Big Eyes (I) (2014) User Reviews

Domestic Abuse and Denigration

[3xHCCH · 7/10 · 3 March 2015]

"Big Eyes" was nominated under Comedy & Musical category during the last Golden Globe Awards. Lead actress Amy Adams even won the Best Actress prize for starring in it. While I was watching this film though, it turned out to be furthest from what I had in mind for a comedy. The topic of this film was actually disturbing and depressing. However, being a Tim Burton film, there was certainly dark humor to be had.

This film is a biopic of 1950s novelty pop artist Margaret Keane (formerly Ulbrich, nee Hawkins). She developed a series of haunting acrylic paintings of kids with big dark round eyes. Walter Keane, her rascal salesman of a husband, took advantage of the rising popularity of her paintings. He claimed and mass-marketed them as his own.

Meanwhile, timid Margaret was forced to conform to his web of lies. She was locked in her workroom in their home to paint even more Big Eyes, away from the prying eyes of the public, and even her own daughter. Will Margaret be able to break free from the prison she has trapped herself into?

Amy Adams quietly carried this film capably on her shoulders. There was nothing funny about what she had to do here as Margaret. Her character was the victim of a most cruel crime. Her husband stole not only her art, but also her confidence, and her very freedom. Adams played a weak character, but as an actress, Adams was anything but. With her wise underplaying, Adams successfully won our empathy and compassion for her difficult plight.

Christoph Waltz, on the other hand, was over-the-top, one-dimensional, practically cartoonish, as the manipulative con-man Walter. From his very first scene, you already knew this smooth-talking guy was up to no good. Up to his very last scene in that courtroom, Waltz's Walter was a manic caricature, never really coming across as a real person at all. This may well Tim Burton's direction in play, as this character Walter was the source of most of this film's black humor. Waltz's fiery interaction with Terence Stamp's harsh NY Times art critic character is most memorable as well.

This film's narrative was simple and straightforward. Yet because of Amy Adams' riveting and heart-rending performance, we will be held until the compelling end. The technical aspects of the film, particularly the pastel color palette of the photography, as well as the period production design, costumes and makeup, all contribute to the overall charming look and nostalgic feel of the film as a whole. 7/10.

Not typical Tim Burton, still a nice drama that's fun and it inspires with love, and finding artistic discovery.

[blanbrn · 8/10 · 1 January 2015]

I'm a big fan of Tim Burton and with his latest "Big Eyes" it clearly is not typical Tim Burton it's more of a serious tone and manner it's different from comic book tales and animation of the dark senses and world of Tim. This film is actually a true take on the life and times of female painter Margaret Keane as it's a true tale of discovery, fate and getting to know your world thru the eyes of art. Set in the 1950's California Margaret Keane(Amy Adams)is a single mother who decides to set out on her own as her talents of the brush and drawing is her only hope to earn her bucks for her and her daughter. Upon meeting Walter(Christoph Waltz)a sharp and arrogant know it all showman type, it's under the spell that Margaret soon becomes Mrs. Keane. And success and fame and public notice comes from the couples paintings only the Mr. takes all the credit! This film becomes a legal dispute as who is claiming the work is in question yet you as the viewer know who's best at the brush! Overall nice little sentimental film from Tim it's different yet that's what makes a director and a film work that's a different take that appeals to the big eyes of viewers!

6.5/10

[Giacomo_De_Bello · 6/10 · 2 January 2015]

Charming, but uneven, entertaining yet unsatisfying, "Big Eyes" definitely does not come into the category of great or important true story movies. It is clearly a change of style for Tim Burton (if is very relieving not to see Johhny Depp acting all weird), but even though the time at the theater doesn't in any way feel wasted or boring, instead quite pleasant, the movie is too chaotic and quirky for it to be taken seriously in any way.

A premise that has lots of potential is partially wasted in aimless scenes or in repetitiveness. The film doesn't really make a point about anything and has way too much flashy stuff to feel grounded in any way. There would be nothing wrong there, but the fact that in it's uneven tone there seems to emerge a will to give an accurate and worthy recounting of these events makes so much of the drama feel out of nowhere. Storytelling isn't exactly where the movie succeeds. The courtroom scenes are definitely the weakest of all and made me mad multiple times because of their absolute preposterousness.

Anyways, the film is built around a strong enough cast, photography, premise, writing and design that it would be hard to get bored in anyway. The pace is fluent enough and the duration of the film is just about right for the content it presents. I wanted to like this more and see the story be given a better portrayal, but in no way I could say "Big Eyes" was a failure.

touching drama

[mukava991 · 1 January 2015]

Tim Burton's touching dramatization of the relationship of Margaret and Walter Keane almost works but somehow the dramatic arc seems arbitrary and we must accept the developments in their story as much from what the characters announce about themselves as from what we see enacted emotionally. Essentially, the husband is what we might call a pathological liar and the wife is one of the most gullible and trusting people who ever lived.

The shy, self-effacing art school graduate Margaret Ulbrich specialized in painting portraits of children with big, sad eyes which she would sell at street fairs for pocket change. When she walked out on her husband in 1958 to make a new life for herself and her daughter in San Francisco, she met and married the aggressive Walter Keane, a real estate broker who pretended to be a Sunday painter but was actually a plagiarist with marketing skills who took over the marketing of Margaret's works and sold them under his own name, first on canvas and then as mass produced posters, becoming a well-known purveyor of mid-20th-century kitsch who, as his character claims in the film, inspired Andy Warhol.

Amy Adams is appropriately choked up and tremulous as Margaret but Christoph Waltz is an odd choice for Walter. For starters, the character is as American as the Great Plains but Waltz cannot entirely obliterate his Austrian accent; it colors his every utterance. Then, his theatrical mannerisms make him seem more like someone with Multiple Personality Disorder than a mere Jekyll-and-Hyde, as his wife describes him at one point. Waltz entertains us, and we are conscious that we are seeing a bravura performance, but we are not getting the human being named Walter Keane.

Burton makes very good use of the singularly appealing Terence Stamp as John Canaday, a highbrow New York Times art critic who lambasts the Keane oeuvre in print, leading to a confrontation at a cocktail party - a fire and ice moment and a high point of the film.

The film leaves a touching, but light impression, much like the big-eyed paintings at its center.

traditional biopic

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 25 May 2015]

It's 1958 Northern California. Margaret Ulbrich (Amy Adams) leaves her husband and takes her young daughter Jane to San Francisco following her friend DeeAnn. When her husband threatening to take Jane away, Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) proposes to her and they quickly marry. Walter rents wall space from club owner Enrico Banducci and they get into a fight which makes it on the front page. Reporter Dick Nolan writes about Walter and his paintings. What started as a misunderstanding becomes a full blown lie. The paintings become a hit as Walter becomes a salesman taking credit for all the paintings. Eventually Walter finds that selling posters are more profitable and big eyes become everywhere. Times reporter John Canaday is a harsh critic.

This is a surprisingly traditional biopic from director Tim Burton. Other than the big eyed people that Margaret sees in a couple of scenes, there is nothing that is obviously Burtonesque. Amy Adams does a nice performance although I think her character is a little bit too willful at the beginning. It would be more dramatic to have her character grow over time. Christoph Waltz is amazing as the impresario manic salesman. In the end, this is a well made biopic with a couple of good performances and a couple of funny moments.

"From now on, we're one and the same."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 2 January 2019]

The most amazing thing to learn about the massive fraud perpetrated by Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) was that he did it right out in the open, with no attempt (at least later on) to hide the fact from his wife Margaret (Amy Adams). As the story progressed, I found myself getting irritated that Margaret kept going along with the masquerade, especially when he was getting all the credit, appearing on television, and hobnobbing with celebrities like Bob Hope, Red Skelton and Johnny Carson. The story is as much about Margaret's inferiority complex and inability to stand up for herself as it is about Walter's massive ego and need to be stroked at every gallery exhibit and museum unveiling. You have to hand it to both Waltz and Adams for their portrayals, their regard for each other is masterfully handled under the direction of Tim Burton. It's kind of ironic that Burton directs this kind of caricature about a phony artist when a lot of the work that has gained him prominence are of caricatures themselves. And to top it all off, the icing on the cake was when Walter's landscapes are revealed to be mass produced paintings that he purchased in bulk for resale - what a con man! This one ended the only way it could have to satisfy this viewer; the whole time Walter regaled the courtroom with his flowery antics, I thought the best way the judge could have handled things was to put it all on the line by saying - 'Paint me a picture'.

Good but lacks substance for lasting impression

[ArchonCinemaReviews · 7/10 · 1 February 2015]

Christoph Waltz steals the show in Big Eyes, Tim Burton's whimsical tale of an artist and a scandal set in the transporting setting of California in the 60's.

The story of Big Eyes is something straight out of the movies, but no, the tale of Margaret Keane and her artistry is based on fact and real life.

Tim Burton's Big Eyes is a dramatic narrative of Margaret Keane, the painter, mother and wife. Having left her husband, with daughter in tow, she seeks a new beginning in California. While there, she hopes to make a living through her art and subsequently meets and marries a man named Walter. Trying to navigate the art world and make a living, her husband claims credit for her artwork which eventually becomes highly profitable. Burton focuses on the awakening of Keane as an artist and to her husband's shortcomings and the legal difficulties in claiming ownership of her work.

Margaret Keane's life is a fascinating and near unbelievable one. And much of Big Eyes' success as a film rests comfortably on that very story. Well, Big Eyes rests on the story of Keane and on Christoph Waltz's immeasurable charm in his performance as Walter Keane.

The sad big eyed children made commercially famous by Keane are uniquely peculiar. Stylistically, it was only right that Tim Burton should direct a film about the painter. It is apparent that Big Eyes is a Burton film; however, Tim Burton subdues his style substantially so that the narrative of this marvelous woman can take center stage. Creatively, this is a refreshing departure for the director.

The Big Eyes movie parallels the artwork of Margaret Keane in an unintentional manner. Margaret Keane was able to look at a person and capture their essence and then put it on canvas with her own twist through large sad eyes. Similarly, Tim Burton takes the core elements of Keane's life and translates it to film with his own fanciful creative liberties. Though everything is in the movie adaptation of Big Eyes, it lacks substance and heart to connect with the audience to have a lasting impression.

Please check out our WEBSITE for all the reviews of recent releases and awards contenders.

A lovely comedy drama

[851222 · 9/10 · 20 April 2015]

Greetings from Lithuania.

"Big Eyes" (2014) is more of good feel comedy drama then a serious biography drama as it's genre indicates. Yes, it is based on a very true story, but this is not a typical biopic by any means. It's a "light" and easy movie, with some great performances by both leads, tight pacing, very nice writing and directing. No wonder that it was mentioned in an Comedy or Musical categories at Golden Globes and not in motion picture drama.

Overall, this is true very well made biography drama about some painters and frauds. Won't going to spoil anything, just going to say that i was very surprised by the ending when i find out that this actually happen, well, probably not word by word but the outcome did happen actually how it was portrait in the movie. This is a very fine picture from legendary director Tim Burton, and safe to say that this is his best movie in years simply by not being "a Tim Burton's" movie as we know them. This small budget picture (in terms of other's T.Burton's flicks) actually is much more lovely and intimate then his recent works. I will go even so far and say that i haven't enjoy his movie so much since 1999's "Sleepy Hollow".

Small Issue Over Palpebral Tissue.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 21 May 2016]

As Walter Keane forty years ago, Christopher Waitz is accused of pandering to the lowest common denominator in the art world. He throws up his hands and screams, "What is WRONG with the lowest common denominator?" In today's Zeitgeist? We need a sensible answer more than ever.

I can accept "Big Eyes" on the molar level but not the molecular. That is, I can believe that Walter Keane, a born showman, began exhibiting his wife Margaret's successful Big Eye paintings as his own. There were arguments. They divorced. Margaret revealed that she was the artist behind the work and won a suit against him. Walter died "bitter and penniless" and Margaret "continues to paint to this day," as the epilogue tells us.

I don't accept the molecular structure. I don't think Margaret was really imprisoned in a smoky attic to grind out her many paintings. I don't believe Walter threatened to have her bumped off if she squealed. I don't believe that Walter, drunk and enraged, followed them through the house, flipping lighted matches at Margaret and her daughter out of jealousy while they shuddered in fear. That's a little generic, isn't it? "The drunken wife abuser?" I could believe it if the film showed us a conspiracy between Walter and Margaret, cackling as they collected their massive amounts of dough and bought the mansion in the suburbs, away from North Beach. Then I could believe bitter arguments followed over not just credit but pelf.

North Beach, 1957. That was some place. I was there at the time and it was thrilling, what with the emergence of the Beatniks, Bufano's penguins and all that. I patronized many of the places mentioned and I can recommend Vanessi's Restaurant as still a superb dining experience. I remember too the commotion over Walter Keane's fight with Enrico Banducci, proprietor of the Hungry i, where I saw The Gateway Singers render a song in Yiddish.

I remember too the sudden avalanche of Big Eye paintings. They were all over the place. You couldn't escape them. I was at the time a humble enlisted man at a Coast Guard radio station in San Bruno. My mates were a proletarian bunch with a sprinkling of geniuses. When the Keane painting began appearing, we all laughed at them because even in our lowbrow circles we could tell they STANK. Rough-hewn young men who had never gotten through high school (and never deserved to) found them to be a joke.

They're still a joke, as this movie is a joke on everyone who took these works at all seriously. They've been endlessly parodied since. And it's amusing for Tim Burton to play visiting art aficionados as pansies gasping at the intensity of a painting of some kid in a tattered dress with eyes like dinner plates, a tear coursing through the dust of one cheek.

The movie is based on an interesting premise: who gets credit for expensive kitsch? But it devolves quickly into a soap opera of an abused woman fighting for empowerment. The movie goes out of its way to link this tabloid story to the oppression of women everywhere in 1960. "Does your husband allow you to work?", asks an employer. "Let your husband make the decisions," advises a priest. We're no longer in 1957 -- especially not 1957 San Francisco -- but back in 957 AD. What's a millennium here and there? There's been criticism of the performances but I don't know why. Amy Adams does just fine as the oppressed, whimpering wife, all clammed up, as the script requires, and there is a long withheld smile of satisfaction and revenge as she humiliates her ex husband in court. One reviewer claimed she wore too much makeup. Well, yes, for our tastes now.

The movie wouldn't be what it is without the performance of Christopher Waitz. He's amazing -- outrageously over the top. He cackles, he waves his arms expansively, he shouts instead of speaking, he tells wild stories, and his German accent lends a surreal quality to every line, whether angry or palliative.

The photography shows us a city and its innards in lurid colors, as in a cartoon or a Twentieth-Century Fox musical, saturated and blinding, and it suits the story like a substrate suits its enzyme.

Vision

[abcvision · 9/10 · 2 January 2015]

As an art lover I enjoyed Big Eyes because it exposes some the complexity of inspiration and the creation of art. Big Eyes as the title shows is about the Big Eyes paintings. But it also has the theme of how strong women can overcome any challenge. In the 1950s it was unimaginable for a woman to set her own course. The main character leaves her husband and takes her child only to fall for a smooth talker who takes credit for her art. All is OK, until she discovers she wants to grow and not be hidden in the darkness. Along the way she uses the art as a means to expose herself and share to the world how the eyes are windows to the soul.

A competent, thoughtful drama from Tim Burton that could do with a little more of the director's trademark whimsy.

[shawneofthedead · 7/10 · 3 February 2015]

Tim Burton has crafted quite a reputation as a director of the surreal and the macabre. In his films, he conjures up dark, Gothic images of death and despair, but suffuses them with his special brand of bittersweet magic and whimsy. On the surface, Big Eyes is right up his alley - this true story of the fiercest and most outrageous copyright battle in art history centres on a series of big-eyed waifs, almost ghostly figures of hope and horror that fit perfectly into Burton's aesthetic. And yet, barring a few scenes, the final film is curiously characterless: a competently-made, shrewdly- cast biopic that never quite troubles the heart or spirit the way Burton's films can do.

Margaret (Amy Adams) is trying to scrape together a living for herself and her young daughter when she meets Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz), a charismatic real-estate broker who would rather make a name for himself as an artist. He offers her a home, love and financial security, and she quite happily takes his surname as her own. Once they are married, Walter keeps trying to break into the notoriously snobby art world, selling his own Parisian landscapes and Margaret's portraits of wistful young girls with enormous eyes. But it's her art - simply signed as 'Keane' - that grabs the attention and, as one white lie leads to another, Margaret suddenly finds herself shoved into the background. Walter has taken credit for her work, and is well on his way to transforming it into a global phenomenon.

There are many big ideas swirling around in Big Eyes: art, deceit, integrity, commercialism and love are shaken liberally and stirred through with deeper issues of sexism and psychological abuse. This comes through pretty well in the film, which paints a chilling picture of Margaret's enforced anonymity. As her husband delights in dominating newpaper headlines and picking fights with famed art critics like John Canaday (Terence Stamp), she fades almost literally into the background - creating ever more pieces of art for him in the solitude of her attic studio, lying even to her daughter about her life's work. The film also draws a canny, subtle distinction between the artist and the businessman: Walter may not be much of the former, but his skills as the latter are what drag Margaret's work from county fairs onto the international stage.

Through it all, Burton exercises a light - almost impersonal - touch. He scatters a few scenes into the film that hint at his trademark film-making style: Margaret bumps into a crass supermarket display of her art, and suddenly everyone around her sports the limpid, haunting eyes of the waifs no one knows are hers. But, for the most part, Burton keeps himself out of the proceedings. It's proof that he can create nightmares on a more subtle and realistic level, capturing the darker side of life as it can be rather than as he imagines it. Occasionally, however, the film begs the question whether he should - it's stuffy and dry, never quite engaging either the heart or the imagination.

That's through no fault of his cast. Adams anchors Big Eyes with an astounding portrayal of a complex woman: one who's willing to cast off the chains of her first marriage, only to wind up tangled in the snare of another. It would be easy to play Margaret as a victim, but Adams finds the bitter strength in someone who must endure untold torment in a world and home that constantly remind her she's too weak to succeed on her own. Waltz's performance, on the other hand, is puzzling - he plays Walter in the constant key of manic, right from the start, so that the character's smooth, smug charm is all you ever see of the man. There is something undeniably delicious, though, about Waltz's Walter when the cracks begin to show: he simmers his way into a kind of monstrous madness, which lends both drama and humour to the proceedings when Margaret finally brings her claim to court.

On the evidence of Big Eyes, there's hope yet for Burton if he would like to switch to making more literal films. He unearths plenty of smart, insightful tension in this troubled marriage, a partnership on unequal terms that becomes less emotional and more financial by the day. But the film also stumbles along at points, bled dry when it should radiate colour and emotion. It's hard to shake the feeling, too, that Waltz seems to be under the impression that he's in a more old-school, over-the-top Burton production. It's at these moments, in particular, that one might long for a splash of Burton's own personality - the chance to look at this world, this story and these people through his eyes.

Big Eyes was a compelling film about the career of Margaret Keane and her hubby Walter's initial grabbing credit for her work

[tavm · 8/10 · 31 August 2015]

Just watched this with Mom on a Netflix disc. We both were enthralled by this true story of painter Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) whose defining feature is the big eyes of her subjects and hubby Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) who publicly takes credit for her work for years. It takes place from the late '50s through the '60s and partly seems a comment on how stifled Mrs. Keane felt not being the one getting recognition for her work and the crises that created between her and her husband, not to mention her daughter who was often the subject for the paintings. Tim Burton seems the right director for this film especially when he has Margaret dreaming or during the climatic courtroom scenes. The light and dark colors also contribute to the period atmosphere to pretty compelling effect. While I liked many of the supporting characters, I had to admit I was a bit disappointed by the one portrayed by Krysten Ritter as I half thought she'd play more in the way things turned out in the film than she did. Still, Big Eyes was mostly enjoyable enough the way it was told. P.S. I had also watched a vintage interview with the real Walter Keane on Merv Griffin on YouTube in which he seemed to flirt with a female guest there. (The cad!) Then I saw a couple of interviews on YT with the real Margaret Keane on Mike Douglas' shows-one in Hawaii and one with Shirley Temple whose child portrait Ms. Keane painted for her-and her Southern charm shone through immensely!

It's good, but not great.

[grainnemorris · 6/10 · 17 January 2019]

This is a fascinating story which should make for a fantastic movie, but instead it's just ok. Entertaining, but nothing truly special. The worst part is that there are hints of something more interesting underneath, like when Margaret sees people with abnormally large eyes in the supermarket or big eyes in her own reflection. We wonder how these paintings are affecting her identity, because in a way they are all she is, but she can't claim them as hers. But that idea is just kind of... left there.

And then there's the main problem: Christoph Waltz. He's not the only one at fault - his character goes from charming to cartoon villain which can certainly be blamed on the writers and Burton - but his over acted performance, particularly towards the end, completely obscured any depth that Walter's character may have had.

Amy Adams, on the other hand, is fantastic and certainly the movie's saving grace. I would have liked to see more of her relationship with Walter, more of what made her willing to keep cranking out paintings for her husband, though I suspect a more three-dimensional Walter would have been needed for that.

And the narrator/reporter was completely unnecessary. I kept forgetting he existed and then wondering who was talking for a few seconds before I remembered that the movie had a narrator.

All in all, entertaining but disappointing. 6/10

Superficial Beyond Belief

[Rogue-32 · 4/10 · 24 April 2015]

Tim Burton, quite simply, should have left this material alone. It doesn't work as anything more than a mind-bogglingly superficial look at a deeply serious subject - the exploitation of a woman at the hands of an opportunistic, sadistic, immoral prick.

Amy Adams does a good job at portraying Margaret Keane, who is cajoled by said opportunistic sleazebag into letting him take credit for her now-legendary big-eyed waif paintings, telling her 'we're a team, let's work together', blah blah blah.

She goes into this disgusting relationship after having left her previous husband (taking her daughter with her), but she hasn't really gone anywhere; she's still brain-washed by society to believe that 'nobody buys lady art', so she's basically broken already when she hooks up with Walter Keane, or rather when he slimes his way into her life.

Serious stuff, the subjugation of women, made even worse when the woman is question is a major part of the problem. But Burton handles the whole thing so lightly, so completely vapidly, that the underlying story comes across as sadly predictable and devoid of any true payoff at the end.

I'm not saying he should have gone the opposite route, into some dreadfully horrific dark mode, with Walter Keane coming across like Doctor Doom, or even worse, the slivering slimy succubus known as Venom, but the tone he does take, as I've already said - don't want to run it into the ground - hardly does this non-amusing cautionary true-life story justice.

The screenplay, of course, doesn't help - it always starts with the script, naturally - bad writing is a nail in the coffin for a director, even one of Burton's stature. The best thing the film has going for it is Amy Adams, as Margaret. who brings a genuine poignancy to the role, a poignancy that is certainly not contained in the screenplay. She manages to make us feel SOMETHING at least, no easy task considering what she was given (or not given) to work with. (I gave the film 4 out of 10, my IMDb equivalent to 2 stars, only because of her brave performance.)

Walter's character, on the other hand, comes across as a complete cartoon caricature, with no human qualities whatsoever. Is this bad acting on the part of Waltz, who can surely shred scenery in his sleep? Probably. Everyone has to take responsibility for this fiasco, which I don't believe should have been green-lighted in the first place. Talk about exploitation.

Those eyes!

[JohnDeSando · 24 December 2014]

"It's synthetic hack work, infinity of kitsch." John Canady (Terence Stamp)

And so it goes for the professional critics in the '50's and early '60's who passed judgment on Margaret Keane's (Amy Adams) big-eyes paintings. The public loved them and made Walter (Christoph Waltz) and Margaret fabulously wealthy. Only, the problem was that he ascribed the paintings to his authorship until she took him to court to prove her ownership, an irony for naysayers like snobby gallery owner Ruben (Jason Schwartzman), who quipped, "Who would want credit for it?" Perhaps Ruben and the critics missed the import of the truism, "The eyes are the windows of the soul."

Those are the facts, but the real drama in Tim Burton's Big Eyes is the turmoil in the demure breast of Margaret, who agrees to the fraud believing as a single mother she had no choice—no one would buy a woman's paintings (except Georgia O'Keefe's or George Eliot's writing for that matter) if she did not assume a male name. Fortunately for her, she did gain some of her self respect by divorcing Walter in 1965.

When Joan Crawford places two Keanes in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? and a Keane portrait on her autobiography's cover, you know popular culture loved those eyes. Burton's otherwise slow pace about all that success and domestic drama is relieved in the courtroom, when Margaret sues Walter for slander but without the grand feminist tirade that should have emerged. The judge (James Saito) orders both to create on easels in front of him—Walter can't do it. Hooray for that.

The strength of the film is the thematic depiction of the role of many women in mid-twentieth century, which is not the aggressive feminist campaign of recent years. Rather, Burton takes care gently to bring the moment to its crisis late in the film.

"You undervalue yourself." (Walter when he meets Margaret)

This isn't dark and Gothic...that's okay.

[xodanielcasterox · 7/10 · 9 January 2015]

You all know him as the king of Goth, but we as the viewers forget that he can do more. It's good to see him get away from that world of darkness and finally surprise us for a change. Don't get me wrong, I freaking love his dark movies like, "Edward Scissorhands" "Beetlejuice" "Sweeney Todd" and my personal favorites "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and "Batman."It's kind of weird that there's no Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter anymore but it's good to see something else. Maybe Tim Burton is moving on or taking a break. And if you're tired of seeing the same thing over and over then check out "Big Eyes." It's a well written, well directed and well acted. Amy Adams is no surprise. She gives an astounding performance and I hope to see her in another Burton flick. Christoph Waltz is slimy and a d!ck but every time I see him he looks like he's having a blast and if he's having fun, so am I. And I am so glad Burton kept Danny Elfman. These two guys are inseparable. They're like Spielberg and Williams. Elfman's scare was pretty good, but I still miss that creepy chilling dark music that he's well known for; in this it's more upbeat. All in all, the movie was good but not great, though it doesn't feel historically accurate, mostly because of Waltz's performance. Anyway, check it out.

Pretty cool.

[hughchilles · 6/10 · 6 August 2021]

Seemed like a pretty authentic translation of a true story, very well made in period piece film making, makes it look easy but must have been a huge production to get the authenticity. Probably won't watch it again but definitely no regrets or hesitation in recommending, main downfall is characters are pretty one dimensional, story kind of predictable just plods along but satisfying ending, I think knowing the true story made it a bit of a slog going in knowing nothing may be a better time.

Not a typical Tim Burton film

[WorldProxy · 6/10 · 15 October 2020]

A definite departure from your average Tim Burton fantasy feature, and story is quite frustrating, but oddly, I still enjoyed it. I was happy with the final conclusion and let out a sigh of relief. Acting was just average. If you love stories about real life artists, I would absolutely watch this. It's not Frida, Pollock, or At Eternity's Gate, but still fun to watch with a microwave bag of popcorn.

"Mother, I know..."

[ReadingFilm · 10/10 · 6 April 2019]

The Warhol quote is making fun of its ghastliness and the invisible hand of the market. An odd choice to start on by mocking its own subject. As well I sense a subconscious undercurrent reflecting his own brand.

But the key to Tim Burton has always been Disney not Gothic. Here is finally a proper Gothic work in being everything but, with its colorful San Francisco and Hawaii; Waltz through structures of mental control, abuse in power, serial plagiarizing, is a Gothic monster.

There would be inheritances in stories like this.

But it's about speech as well and how if you don't say it it'll never be said, begging the tragedy how painting isn't enough. Her eyes don't just see but can't not see. They gaze the heightened details of the world. Then would be susceptible to larger than life psychologies which would entice her in love. A Gothic torture how love controls her. Then when images can't be hers, she chooses numbers. Numerology in the pop 60s make her almost a chosen one for backing the zeitgeist: late 20th century advanced statistics would forecast and streamline every single industry. Her drawings very much forecasted the medium of anime, which rivals all of world cinema. By her own devices left unchecked might've lead to some great garage start-up, Mac, PC... Keane. In all seriousness societal mechanics denying her ability to grow in art reminds me of Burton himself trapped in the machine of his brand.

Credit. Silence. Eyes. Its elements fuse a true fright. "Mother, I know..." Few will know the soul-crushing abuse of others taking credit for their work.

Usually, a woman so pretty would not be a Tim Burton outsider but the spark of her ghoulish secret drawings make her as him. Oddest. The whole film is about these demonic traumatized orphans happening in its background. A battlefield seems to be the anger as the commodification of western privilege. But against the abstract expressionist backdrop it's a valid contrary.

Most beautiful is it's this Tim Burton art film where performers are allowed to act not pose, even though it abuses green screen (its artifice you could say is Warholian at least...); much is said about the overacting, where Waltz has to strut around and make a great show of it, but he's being watched by Burton and Keane's; eyes so big warrant big visions.

A rather peculiar art fraud story...

[skepticskeptical · 6/10 · 17 January 2023]

The story of Margaret Keane's fame being stolen by her second husband, a clear con artist, is a bit bizarre given that the art work itself is repeatedly derided as "kitsch" throughout the film. So if all of the critics think that it is junk anyway, it's hard to see why the couple would be arguing so viciously over who should bear the credit for it. I mean, I understand the oppressed 1960s housewife theme and all of that, but in terms of a moment in the history of art, this one seems pretty small.

I will say that Keane's story seems to be the beginning of the contemporary world's abandonment of any criteria beyond those of success and popular acclaim. The Big Eyes paintings were not great art just because they appeared as copies throughout grocery stories. (That was Warhol's point with the soup cans, right?) But the couple became rich as a result of that, and this is why the artist credit issue mattered so much, I think, because they wanted to believe that *because* they Big Eyes paintings made the couple rich, this meant that they were in fact great. Total non sequitur, but look at how the art world functions today. People speculate on art as a financial investment and have lost all interest in the value of art qua art or l'art pour l'art, as they say. In this case, had the husband not been a shameless self-promoter, then no one would ever have known who Margaret Keane was. Had he been an honest man, then both of them would be unknown today, and no film about them would ever have been made.

How manipulative can a person be?

[lee_eisenberg · 8/10 · 28 June 2015]

I had never heard of Margaret Keane or her paintings before "Big Eyes" got released, making the story all the more forceful. My interpretation of Keane's story is that she was afraid to stand up for herself. Walter manipulated her into accepting his shenanigans.

Amy Adams puts on a really good performance as Margaret. Much like her roles in "Junebug", "Enchanted" and "Doubt", her character's idealism collapses when faced with reality. Christoph Waltz turns Walter into a mixture of smooth and terrifying, but a real creep more than anything.

This is a very different turn for Tim Burton. Far from his homages to horror flicks and swipes at suburban America, he takes a serious approach to the subject matter. I recommend the movie. Whether you know of the story or not, you're sure to be impressed with the movie. Margaret's paintings might not appeal to you - they don't appeal to me - it's important to know what she went through, and the movie does a good job looking at that.

TV movie with Cinematic production values

[Jerghal · 7/10 · 8 February 2015]

Based on a true story, brrr... Burton ventures into the realm of TV movie land (that's where most true story movies dwell) although this was a limited cinematic release and also limited success. Amy Adams plays a painter who paints children with Big Eyes. She meets and marries Waltz who shortly after begins to take credit for her work. Adams is cast well as the good virtuous woman and Waltz is a bit type-cast as the friendly but guy-you-love-to-hate-and-wanna-punch-in-the-face bad guy. But he plays it big and sometimes a bit comedic which makes the tone of the film lighter. Big Eyes has a very colorful set- and production design and looks great. The movie itself tough feels like it could have been made by any other director and doesn't have the Burton feel. So you could say it's the least Burton-esque film in his repertoire. Seeing it in the cinemas won't add much value, it's more a nice Sunday afternoon flick that works just as well on your small screen.

A Beautiful Movie!

[buhaydallas · 10/10 · 29 December 2014]

The movie is beautiful and Amy Adams is brilliant in her portrayal of Margaret Keane. She should get an Oscars for this.

I was entertained, holding off going to the bathroom because each scene in the movie is important part so I'd understand the next one on why behaviors are like that. No boring scene for me.

The movie is funny and light it makes you feel good after leaving the theater. Almost a feel-good movie only it's drama in category and a little on human psychology.

The story is interesting, the conflict is more of a moral one. If you're a person with no integrity and honesty is not a cup of your tea, you might find this lame and you won't find the conflict enough for the pay off at the end.

Enjoyable, definitely one for renting or blue-ray collection.

Amy Adams is the best part here though. I think.

Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz are fragrantly profound in Burton's witty romp...

[ClaytonDavis · 6/10 · 24 December 2014]

Call me crazy, Tim Burton's newest dramedy "Big Eyes" starring five- time Academy Award nominee Amy Adams and two-time Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz is a witty, satirical, and thoroughly enjoyable romp at the movies. This is Burton's best since "Big Fish."

From screenwriters Larry Karaszewski and Scott Alexander, "Big Eyes" offers big laughs, harmless fun, and a simple take on a most outrageous story. The film tells the story of Margaret Keane, a painter whose husband took credit for all her works in the 1950's and early 1960's. The script is well-paced, though sluggish in spots, and it offers just the right amount of drama and comedy to entertain the audience. There are some opportunities where both the writers and Burton could have offered more development of characters, and the time. If you can get past the tom-foolery of the events that transpired, than you should be able to stick with the elements just fine.

Freshly colored with an array of set pieces, this is one of Burton's most aesthetically pleasing films of his career. Danny Elfman's score is the signature touch that we await in all of Burton's works. It's subtle yet apparent in nearly all the right ways. Same goes for the stunning costume work by Colleen Atwood, a strong contender for another Academy Award nomination.

Amy Adams is richly immersed in one of her finest and daring turns yet. Her performance is much more internalized than what we've come to expect with outlandish roles like "Junebug" and "Enchanted" under her belt. She fixates on the fragility of Margaret and the vulnerability of living in someone else's shadow.

Christoph Waltz is infectious nearly throughout, with funny tics and beats that add to the film's nuance. From the surface, it looks as though Waltz may be doing his same shtick but he offers much more than that as the narrative moves on. Similar to his underrated work in "Carnage," Waltz plays the sleazy, underhanded Walter Keane to pure and menacing results. I'd argue even better than his work in "Django Unchained."

Co-stars Danny Huston, Krysten Ritter, and Terence Stamp are virtually unused except for a few story beats, which is unfortunate given their considerable talents.

"Big Eyes" is a great family film for the holidays. Crafted in an interesting and bizarre story, which offers a vivid and visually compelling film in parts. It's one of the surprise successes of 2014.

disappointing

[pjlb2008 · 4/10 · 30 December 2014]

I was stuck with this movie because it was the only one that fit my schedule. I knew nothing of the plot. The beginning credits run. Amy Adams! Always a great actress. Tim Burton the director. This could be good! A good beginning to the movie. The time period is portrayed in realistic fashion. The heroine, a painter, has a difficult life. She leaves her husband. A courageous move for the time period.

She has to start from scratch in a new city. She meets a fellow painter. He appears to be her soul mate. He is an interesting character. He promotes her career. They get married. Interesting process. Colorful supporting characters, including Terrance Stamp.

The story stalls along the way. The punch to the story is the heroine's resentment that her husband takes credit for her paintings. She creates the paintings for him. He claims them as his own. Although he is presented as a strong-willed character, she does not have the guts to tell him to stop. She hides the secret for years. Even from her daughter! (yawn ...) Will she get the guts to stop the fraud? I could not have cared less by the time the issue was resolved. Near the end, there is a big court scene with her husband suddenly acting like he is in "Trial and Error," the comedy with Jeff Daniels and Michael Richards. Although I am sure the writers thought the court scene was clever and funny, the audience I was with sat in stunned silence. When she outs her husband in the national news, her daughter is proud. We are supposed to be emotionally invested. I was bored beyond all belief. I felt manipulated. In the end, the heroine is not a sympathetic character. The supporting actors are more interesting. Would never want to see this movie again. Good style. Good characters. No plot for the characters to shine.