It is currently Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:51 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:14 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:27 pm
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.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:19 pm 

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:14 am
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:29 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
You forgot their work behind the cameras with Screwed, which I saw in an otherwise empty theatre


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:39 pm 

Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:14 am
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.

I'd like to think said writing duo would like to forget those happened. I would.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:42 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Problem Child was hilarious when I was eight. I'd take it over the People Vs Larry Flynt now even


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Same with me though change age and replace with Screwed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:24 pm 

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:29 pm 

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am
domino harvey wrote:
Problem Child was hilarious when I was eight. I'd take it over the People Vs Larry Flynt now even

Those films were my gateway to the wonderful Jack Warden.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:15 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Two new LDR songs that will appear in the film


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
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,
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Waltz unconvincingly faking a shoulder injury to get out of painting before the jury to prove that he was responsible for the paintings
, actually happened, as I learned when I got back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 8:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:31 pm
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 27, 2014 11:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:56 am 

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:28 pm
Quote:
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


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:02 pm 

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm
Dylan wrote:
Quote:
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

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.

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 :D), 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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection