Professor Wagstaff
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:27 pm
Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Tim Burton's Big Eyes
I'm thrilled to see Burton has decided to step out of his CGI-saturated comfort zone to do a real world drama. His Ed Wood writers Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewki wrote the script, and I think they have a terrific track record for these offbeat biopics.
I'm thrilled to see Burton has decided to step out of his CGI-saturated comfort zone to do a real world drama. His Ed Wood writers Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewki wrote the script, and I think they have a terrific track record for these offbeat biopics.
- Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
Re: Trailers for Upcoming Films
Looks great. I'm pleased to see Burton reteaming with Alexander and Karaszewski too. Just the fact that he cast Christoph Waltz instead of Johnny Depp is encouraging.Professor Wagstaff wrote:Tim Burton's Big Eyes
I'm thrilled to see Burton has decided to step out of his CGI-saturated comfort zone to do a real world drama. His Ed Wood writers Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewki wrote the script, and I think they have a terrific track record for these offbeat biopics.
-
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:14 am
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
It certainly looks like Tim Burton's redeeming film. I mean, last film I saw of his was Dark Shadows and that was incredibly disappointment. The fact that he's reteaming with the same writers of Ed Wood might have helped get him back straight.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Yes, here's hoping for a return to the effortless charm of Problem Child, Problem Child 2, Problem Child 3, Agent Cody Banks, or, dare I dream, That Darn Cat.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
You forgot their work behind the cameras with Screwed, which I saw in an otherwise empty theatre
-
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:14 am
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
I'd like to think said writing duo would like to forget those happened. I would.swo17 wrote:Yes, here's hoping for a return to the effortless charm of Problem Child, Problem Child 2, Problem Child 3, Agent Cody Banks, or, dare I dream, That Darn Cat.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Problem Child was hilarious when I was eight. I'd take it over the People Vs Larry Flynt now even
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Same with me though change age and replace with Screwed.
-
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Tim Burton actually knew Margaret Keane. He commissioned her to paint a portrait of his
former paramour, which may or may not have ended up at this estate dump
former paramour, which may or may not have ended up at this estate dump
-
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Those films were my gateway to the wonderful Jack Warden.domino harvey wrote:Problem Child was hilarious when I was eight. I'd take it over the People Vs Larry Flynt now even
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
- The Narrator Returns
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Anyone hoping for a miraculous return to form is probably going to be disappointed here. It's a good movie, Burton's best in many years, but it's weighed down by some serious tonal issues, with the movie never quite deciding whether it wants to be a serious melodrama or a goofy comedy*. One moment, Burton is using shots taken almost directly from Night of the Hunter, the next Christoph Waltz is gesticulating like a live-action Looney Tune. The acting, particularly from Adams, is generally good (Waltz hams it up from the get-go, and his performance will likely be an acquired taste), and the supporting cast is underused, but delightful to see pop up, because it's always nice to see Jon Polito, Jason Schwartzman, and Krysten Ritter back in action (for fans of the dearly-departed Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, Ritter basically plays Chloe in 50s outfits here). It looks great, of course, with some lovely work with color courtesy of Bruno Delbonnel, and the story is an inherently fascinating one, so it's worth watching, but it could have been more.
*Of course, what I felt was the film's biggest stab at absurd comedy,, actually happened, as I learned when I got back.
*Of course, what I felt was the film's biggest stab at absurd comedy,
SpoilerShow
Waltz unconvincingly faking a shoulder injury to get out of painting before the jury to prove that he was responsible for the paintings
- Koukol
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:31 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
I can't stand Burton's films.
Burton thinks these paintings are creepy. (I wonder if he thinks a Hummel is creepy too?)
I understand he owns a few paintings so I suppose with this exposure they'll increase in value
Crappy, kitschy Art from a crappy directer...I'll pass as usual.
Burton thinks these paintings are creepy. (I wonder if he thinks a Hummel is creepy too?)
I understand he owns a few paintings so I suppose with this exposure they'll increase in value
Crappy, kitschy Art from a crappy directer...I'll pass as usual.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
This wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. The film is pretty thin in general, and they didn't really overcome some of the challenges in adapting this material so much as try to sidestep them (with mixed results). For example, Christoph Waltz does indeed come off as over-the-top in a cartoonish way. This is not inaccurate - Walter Keane could and would often be even more outrageous. (The climactic court scene in real life was too ridiculous to believe, and not surprisingly, they pared away most of it for the film.) But I can't call the depiction a success because it feels over-the-top in a two-dimensional way. In the end, he's just a crazy, angry guy - if that's your take on him, fine, but it doesn't make a compelling film. Regardless, this is kind of the problem with most of Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski's biopics in general. Amy Adams does excellent work with what she has (her drunk scene in a restaurant has a lot of subtle dimensions to it), but I still feel like this could've been fleshed out a lot more.
As a Tim Burton film, it's kind of forgettable. To be brutally honest, I thought Ed Wood was a little overrated. A lot of it is excellent, but some of it felt like an inflated Hollywood biopic fantasy. I'm not talking about the meeting with Orson Welles - that had problems, but the idea was acceptable - certain details like premiering one of Ed Wood's films in a posh movie palace just felt too Disneyesque when his career was much darker and devastating. I think they acknowledged that in the "what happened to them later" credits, but the film shortchanges it and goes for something sweeter.
In terms of Burton's recent work, except for the animated Frankenweenie, his last few live action films were flat out terrible. But before Alice in Wonderland, they were not only solid story wise but consistently impressive as spectacles. Sleepy Hollow, Big Fish, Corpse Bride, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd are all marvelous eye candy, usually with some winning performances to boot. None of them are masterpieces, but they proved that Burton was still inventive as ever from a production design perspective.
As a Tim Burton film, it's kind of forgettable. To be brutally honest, I thought Ed Wood was a little overrated. A lot of it is excellent, but some of it felt like an inflated Hollywood biopic fantasy. I'm not talking about the meeting with Orson Welles - that had problems, but the idea was acceptable - certain details like premiering one of Ed Wood's films in a posh movie palace just felt too Disneyesque when his career was much darker and devastating. I think they acknowledged that in the "what happened to them later" credits, but the film shortchanges it and goes for something sweeter.
In terms of Burton's recent work, except for the animated Frankenweenie, his last few live action films were flat out terrible. But before Alice in Wonderland, they were not only solid story wise but consistently impressive as spectacles. Sleepy Hollow, Big Fish, Corpse Bride, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd are all marvelous eye candy, usually with some winning performances to boot. None of them are masterpieces, but they proved that Burton was still inventive as ever from a production design perspective.
-
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
I still think that Ed Wood is Burton's best film, so the prospect of him reuniting with the writers is intriguing. Reviews are good, it sounds like this is a refreshing change of pace for him and one of his Big Fish-style more "mature" films. Looking forward to it, my only disappointment is that it's his first film shot digitally, apparently he and Debonel wanted to shoot 35mm but there wasn't any processing facility in Vancouver, and they were forced to go with Alexa . No doubt it'll look stunning as his films always do though.
- Dylan
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Fear not - in my opinion this is Bruno Delbonnel's very best work since A Very Long Engagement and one of Tim Burton's best-looking films period. I actually thought that the best part about this film (which I liked) is how extraordinarily beautiful it looks - the attention to period detail is jaw-dropping & many of the visuals suggest that Burton is channeling Sirk and other 1950s/60s Universal productions. The way the opening scenes are photographed even recalls shots from The Birds and Vertigo (pastel colors, the mother and daughter having a foggy and slightly unreal "Hollywood" glow, the terrific dreamy matte paintings on the drive to San Francisco, etc.). Also, entire scenes are designed/blocked very specifically so that we get to see plenty of Keane's extraordinary paintings on walls, in the background, etc. This film isn't perfect, but visually I couldn't have asked for more.apparently he and Debonel wanted to shoot 35mm but there wasn't any processing facility in Vancouver, and they were forced to go with Alexa
-
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
I think the Coens went with celluloid on Inside Llewn Davis because Delbonnel had never shot digitally before (though apparently they're sticking with celluloid, at least for their next film ), is this his first picture he's shot digitally? This does sound like a refreshing change of pace for Burton, though he's obviously flirted with the suburban themes in some of his other films. The screenwriters have a good track record, and I'm glad to see Burton trying something besides his usual Gothic shtick. I'm looking forward to this.Dylan wrote:Fear not - in my opinion this is Bruno Delbonnel's very best work since A Very Long Engagement and one of Tim Burton's best-looking films period. I actually thought that the best part about this film (which I liked) is how extraordinarily beautiful it looks - the attention to period detail is jaw-dropping & many of the visuals suggest that Burton is channeling Sirk and other 1950s/60s Universal productions. The way the opening scenes are photographed even recalls shots from The Birds and Vertigo (pastel colors, the mother and daughter having a foggy and slightly unreal "Hollywood" glow, the terrific dreamy matte paintings on the drive to San Francisco, etc.). Also, entire scenes are designed/blocked very specifically so that we get to see plenty of Keane's extraordinary paintings on walls, in the background, etc. This film isn't perfect, but visually I couldn't have asked for more.apparently he and Debdonel wanted to shoot 35mm but there wasn't any processing facility in Vancouver, and they were forced to go with Alexa
- warren oates
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Not that this film doesn't look good, but I take it that Dylan hasn't yet seen Sokurov's Faust. It would be hard for any DP to top that film.
- bearcuborg
- Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
- Location: Philadelphia via Chicago
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Finally got around to seeing this last night after a fascinating Matthew Sweet interview I listened to a week ago. Sadly, Sweet's recollection of events was more interesting than the movie. I don't think Adams ever gave a less inspiring performance - and the new music was awful. Hopefully the extras on Blu add more substance.
Here's the code that came with my disc: ABEZ E4SJ 5AQM HUS8
Here's the code that came with my disc: ABEZ E4SJ 5AQM HUS8
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Alexander and Karaszewski were both at the preview screening I attended and they had a funny story from Sweet (which I imagine he must have told in that interview because it's too hilarious for him not to).bearcuborg wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:53 pmFinally got around to seeing this last night after a fascinating Matthew Sweet interview I listened to a week ago. Sadly, Sweet's recollection of events was more interesting than the movie.
EDIT: I actually found it in the L.A. Times, so I'll copy and paste the relevant paragraph here:
In a book by Leah Gallo titled “Big Eyes: The Film, the Art,” singer Matthew Sweet, who is a Keane aficionado and has worked as a consultant on the film, recounted meeting Walter in the late 1990s, when he still claimed to have painted the pictures. Sweet purchased a painting from Walter dated 1985, but later on a hunch, Sweet said, he scraped off paint with his thumbnail revealing a “6" under the 8. Sweet said the painting had been made in 1965 and Walter had painted over the year.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
This was perhaps the most glaring unseen work from my leftovers in Amy Adams' catalogue, but despite having seen most Burton and enjoying a solid percentage, this never appealed to me. The end result was... fine. I can appreciate why Burton was attracted to the material. Beyond the obvious commentary on patriarchal manipulation and the consequential tragedy of female self-delusion as a coping mechanism for systemic barriers in abusive relationships, there's a personal artistic allure for Burton. Early on, Adams declares outright that these paintings are a part of her identity, and in this overstated line we sense that Burton is planting himself in a woman’s shoes to wonder just how precious his own brand of Weird is to who he is, and how having that robbed from him would be an unbearable, unthinkable loss. The entire film is consciously exaggerated against any realism of history, and making light of these dynamics with jokes aimed at Waltz’s pathetic nature allows the film to breathe with some eccentricity, so in that aspect it imbues originality into a recycled formula.
Adams does a decent job in a part that could’ve, and should’ve, been juicier, but something about this film made me uncomfortable- that the self-deprecating material skewering Waltz’s persona was by far the most interesting part of the film, while Adams’ character never managed to sustain a spirit too far off the ground from bland gravity. And so the film had the opposite effect to its postured ethos: the man, however foolish, was the better character and the reason to sit through this film about social barriers to gender inequality and female empowerment. Sure, she gains external confidence in parts during the last act and flaunts her intellectual strength to emasculate Waltz in ways that elicit more applause, but it still feels too little too late. His psychotic antics fail to gel with a sense of earned drama, and the trail- which is hilariously cartoonish- only works because of Waltz. This is a movie that thinks it's about an oppressed artist who has lost a piece of her weird selfhood, but it's really about a weird man who is so histrionic and insane that Burton can't resist giving him all the spotlight (a strange male character?!.. with his track record- how could we have extended him to withstand the temptation?), even at the expense of the philosophical connection that clearly inspired him to make the film in the first place.
Adams does a decent job in a part that could’ve, and should’ve, been juicier, but something about this film made me uncomfortable- that the self-deprecating material skewering Waltz’s persona was by far the most interesting part of the film, while Adams’ character never managed to sustain a spirit too far off the ground from bland gravity. And so the film had the opposite effect to its postured ethos: the man, however foolish, was the better character and the reason to sit through this film about social barriers to gender inequality and female empowerment. Sure, she gains external confidence in parts during the last act and flaunts her intellectual strength to emasculate Waltz in ways that elicit more applause, but it still feels too little too late. His psychotic antics fail to gel with a sense of earned drama, and the trail- which is hilariously cartoonish- only works because of Waltz. This is a movie that thinks it's about an oppressed artist who has lost a piece of her weird selfhood, but it's really about a weird man who is so histrionic and insane that Burton can't resist giving him all the spotlight (a strange male character?!.. with his track record- how could we have extended him to withstand the temptation?), even at the expense of the philosophical connection that clearly inspired him to make the film in the first place.
- The Narrator Returns
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
I forgot I posted here at the time, I rewatched this two years ago and liked it even less than I did the first time. TWBB's dead on the money about its faults, and its half-in-half-out approach to being about Burton's creative spirit gets really muddled by how much Burton clearly relishes the scenes with the Terence Stamp and Jason Schwartzman critic characters, they register much more strongly than Adams. If I got the sense any element of the movie was fully-baked, I'd say the critics being the heroes of the piece is Burton self-critique of how he lost his spirit in his previous few movies, but that angle is much more thought-through in (of all things) the Dumbo remake, which demands to read as Burton admitting that he sold out whatever was special about his early work in favor of empty spectacle.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Apparently Waltz’s character is toned down from real life if you can believe such a thing.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
Yeah I’ve heard, and The Narrator offers a good point- that if Burton was self-aware and deprecating himself about his magnetism towards these male critics or cartoonish personalities over Adams’ quiet soul that inspired him, there could be an interesting movie in there. But I get the sense that he is feeling compulsively pulled in two directions, and instead of offering a self-reflexive commentary, tries to have his cake and eat it too and the film loses all energy for the soul/Adams in the process of Burton’s neglect and ultimate ignorance for non-superficial content.
And now that I’m reflecting on knives’ point of information, I’m not so sure Adams’ character was the inspiration for the film at all.. I mean, it’s painfully obvious that Burton believes she was, but I doubt he’d have made the film if he didn’t read about the husband’s erratic behavior and his investment and excitement in filming one character vs the other is clear as day, making this a case study in auteurist self-delusion.
And now that I’m reflecting on knives’ point of information, I’m not so sure Adams’ character was the inspiration for the film at all.. I mean, it’s painfully obvious that Burton believes she was, but I doubt he’d have made the film if he didn’t read about the husband’s erratic behavior and his investment and excitement in filming one character vs the other is clear as day, making this a case study in auteurist self-delusion.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Big Eyes (Tim Burton, 2014)
That's exactly why it was toned down - if they didn't, it would've risked being TOO preposterous to anyone unfamiliar with the story. Just look up the court case, I still find how it really happened unbelievable.