Burton's Busts

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Burton's Busts

Alice in Wonderland is one of Tim Burton's five worst movies. Here are the other four.

Read Full Article

Wow...Third post in HIS OWN TOPIC. Moviebob has quite the fanbase!

Edit: Well, that was fixed.

Now this, is awesome.

wha-

but I liked Charlie!

Hrm. Guess I have to rewatch the original Batman... Don't remember it being THAT bad.

I still feel that Keaton was the best Batman, period.

Glad I'm not the only one who thought the 1989 Batman movie sucked too. I actually liked Batman Returns, however, though I'm certainly not blind to its flaws.

I've skipped almost all of Burton's movies, I can't really understand why, like Bay, he gets so much hype behind his movies.

Sometimes, I feel like the only one who hates Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Gene Wilder's performance cannot be matched.

I can't say I disagree with anything on this list of bad Burton films, but mostly I'm just astonished to see anyone else put Pee Wee's Big Adventure on the list of his masterpieces. Because every time I tell somebody how much I love that movie, I get blank stares of incomprehension or outright hostility!

Which is frankly baffling, because it's a comedic masterpiece, especially the way it satirizes the film creation process in Hollywood, and all of Burtons odd trademark elements work perfectly in that film.

Don't even get me started on the breakfast machine or Elfman's soundtrack (so cool!). So yeah, nice to see somebody else praising that film.

Gotta disagree with you Bob, the 1989 batman was good

I almost don't want to watch the review after seeing that headline. Usually I watch the review before hand so I can get more, I guess you'd say artistic view, of the movie in question.

Can't help but say I'm slightly concerned now cause I've been really looking forward to this movie.

Le Tueur:
I've skipped almost all of Burton's movies, I can't really understand why, like Bay, he gets so much hype behind his movies.

Because unlike Bay, Burton usually knocks it out of the park.

Edit: Ok, "usually" is maybe a little generous. But burton has made several really great films in his day.

-m

I agree on the Batman bits, but I fucking LOVED Charlie and the Chocolate factory.

The first movie was just kind of sugar-coated tripping without atmosphere or soul (or good songs, for that matter) while Burton actually did what Dahl was always so good at: making stories that are actually DARK.

Also, the sets and the music were waaaaaaaay better. And the atmosphere kicked ass. Sure, maybe not the greatest movie ever, but definitely very good. IMHO.

To be honest, I also completely hated Watchmen, so maybe we just like different stuff about our movies.

I re-watched the Batman films a couple of months back and whereas I enjoyed them when they came out, they don't really stand up to much now.

Planet of the Apes was Tim Burton? Never made the connection.

Charlie and the chocolate factory wasn't amazing, but at the very least it beat the appalling 1970's version that was enough to make you physically sick (even if there did seem to do a homage in some parts). I like the book too much to get along with any film version, so I can't really comment.

No Sweeney Todd? I'm disappointed...

Despite agreeing with most of your points I feel the need to disagree a bit with a few points you made.

Batman & Batman Returns
- Looking back, yeah, they weren't that great; but they're interesting to compare to the new Batman series. In these first movie I actually found the protagonist to be the most interesting character on screen (I still don't understand the flak Keaton gets for the role). In the current series, he's the least interesting character (come on, who watched Dark Knight to see Christian Bale?) with fascinating villains (BTW, thank you very little for making Scarecrow permament second-rate cannon fodder... jerks). It's only a shame that the Olson twins ate Heath Ledger's soul.

Planet of the Apes
- I beleive the term, "No redeeming narrative qualities" works quite well here.

Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
- Didn't hate it completely, but preferred Gene Wilder. Agree that it belongs here. BTW, am I the only one amused by the facts that "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" is actually about Charlie and "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" is actually about Willy Wonka?
- Mike TeeVee's sin isn't intelligence, it's intolerance and impatience coupled with anger management issues. I'm willing to bet they did thier research for his role off of XBox Live Halo 3 CTF matches =).

Alice in Wonderland
- Looked like a horrid mess just from the trailers, held out faith they were wrong, going to need a stiff drink to live down the disappointment.

carnkhan4:

No Sweeney Todd? I'm disappointed...

Me too. Talking about overdone...

Matt_LRR:

Le Tueur:
I've skipped almost all of Burton's movies, I can't really understand why, like Bay, he gets so much hype behind his movies.

Because unlike Bay, Burton usually knocks it out of the park.

Edit: Ok, "usually" is maybe a little generous. But burton has made several really great films in his day.

-m

Is it more of a decay? Are the "best" of his movies in the past and is it his more current ones have been poor? I mean I hear the man's name constantly but have never really had much interest in seeing his movies. Not saying he is bad, just not my kind of movies maybe.

Bay however I will call a fucking hack, to his face if I could. I have nothing but hate for him.

Not really, he's just hit or miss.

His biggest hits were back in the Beetlejuice/Edward Scissorhands/nightmare era, but he still drops a good film from time to time.

Corpse Bride, Big Fish, Sweeney Todd, all great movies from his much more recent past, just none as heavy hitting as his past films. In most cases because they simply failed to live up to the legacy he created.

It's like comparing Twilight Princess to Ocarina of time. TP is a great game, but it doesn't stand very well when measured against OoT.

-m

Well, seeing as Burton's Batman actually felt like "Batman" compaired to Nolan's terrorist-subtext cyber-Batman, I'd have to say that you are absolutely full off sh- your own opinion.

Quiet Stranger:
Gotta disagree with you Bob, the 1989 batman was good

I agree.

I think there are a ton of things one can criticize about the movie, true, but "And it had next to nothing in the way of respect for its source material" isn't it. It's a comic book superhero. What source material are you talking about? Comic book superheroes get reinvented with pretty much every new attempt at packaging them. That's *why* they get repackaged so often. And that's why they stay relevant for so long, because they do get repackaged.

Burton's version was copying from both the cheesy TV version and the grittier comic books that had been published in the meantime. That is probably why, as you put it, "the pop-cultural importance of Burton's Batman can't be overestimated": it's always appeared to me to intentionally move the Batman franchise away from the silly caped crusader the mass market was used to from TV, without submitting the same mass market to a full-blown Frank Miller Splatterfest. It's either a masterpiece, or there was a ton of luck involved in timing and the exact design, and knowing Burton's other movies, I'd put more money on the former.

On the other hand it's fair to say that it hasn't aged terribly well; in part, that's because it was successful at bringing superheroes to the big screen. Of course the Dark Knight looks more contemporary; people have now been watching the same old superhero story for so long they again needed a fresh look, and the Dark Knight attempts just that. This is probably the first time we're made to forget that the main character dresses up as a bat, where we can take him entirely seriously and can be just a little scared of how far he can go in his quest for his version of justice.

Lastly, comparing Batman 1989 to Spider-Man? Please! It's pretty much the epitome of superhero movie genericity... to the point that while yes, it's not really bad, it's so forgettable that it pretty much triggered superhero-tiredness in people. Well, maybe that's just me.

Latinidiot:
wha-

but I liked Charlie!

Same here, I would certainly disagree there

But still! Really entertaining!!!!

Casual Shinji:
Well, seeing as Burton's Batman actually felt like "Batman" compaired to Nolan's terrorist-subtext cyber-Batman, I'd have to say that you are absolutely full off sh- your own opinion.

If by that you mean, "burton's, and subsequently Schumacher's Batman movies felt like Batman in the same sense that the 1960's Adam west batman felt like batman" and nolan's "feels like something far more real, and more akin to the comics of the modern era", then sure.

unwesen:
Burton's version was copying from both the cheesy TV version and the grittier comic books that had been published in the meantime. That is probably why, as you put it, "the pop-cultural importance of Burton's Batman can't be overestimated": it's always appeared to me to intentionally move the Batman franchise away from the silly caped crusader the mass market was used to from TV, without submitting the same mass market to a full-blown Frank Miller Splatterfest. It's either a masterpiece, or there was a ton of luck involved in timing and the exact design, and knowing Burton's other movies, I'd put more money on the former.

On the other hand it's fair to say that it hasn't aged terribly well; in part, that's because it was successful at bringing superheroes to the big screen. Of course the Dark Knight looks more contemporary; people have now been watching the same old superhero story for so long they again needed a fresh look, and the Dark Knight attempts just that. This is probably the first time we're made to forget that the main character dresses up as a bat, where we can take him entirely seriously and can be just a little scared of how far he can go in his quest for his version of justice.

I wholly agree with this assessment. It was, in fact, the realization that Schumacher's Batman & Robin was essentially a 90's era revisit of the 60's tv show that made me realize what exactly had gone on with the series.

-m

whoops, double post.

Burton's Busts? Try his entire career (excepting Ed Wood and, maybe, Sweeney Todd).

I think Burton is done. Not done making movies, they sell too well for that. But he's done making good movies. I was angry the second I heard he was making an Alice film, and even more angry when I heard Depp was in it. I love Depp, but he needs to cut the cord before Burton drags him down with him. Another of Depp's friends is attempting to make an Alice film, and he sure could have used Depp's star power to help the project.

Burton just needs to find a good writer to shepherd him. Guide his random scenes into a more coherent overall story.

"Planet of the Apes" was a Time Burton movie? The hell? I don't even recall hearing Burton's name being mentioned during the marketing for that movie, which in hindsight I suppose is somewhat telling.

Wow, both Batman movies (which were great, but then, I'm a Michael Keaton fan) were mentioned, but Big Fish was considered a masterpiece? I scratch my head every time I hear that movie mentioned in hushed, reverent tones by film critics. To me, that one should be on the list with Apes and Charlie. It was dull, plodding Oscar bait and little more.

I don't remember Planet of the Apes very well, but I seem to recall enjoying it. Maybe it's just my love for completely random and meaningless endings.

Charlie, however, was a pile of crap.

Holy shit, I did forget about Planet of the Apes... and it was baaaaaad.

Though I think Burton's style is still too much chained to the early 90's, where it was a novel change from the neon-colored 80's and really be latched on by the proto-goths and lesser by the emos (which was called 'grunge' at the time). I think the kiddies today want their own burton movie like the late 20 somethings had. Or somthing. I could care less since I never was mall-goth the style's become somewhat annoying now that it's Burton's 'signature' that HAS to be in every movie regardless of what it is because he's making it.

Le Tueur:
I've skipped almost all of Burton's movies, I can't really understand why, like Bay, he gets so much hype behind his movies.

I agree. I've seen alot of his movies, but they just don't seem as earth-shattering as people profess. Same with Micheal Bay.

I also didn't know that Burton made Plante of the Apes. Anyway, I hate Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I hate for all the reasons that Bod mentioned, but I also hate it because it didn't have the Half Room. I love the fucking Half Room! While I do like The Nightmare Before Christmas and Batman, I usually don't care for most of Burton's films. Also, is he trying to ruin Johnny Depp's career? I know that isn't possible after Depp's beyond magnificent performance as Jack Sparrow, but Burton appears to be trying his hardest to do so; at least with Charlie and Alice.

wasn't there supposed to be FOUR others? There are only 3 (four including alice) where's the fifth?

Matt_LRR:

Casual Shinji:
Well, seeing as Burton's Batman actually felt like "Batman" compaired to Nolan's terrorist-subtext cyber-Batman, I'd have to say that you are absolutely full off sh- your own opinion.

If by that you mean, "burton's, and subsequently Schumacher's Batman movies felt like Batman in the same sense that the 1960's Adam west batman felt like batman" and nolan's "feels like something far more real, and more akin to the comics of the modern era", then sure.

unwesen:
Burton's version was copying from both the cheesy TV version and the grittier comic books that had been published in the meantime. That is probably why, as you put it, "the pop-cultural importance of Burton's Batman can't be overestimated": it's always appeared to me to intentionally move the Batman franchise away from the silly caped crusader the mass market was used to from TV, without submitting the same mass market to a full-blown Frank Miller Splatterfest. It's either a masterpiece, or there was a ton of luck involved in timing and the exact design, and knowing Burton's other movies, I'd put more money on the former.

On the other hand it's fair to say that it hasn't aged terribly well; in part, that's because it was successful at bringing superheroes to the big screen. Of course the Dark Knight looks more contemporary; people have now been watching the same old superhero story for so long they again needed a fresh look, and the Dark Knight attempts just that. This is probably the first time we're made to forget that the main character dresses up as a bat, where we can take him entirely seriously and can be just a little scared of how far he can go in his quest for his version of justice.

I wholly agree with this assessment. It was, in fact, the realization that Schumacher's Batman & Robin was essentially a 90's era revisit of the 60's tv show that made me realize what exactly had gone on with the series.

-m

Burton has famously gone on the record to state that he did absolutely no research on the character of Batman prior to making those films, and has never read a single Batman comic. So he wasn't trying to adapt squat from them. It's not faithful to the source material because he never READ that material.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here