Burton's Busts

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4




but I liked Charlie!

I'm figuring if he hated Charlie I'll probably like Alice.

the antithesis:
I disagree about the Batman movies, although I do agree they are flawed. Returns more than the original. But not the director's worst. (Well, maybe for Returns) To replace them, I would offer the following:

Mars Attacks was joyless and just plain stupid. It was about as funny as making salad dressing out of hamsters.

A second replacement is not as easy to pick. Edward Scissorhands was dull and uninspired (masterpiece?). Sweeny Todd would have been better without the songs. Don't make Johnny Depp sing ever again. But I'll have to go with Corpse bride as this was a movie with no reason to be. It brought nothing new to the table. Told no story worth hearing and showed that Burton's style was now becoming a cliche. What was once fresh is now stale. I do not think he will ever recover from that.

Yeah I figured Corpse Bride would be the number 1 worst movie.

It had no climax, no drive, no real emotion to it. I kept watching it waiting for the story to start.

Corpse Bride is actually better the 2ed time you see it (making it the polar opposite of the Matrix).

I'll need to watch it again though.

There is value in your comment since I hated Zoolander the first time I saw it and loved it the second time.

Not entirely sure why. I think I was less critical the second time and enjoyed it for what it was.

Charlie and the chocolate factory was damn horrible. I feel sick now.

I liked Burton's Charlie. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think that automatically makes it a good movie or anything. I also liked Wedding Crashers, but I recognize that it was far from a cinematic masterpiece. It's just that, when I think about those movies, I ask myself, "Was I entertained?" and the answer is "Yes, I was." Sometimes, that's all that matters.

to be perfectly fair

every single movie i have seing of Burton i go to see it with the premise of "lets see HIS take on such thing" not "OH!! this looks like and engaging and interesting movie!!"

its a freak show where people go and see the movie just to see how "twisted" and "weird" he gets.

and well... lets face it, you can find those kind of storyes everywhere on the net

except they dont make you waste your money. http://www.cheshirecrossing.net/

I apologize Bob but I'm afraid that Tim Burtons rendition of Planet of the Apes was not forgotten by me. I actually owned the DVD as soon as it came out. I liked it. A lot. I thought it was a rather darker spin on the whole idea, and Michael Clark Duncan made for a rather impressive Silverback gorilla. The short and long of it being that I thought it was a good, and one of Burtons better pieces, especially seeing as how "Sweeny Todd" was probably the worst musical made. Ever. In history.

Charlie in the chocolate factory did suck though.

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.

I think Keaton's Batman was helped by the fact that the Superman movies had gone semi-camp in 1980 followed by a total quality spiral from 1983 on (Supergirl was in 1984) finally ending in the 1987 nightmare that was Superman IV and the last time Batman had been done on the big screen had been the 'does anyone even remember it?' 1966 Adam West Batman that had been so campy it could have sold tents.

Ironically the Batman films followed the EXACT SAME PATTERN as the Superman films before them: reasonably good first film, semi-campy second film, horrible third film, and finally an even worse fourth film that was bad enough no one wanted to make another one for years.

Lord Thodin:
I apologize Bob but I'm afraid that Tim Burtons rendition of Planet of the Apes was not forgotten by me. I actually owned the DVD as soon as it came out. I liked it. A lot. I thought it was a rather darker spin on the whole idea, and Michael Clark Duncan made for a rather impressive Silverback gorilla. The short and long of it being that I thought it was a good, and one of Burtons better pieces, especially seeing as how "Sweeny Todd" was probably the worst musical made. Ever. In history.

No, there is one worst. It is called "Titanic - Animated Musical". The very concept is mind boggling enough but then you have it done in the Disneyish style of cute little animated animals as supporting characters and you know that somewhere there is someone who that THIS was a good idea and actually MADE it.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who isn't overly fond of Nolan's 'Batman' films. Frankly I found them boring, and I *really* wanted to like them.


Cabin Boy would have to be my pick as the worst movie he's ever done. I saw it about ten years ago, and I don't want to rewatch it to see if it's any better.

He did 'Cabin Boy'?!?! XD

I disagree with most of Bob's article.
To start... saying Pee-Wee Big Adventure is a good movie is a normal movie critic thing to say.
For anyone else looking for an enjoyable movie... Pee-Wee wasn't!
I know it's part of the character, but I just can't stand his face, laughter and I couldn't care less about him finding his freakin' bike back. What a stupid premise.

I don't know what people are expecting from Burton's movies.
Overall, most of them are style over content... meaning, that we should approach the analysis from a different perspective.
Every time I want to watch one of his movie, I tell myself "hey Burton, bring me to some crazy place and make me discover crazy and deviant characters"
To that, most of his movies were successful; Mars Attack, Batman, Nightmare, Edward, Sleepy, Sweeney, Corpse Bride, Willy Wonka and I'm sure Alice will too.
I like approaching his movie as a opportunity to discover a new universe.
Planet of the Ape almost did it if it wasn't for the fact that none of the main human characters were capable of displaying believable emotions.

See for me, the one that failed was Big Fish... I appreciated the effort of moving somewhere else and some of the character design, but the movie left me indifferent. Not saying, it's a bad movie, just that it didn't spoke to me.

The biggest problem I believe is when movies aren't meeting the expectations and having expectation made us the only one to blame. I rather be surprise by a movie than having it answers exactly what I wanted to be. Instead of blaming the movie for not matching the exact scenario that we had in our head... why don't we don't write it down and send them to Hollywood?

Personnally, I prefer seeing someone try and fail 9 times out of 10 and be blown away the 10th time. I prefer creative movies that failed than being served the same rehash movies.

Burton is akin to Lynch in that he's good at making a stylistically beautiful movie. It is both their greatest asset, and greatest failing. Describing the effect as "hit or miss" does nothing but place blame on the supporting crew for what is ultimately the Director's responsibility as an artist - maintaining cohesion without sacrificing vision. Sure, a Producer will step in and say "we can't afford it", or a writer may say "um, not at all like what I wrote." It is the Director's job to keep everything from falling apart.

That said, even Burtons flops at least *looked* good, even though they live beneath the rug of his better work. I don't think we can really fault him for that. Even Charlie and the Chocolate factory looked like it took place in a great fantasy (besides the Oompa-Loompa clone bullshit), and that's really all I've come to expect from him.

I do not say this as a fan, but I admittedly do enjoy his films from time to time. He's earned a bit of slack, but it's certainly worn quite thin by now.

tim burton needs to respect his source material more. "charlie" was closer to the source material than the original, however he change the character of willy wonka by adding the daddy issue subplot. he also completely changes the ending and all though the upa-lumpa lyrics were word for word the same as the book, the songs totally took you out of the film's reality. alice in wonderland as movie bob said, has the mad hatter weilding a broad sword. he obliously didn't have the guts to release a no narrative adventure. terry gilliam would have done better. these childern's books have been enjoyed for decades they don't need complete over-huals.

off subject here, but i'm tired of jonny depp being a lovable wierd guy. when's he going to be a real antagonist? like a pediphile or something, a part where he really acts instead of acting stupid or being pretty.(think about it in every movie he's ever been in he's been wierd or the hero or lovable in some way)

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.

In "Burton on Burton" (ISBN 0-571-22926-3) Tim Burton says something almost entirely different:

"Ironically, Burton was never a big comic-book fan, but found the necessary
emotional connection, delving deep into the Dark Knight's mythology and
playing up the character's disturbed, alienated, split personality, to
produce a filme that was flawed but which was never less than interesting."

That's from the foreword, but you can read his own words here: http://books.google.com/books?id=-GY9R1c_kKgC&lpg=PP1&dq=burton%20on%20burton&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q=batman&f=false

Starts at the bottom, goes on to the next page.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

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