If I were to tell you that Tim Burton had a new movie and it wasn’t weird you’d call me a lair. Well, it’s true! Burton’s new movie, Big Eyes, is a biographical film staring Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz, focusing on the American artist Margaret Keane (Adams) who’s work was fraudulently claimed in the 1950s and 60s by her then-husband, Walter Keane (Waltz). The film tells the story of their marriage, life, and their heated divorce trial wherein Margaret accuses Walter of stealing her paintings and selling them as his own.
Yes, it’s true. Tim Burton made a movie based in reality and its pretty good, but sadly, not because of him. Fans of Burton will see what drew him to the project itself. Margaret Keane’s art is completely in Burton’s wheelhouse of things he likes: strange, off kilter, not everyone likes, dark, etc. But when it comes to him making a movie not set in one of his own worlds the movie becomes very ordinary and normal.
I say that not as a bad thing, but as fact. We’re so used to Burton’s particular type of film, and unfortunately in the past few years he just hasn’t made a decent movie. Becoming more or a parody of himself rather then continuing to grow like an artist should, he has become stagnate as of late. So it would seem Burton finally went online and heard what people were saying about his style of filmmaking, and decided to do this little art house film about, I’m sure, a favorite artist of his. Once you get rid of all the Burton darkness, spirals, black and white, etc., you’re left with an ordinary film that could have been made by anyone. You would never know this is Burton film if you were not told beforehand and in the credits.
Here we see Burton relearn the basics of filmmaking, with very standard shots with no real creativity behind them. It’s like we’re watching a made for TV movie directed by Tim Burton. And I mean a good made for TV movie, like HBO, not a Lifetime movie. Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, who really should be getting the credit for making this movie shine, shoots the movie beautifully.
Sounds like I’m giving this movie a bad grade, but I’m not. It’s actually a fantastic film, it’s just not a good Tim Burton movie. It’s just a good standard movie. But what does make it stand out and worth your money is the acting and the story. Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz are fantastic! But was there ever any doubt? Both have multiple acting awards and nominations. They both at this point know what they’re doing and have become seasoned pros at their craft.
Each brings a beauty to their characters. Adams’ portrayal of Margaret Keane is beautiful. Adams, having spent some time with the real woman, listened and learned many aspects of her that she brought to her character in the movie. Margaret is a beautiful person who just wanted to share her art with the world. Under stress and pressure she let herself get talked into letting Walter (Waltz) take credit for all her work and reaping all the benefits from it. It’s sad story but also a small look into how women were represented not so long ago in the art world and in life.
Waltz is great as Walter Keane. He oozes himself in every situation in the film and makes himself the center of attention. Which of course Waltz does masterfully. He demands you watch him on screen for fear of what he’ll say or do next. That’s the kind of raw talent he brings to every movie he does. He makes you believe that he has talent as a skilled educated painter, even though, as the audience you know he doesn’t, but Waltz is so good, he even tricks you into believing his BS.
The cast is rounded out with some amazing actors who come in and out as set piece that help Adams and Waltz though the movie: Krysten Ritter, Danny Huston, Terence Stamp and Jason Schwartzman. All bring their unique talent to the film and each in very memorable no matter how brief their scene was. A favorite is when Walter is called out for being just a simple clichéd artist by art critic John Canaday, (Stamp). The scene is a verbal beating of Walter’s art and character in life. Stamp does it with a style only he could do. It’s like watching a calm artistic version of General Zod, but without all the yelling and keeling.
There only one real scene that felt like Tim Burton was allowed to do “his thing”, but it’s so brief that if you blink you might miss it. At one point Margaret is doubting herself and her life choices. As she wanderers around a supermarket she begins to see her art come to life on the faces of the other patrons around her. The scene may be short but it has a lot of meaning behind it. It’s a good scene and really captures the mind set of Margaret at that time in her life, but it’s also Burton’s way of giving us just a little Burton style in an overall Burton-style-less flick.
Should you see this? Yes. Should you see it in a theater? Meh. It’s a very good movie that is wonderfully acted and has a compelling story based on a true American artist. But as said, it’s a very standard flick. Not in a bad way, just very low-key storytelling, which in a world surrounded by action comic book flicks, R-rate comedies and massively boring Oscar dramas, this little movie stands out as a bright light. You feel good when you leave the theater and you get to learn a little about American art of the 50s and 60s. So it’s a win-win at the end of the day, and there’s nothing wrong with that.