Dark Shadows was so awful. If Burton and Depp claim to have rushed home from school to watch it, they sure as hell didn't get it. I just paid $4.99 to watch in on demand and I called Time Warner to tell them not to bill me it was so bad. They agreed to take it off my bill.
I met an artist who worked on Frankenweenie. He saw the film and was proud of it but admitted its many flaws in story. He said they were all really concerned about it (pacing, character development, etc) but that no one could bring things like that up to "the great Tim Burton". I think he's become a victim of his own hype.
"Dark Shadows" was a complete and utter clusterfuck, but I think this was mainly due to Seth Grahame-Smith being on board. Tim Burton's films are generally only as good as their scripts and this took the whole project in an utterly pointless and tasteless direction.
I was surprised he'd want to remake "Frankenweenie" as a feature film because it was so completely unmemorable as a short, but sometimes creative people do get weird fixations on certain properties. I personally think he should just do a remake of "Mad Monster Party" and get it over with.
What R3 said. The original Frankenweenie was a 5 minute story stretched into what felt like an eternal short. You couldn't pay me to sit through a full-length feature of it.
I hate to say something so "inartistic" but when I saw the ads for FW, I thought the biggest problem for selling the movie was that it was an animation picture in Black and White.
Hollywood studios need to stop giving away millions to some of these film directors like it's candy. So, Burton's ALICE made a billion dollars... OK, well, does that entitle Burton to a lifetime of flops? Some of these big directors need to get back to their humble beginnings and start making $5 million dollar films again. There is no shame in that. Coppola has been making small, self-financed films for the past ten years, and they've all been very interesting. Scorsese, Burton, Spielberg.... they should all try it.
Critics actually thought his "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" abomination was good and predicted it would have a longer life than the Gene Wilder original. It's already forgotten.
R1, you watched a whole film then asked for it to be taken off your bill? You might as well have illegally downloaded it.
I can't wait for the day that I can eat a whole meal at a restaurant before bitching about it.
R8-You can actually do that in any Jean-Georges Vongerichten restaurant and all will be taken off your bill, because the pissy little frog is so terrified of negative comments online.
I used to love Tim Burton movies.
Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands are two of my favorite movies. I even liked "Big Fish" for chrissakes.
But man... he hasn't had a good movie in ages. Alice in Wonderland sucked, Willy Wonka sucked, and I haven't even bothered to see Dark Shadows or Frankenweenie.
I guess it's sorta like George Lucas... once you get big and people don't feel they can say 'no' to you, your stuff starts to suck.
Johnny Depp is no longer able to act without kohl'd eyes thanks to Burton.
[quote]He saw the film and was proud of it but admitted its many flaws in story. He said they were all really concerned about it (pacing, character development, etc) but that no one could bring things like that up to "the great Tim Burton".
Every Tim Burton movie had had problems in pacing and character development. His movies are pretty, but the guy can't tell a story to save his fucking life.
I like "Ed Wood." That was a truly inspired movie, but it's totally unlike anything else Tim Burton has ever done. You'd almost think a grownup had made it.
Tim Burton's main talent is to hire the people who can execute his dark goth design aesthics, but somehow the stories and characters disappear in the background with the visuals being almost overpowering. Michelle Pfeiffer in Batman Returns was a big exception, because she basically scratched, purred/hissed, and gnawed her way back to the front.
To me it's like Tim Burton presents a visual fashion show and the actors act as blank fashion models moving the visual up and down the runway.
Tim Burton's movies are like modern-day pop music -- too perfect, too impersonal, too obvious. Everything is shiny and glossy to the point where it's meaningless.
talk about 2 artists who have not grown in the last 10 years, Tim Burton and Johnny Depp.
Depp's role in The Lone Ranger is embarrassing.
The only Tim Burton movies I like are Batman, Edward Scissorhands and Sleepy Hollow. Ed Wood sounds like it might be good, but I've never seen it.
Ed Wood is very good. I really liked Sweeney Todd, but his style overwhelmed it at points (By The Sea).
He needs to go away and make something different, like David Lynch did with The Straight Story.
I enjoyed the look of "Dark Shadows", but the story was so disjointed and pointless by the end I just didn't care.
I used to be a fan of Burton.
He made one film I consider great: Ed Wood
He made three films I consider good: Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and PeeWee's Big Adventure.
He made two films that are just okay: Batman and Batman Returns
He made a list of films that are awful, overstuffed, and unoriginal rip-offs without improving on the previous material:
Planet of the Apes, Sweeney Todd, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sleepy Hollow, Alice in Wonderland, Dark Shadows
Original, but still dreck: Mars Attacks! and Big Fish
People should stop giving him money; his films call to mind the phrase "wretched excess."
The last interesting Tim Burton film was probably "Ed Wood". He seems to have peaked creatively in the early 90's .
Sleepy Hollow was not bad, let alone dreck.
Big Fish was okay as long as you're in the mood for that sort of thing.
The one thing I hate about Burton is his incessant use of Johnny Depp. I will never, for the life of me, understand the fascination with this guy. He's weird looking and doesn't even strike me as a particularly gifted actor. In fact he's an awkward actor. So...what the hell?
Tim Burton's been coasting on goodwill from his great early movies for a long time now; I'm glad audiences are finally catching on and avoiding his movies.
How does something like Taken 2 get 50 million? Is it really that different than Taken 1? Did the studio time the release just right? No competition at the BO?
Taken 1 was so pedestrian and something we've all seen a million times, I was surprised they decided to make another.