Burton's Busts

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Burton's Busts

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

Read Full Article
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
Wow...Third post in HIS OWN TOPIC. Moviebob has quite the fanbase!

Edit: Well, that was fixed.
 

Nightfalke

Just this guy, you know?
Sep 10, 2008
195
0
0
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.
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,122
0
0
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.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
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.
 

TheGreenManalishi

New member
May 22, 2008
1,363
0
0
Sometimes, I feel like the only one who hates Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Gene Wilder's performance cannot be matched.
 

Gildan Bladeborn

New member
Aug 11, 2009
3,044
0
0
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.
 

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
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.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Le Tueur said:
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
 

Alias42

New member
Sep 10, 2009
93
0
0
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.
 

TwistedEllipses

New member
Nov 18, 2008
2,041
0
0
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...
 

WafflesToo

New member
Sep 19, 2007
106
0
0
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.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
Le Tueur said:
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.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
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
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,868
843
118
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.
 

unwesen

New member
May 16, 2009
91
0
0
Quiet Stranger said:
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.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
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 said:
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
 

azazellee

New member
Feb 22, 2010
47
0
0
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.
 

jabrwock

New member
Sep 5, 2007
204
0
0
Burton just needs to find a good writer to shepherd him. Guide his random scenes into a more coherent overall story.
 

Blind0bserver

Blatant Narcissist
Mar 31, 2008
1,454
0
0
"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.
 

high_castle

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,162
0
0
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.
 

azazellee

New member
Feb 22, 2010
47
0
0
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.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
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.
 

Blimey

New member
Nov 10, 2009
604
0
0
Le Tueur said:
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.
 

Fox242

El Zorro Cauto
Nov 9, 2009
868
0
0
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.
 

Warachia

New member
Aug 11, 2009
1,116
0
0
wasn't there supposed to be FOUR others? There are only 3 (four including alice) where's the fifth?
 

Gildan Bladeborn

New member
Aug 11, 2009
3,044
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
Casual Shinji said:
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 said:
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.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Tim Burton is like Tim Schafer. (Tim and Tim again?)

When they're good, they're very, very good, but when they're bad, they're horrid.
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
I don't think "doesn't age well" is a really valid in determining if a movie was good or not. Lots of movies that were good for their times don't age well, that is just the nature of things.

I thought Michael Keaton did a good job as a more mature batman, who is was comfortable with both his Burce Wayne and Batman personas. Where as Christian Bale is playing a younger Wayne who is trying a little too hard but is also more intense.

Batman Returns was meh all around. It was visually more Tim Burton but at the expense of story coherence. The whole "catwoman got her powers by falling off a building" was really dumb.
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
I partially agree with these, though I did enjoy the Batman films, they were a bit silly but very imaginative. I think most of those movies are simply there for the spectacle and to entertain, not every film needs to have a deep narrative and complex structure and/or plot.

I personally like Burtons films because you can just escape into a weird world for an hour and just relax, much like Hayao Miyazaki's works, they are mad concepts sometimes, but very entertaining none-the-less
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Matt_LRR said:
Casual Shinji said:
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 said:
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.
Be that as it may, and unwitting as it may have been - he ended up creating a film that incorporated elements of both the comics of the time and the Adam West series, and coupled it with exactly the right aesthetic.

-m
 

iddstar

New member
Oct 29, 2009
1
0
0
I sometimes worry that I'm the only person who DIDN'T think that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the batman movies were great big piles of poop.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Matt_LRR said:
Casual Shinji said:
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 said:
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.
Good grief I can't believe you're actually defending Burton's shocking lack of respectful research into the subject he was about to internationally insult by a lack of adaption. The
"hey man, I didn't know ok!" approach doesn't work so well when you're creating muitimillion dollar movies presenting the title that so many thousands of people know and love.

And also.....I sometimes worry that I'm the only person who DIDN'T think that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the batman movies were great big piles of poop. It's comforting to know I'm not alone.

Planet of the Apes at least, EVERYONE knows is crap.
 

Tolerant Fanboy

New member
Aug 5, 2009
339
0
0
Warachia said:
wasn't there supposed to be FOUR others? There are only 3 (four including alice) where's the fifth?
Batman
Batman Returns
Planet of the Apes
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Alice in Wonderland

Yep, that's five. Seems like Burton's worst films are adaptations. Of course, some of his better ones are also adaptations, so there we are.
 

LiquidGrape

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,336
0
0
I disagree with the notion of Burton's work on Batman as failures.
While the first may be throwaway entertainment, what Burton successfully achieved in Batman Returns was adaptation without any kind of reverential catering to the original material.
He took chances, dabbled in unexpected ideas. Drew inspiration from biblical imagery, third-wave feminism and post-modern currents.
And pulled it off.
I have never understood the desire to replicate, rather than invent.
Returns was a brilliant re-invention of the expressionistic school of filmmaking, since the surreal and bombastic imagery of Batman fitted perfectly into the chosen format.
Why Nolan's films never worked for me, was because they constantly attempted to rationalize the mythology of the character.
- At the end of the day, it's still a multimillionaire dressing up in a latex getup fighting crime.
Burton embraced the exaggeration, Nolan fought it.

P.S
Bob thinks Inglorious Basterds is a more substantial work than The Hurt Locker?
Well, there goes that trace of credibility.
D.S
 

The Youth Counselor

New member
Sep 20, 2008
1,004
0
0
I have disagreed with Bob on many occasions (Such as his stance on the Bayonetta being well designed and Avatar deserving the best picture Oscar, let alone any award.) but I'm glad to know he hasn't inhaled the dangerous drug of nostalgia.

In the 1990's the Batman movies were panned for their style over substance way of filmmaking. Reviews were mixed at best. Anybody who wasn't a comic fan would bring up how terrible and juvenille a character Batman was due to their only exposure being Adam West and the Burton/Schumacher movies. Only after I chloroform them in blind rage and strap them down to a chair with Batman: The Animated Series playing would they appreciate the character as having serious artistic merit.

On Batman forums across teh internetz, everyone bemoaned how Hollywood doesn't understand Batman and that he was only done right animated. When Daredevil came out, viewers stated it was Batman finally done right. That's right, the fucking Daredevil movie with Ben Affleck. That's how much Batfans hated it. Every piece of fanfiction that came out started with an author's note reading: This is for Bill Finger R.I.P. and the true Batman fans. Fuck Tim Burton, Samm Hamm, Joel Shumacher, and Akiva Goldsman. It wasn't until the release of Batman Begins did I see deluded nostalgia geeks claiming that the '89 Batman was the best movie, let alone the flood of trolls that coincided with the Dark Knight's release. True fans praised Mask of the Phantasm and not the Burton movies.
 

Hat of Controversy

New member
Nov 11, 2009
312
0
0
Adam West's Batman was (in my opinion) the best. Yeah, it was silly and stupid and hilariously cheesy, but that's all the concept of Batman is, when you think about it. At least Adam West's version was FUN.

Seeing Batman and Robin riding in a pint-sized, glass, see-through "bat helicopter" in broad daylight, waving to old couples having picnics in the park as they fly by is oh so hilarious!

I do mostly agree with this list though. Then again, I myself have never been much of a Burton fan.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,868
843
118
Matt_LRR said:
Casual Shinji said:
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.

-m
Nah, I mean Burton's Batman felt dark, twisted and stylish. Just like the animated series and even Batman AA.

I was rather excited when I heard Nolan was gonna make the new Batman movie and that Bale was dawning the cape. But Batman Begins was so incredibly boring with such badly edited action scenes. The Dark Knight was atleast better thanks to the underrated Aaron Eckhart (who would've made a killer Batman) but still felt like a mismatch of uber-gritty and kid-friendly super hero.

I recognize the quality in both Begins and Dark Knight, but I just can't enjoy them.

So I guess what I'm saying is: They're good movies, they're just not good Batman movies. Kinda in the same sense that Casino Royale is a good movie, but not a good Bond movie.
 

Proteus214

Game Developer
Jul 31, 2009
2,270
0
0
Pretty much nailed it with the "Admit it, for a moment you actually forgot..." comment lol. I too was curious about what he would have to say in regards to Sweeny Todd. I really liked that one.
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
When they're good, they're very, very good, but when they're bad, they're horrid.
I haven't heard that poem in years. Brought back Nursery rhyme memories

As much as I liked individual aspects of Burton's Batman films, they probably do belong in this list, though standing head & shoulders above the others. His "wouldn't know a good script if it bit [him] in the face" quote is certainly apt, & having read The Melancholy Death of Oyster Boy & Other Stories, I doubt he can tell when his own work sucks either.
 

Mullahgrrl

New member
Apr 20, 2008
1,011
0
0
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Tim Burton is like Tim Schafer. (Tim and Tim again?)

When they're good, they're very, very good, but when they're bad, they're horrid.
In theory, but when was shafer ever bad?

Also, Bob. Willy Wonka is not the title character in Charlie and the Choclate factory.
 

jobu59749

New member
Aug 3, 2009
94
0
0
My problem with a lot of what people seemingly are doing, this goes for Bob as well, is that everyone compares many of these movies to different franchises. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory didn't follow the book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is more based off the book. Both actors did a good job in their own write, they delivered different portrayals of the Willy Wonka character. Same with batman. The Dark Knight series is very different from the first 2 batman movies made. Sames goes for Planet of the Apes, again...wasn't meant to mimic the original. It's disappointing to see so many jump on the "it's a copy and not as good as the original" bandwagon, when the "remake" isn't even the same story line or character for that matter.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I'll give you Charlie. I'll give you Planet. I'll even let Batman Begins go, albeit with some reservations. But the original Batman? No. N-O. Flat wrong. Batman is one of the very, very few movies where Burton's tendencies to goth everything up and cap off every arc with a final action scene actually worked. It's full of moments that say everything to an audience without having to beat them over the head- the dinner with Vicki Vale in the long, empty dining room; the room full of exotic armor, the Joker's destruction of paintings in the museum, the rivalries and conflicts between the straight and corrupt factions of the Gotham police... It had a villain who was actually funny and terrifying in turns and a hero who had decidedly gone to some very dark places within himself to find what it took to face the evil he saw on the streets. And it did it without having tons of dark angsty superhero movies to draw upon. That Movie Bob actually prefers the mediocre CGI and borderline professional wrestling antics of the first Spider-Man movie warrants a smack upside the head.

I'm not saying it's a perfect movie. Word certainly is that there were things cobbled together at the last minute, and that the revelation of Batman's identity to Vicki Vale is never really handled so much as shuffled aside seems to buttress that impression. But however things came together, they did- brilliantly. That Joel Schumacher can't shoot or choreograph a fight scene and thinks that putting the villains front and center with a lot of lurid neon is the same thing as developing them is not Burton's fault.

I like Nolan's Batman- probably, pushed to the wall, I like it more than Burton's, though they're very different takes on the character. But I also recognize that without Burton's, Nolan's wouldn't exist- and neither, most likely, would Sin City, Iron Man, or any of the good X-Men movies. Geek culture owes Burton's Batman for turning superheroes into something more than just kiddy power fantasies and slapstick, and creating the modern dark hero after the light of film noir had largely faded.

And don't you forget it, bub- er, Bob.
 

TJF588

New member
Jan 29, 2009
97
0
0
More and more I learn how different the world's views are from the one's I've become used to (namely my own or my family's). I like the first couple Batman flicks (first few, if you wanna slap in the LOLarity of "Quick, Robin, hand me the shark-repellent Bat Spray!"). I was young at the time, single-digits (I think the movie actually came out within a couple years of my birth), so for a time, they were all I knew of Batman, so it struck me weird when I later read, in my mid-to-late-teens, that the Joker and [the] Penguin were such different bases/characters (OK, intermission (lulz) here, but I was also exposed to the Batman-meets-Scooby-Doo (well, vice-versa) special, and TAS came in somewhere, with the VHSs of both flicks in our entertainment center, so I had other bases for Penguin and the Joker's design and origin, respectively). I don't know how I'd view them now, but I know that it felt full-circle (or something, whatever kid-me felt aboot it) for the Joker the be the guy who killed his folks, however corny that may be plain-told, and the Penguin's design and army, and the city-wide campaign was prolly something awesomely absurd (still creepy, in the way dirty porcelain clowns are). I wanna say I found Catwoman's outfit weird (still had an action figure of her), and I can totally understand the mentioned cliff-fall-power-up being derrf.

I also totally get the "black-on-black" trappings criticism. For Batman, it's fine, it's his shtick, but everyone? Yeah, it looks something more professional, but does Hollywood need a superhero taken seriously for it to not be a kid's film (The Incredibles not included, for being aimed at all audiences)?

Will call you out, Bob, for ripped in the Batman flicks not being true to source material (which, really, they don't need to be; a proper vibe is damn good enough), and then demerit Planet of the Apes (which while I don't really remember it, it wasn't wholly forgotten, prolly because of the Michael Jackson ~ Monkey Person image, and I totally wasn't aware it was a Burton venture) for not featuring Burton's style (and/or trappings?). Not exactly the same, I know, but again with the vibe thing, it feels a bit double-standard.

Charlie, I'll agree, I don't care for, despite the nice color depth and interesting mix-up of songs, maybe for the reason's Burton's style doesn't click with me. Like the MegaTen games, it's a style that seems a bit too creeped out, like a liquid branch without a core. ...or something. These things feel like they're entirely comprised of the flayed parts on the outskirts without any of the solidarity of the center, which I suppose is part of their charm, that you don't have something to base yourself on or fall back on, but unless it's a subject I click with (Beetlejuice, Batman, Nightmare (I know I walked around like Jack did during the graveyard song)), it's gonna end up too fringe for me to care. That, and Depp will now always look creepy to me well-shaved due to Pirates. His Charlie hair looks dumb, no matter if it's period'd or not.

Did find Ed Wood entertaining, though again, it's got that fringe aspect on it where I don't feel a base for the proceedings. Nothing to hold on to, just a fleeting weirdness that's there on the outskirts of my internal comprehension, and then fades off out of my consciousness.

And Corpse Bride... I think I'm tainted with how much I liked/like Nightmare, that I see it as weaker. I'unno.

EDIT: Also, that Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck promo before the [Batman] movie on VHS (and that soda commercial on there, too).
 

MR T3D

New member
Feb 21, 2009
1,424
0
0
Tootmania said:
Adam West's Batman was (in my opinion) the best. Yeah, it was silly and stupid and hilariously cheesy, but that's all the concept of Batman is, when you think about it. At least Adam West's version was FUN.

Seeing Batman and Robin riding in a pint-sized, glass, see-through "bat helicopter" in broad daylight, waving to old couples having picnics in the park as they fly by is oh so hilarious!
fuck. yea.

personally, i have yet to like a burton film other than that batman one.
his style never seems to stick with me
 

benbenthegamerman

New member
May 10, 2009
1,302
0
0
Im fearing that he might be doing another reimagining. One that is loved by video gamers everywhere. A game that says "Tim Burton" all over it, but would be ruined by him...

Gentleman, we have to stop him before he makes Grim Fandango.
 

shogunblade

New member
Apr 13, 2009
1,542
0
0
This was an interesting list, but its mostly because I thought (personally) that "Mars Attacks!" was going to be on this list.

I didn't care for Mars Attacks simply because it was too F'ing Weird. I know that is Burton's style to be that way, but the movie couldn't decide if it was a parody or a real movie (Also based on a series of Collectable Trading cards, BTW) and because of that, the movie was disjointed and exactly why Tim Burton made a giant fanfiction sequel called "Alice in Wonderland" - because to him, He thought all the collections of A.I.W. movies felt like a bunch of various situations with Alice headlining the one major character part, not characters interacting in the same universe, which, by the trailers, is exactly what he aimed for in this movie.

Now, to Everything Moviebob didn't like:

I haven't seen ALL of the first two Batman movies, I'll admit, I grew up watching the Schumacher pictures, my parents weren't big on the Burton ones. However, being more grown up, I should try to make an honest attempt to see them.

Planet of the Apes is the highlight of bad pictures by Aforementioned Director, as Film Critic Roger Ebert oh so appropriately put it in his review, "He's made a film that's respectful to the original, and respectable in itself, but that's not enough. Ten years from now, it will be the 1968 version that people are still renting."

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was perhaps not near as bad, but it certainly could have been worse. I will watch it on T.V. if nothing else is on, and have watched it mostly every time successfully over the Wilder Version. Nothing personal, but I've seen the Gene Wilder version so many times, I almost have no reason to watch it again, since every line rolls off the tongue, it being so memorable.

But, for all intents and purposes, I will see Alice in Wonderland, just because as a movie goer, I must.
 

PhantomCritic

New member
May 9, 2009
865
0
0
TheGreenManalishi said:
Sometimes, I feel like the only one who hates Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Gene Wilder's performance cannot be matched.
I agree with you there, glad to see I'm not the only one that still remembers that movie XD

OT: The worst Burton film for me was Planet of the Apes, terrible, terrible film...
 

CJ1145

New member
Jan 6, 2009
4,051
0
0
I'd like to see MovieBob talk with Doug Walker. I imagine they'd have words for each other over the Batman choice.

I have to be fully honest here. I think MovieBob's being a bit trollish with this one. Charlie was not THAT BAD, Batman was good, and everyone else has already bashed Planet of the Apes. I see no reason for this article's existence.
 

Tonimata

New member
Jul 21, 2008
1,890
0
0
GOOD.
I was this close to thinking he would have put Sweeney Todd in that list.
AND NO ONE
I MEAN NO ONE!
Shall ever say anything bad about that movie.











I'm watching you...
 

camazotz

New member
Jul 23, 2009
480
0
0
Callate said:
I'll give you Charlie. I'll give you Planet. I'll even let Batman Begins go, albeit with some reservations. But the original Batman? No. N-O. Flat wrong. Batman is one of the very, very few movies where Burton's tendencies to goth everything up and cap off every arc with a final action scene actually worked. It's full of moments that say everything to an audience without having to beat them over the head- the dinner with Vicki Vale in the long, empty dining room; the room full of exotic armor, the Joker's destruction of paintings in the museum, the rivalries and conflicts between the straight and corrupt factions of the Gotham police... It had a villain who was actually funny and terrifying in turns and a hero who had decidedly gone to some very dark places within himself to find what it took to face the evil he saw on the streets. And it did it without having tons of dark angsty superhero movies to draw upon. That Movie Bob actually prefers the mediocre CGI and borderline professional wrestling antics of the first Spider-Man movie warrants a smack upside the head.

I'm not saying it's a perfect movie. Word certainly is that there were things cobbled together at the last minute, and that the revelation of Batman's identity to Vicki Vale is never really handled so much as shuffled aside seems to buttress that impression. But however things came together, they did- brilliantly. That Joel Schumacher can't shoot or choreograph a fight scene and thinks that putting the villains front and center with a lot of lurid neon is the same thing as developing them is not Burton's fault.

I like Nolan's Batman- probably, pushed to the wall, I like it more than Burton's, though they're very different takes on the character. But I also recognize that without Burton's, Nolan's wouldn't exist- and neither, most likely, would Sin City, Iron Man, or any of the good X-Men movies. Geek culture owes Burton's Batman for turning superheroes into something more than just kiddy power fantasies and slapstick, and creating the modern dark hero after the light of film noir had largely faded.

And don't you forget it, bub- er, Bob.
Yes, this.
I don't think the Burton Batman has aged well...they're still fun to watch, but I definitely prefer the modern Dark Knight incarnation in terms of seriousness and general feel, but the simple fact is that prior to 1989 comic book movies were dominated by poorly animated cartoons and flicks like Superman IV, a movie so bad that between it and Superman III it's a wonder anyone even remembers the first two movies (which also haven't aged well) for all the effort it took to expunge the later sequels from our brains.

Burton's Batman managed to take a character visible in a serious light only in graphic novels and present it to popular audiences. And while Spider-Man is a perfectly decent movie, it's still not as good as Batman or Batman Returns.
 

GodKlown

New member
Dec 16, 2009
514
0
0
Overall, even with the handful of Tim Burton movies that I've witnessed either in whole or in part, I can usually tell a Burton movie from the style. All the unusual goth and emo crap everywhere is the biggest hint. I seriously have trouble judging the difference in his live-action movies because Johnny Depp is in every stinking one of them (except for Beetlejuice, that I know for sure).
He clearly likes working around dark themes in movies, but it sucks when he takes perfectly good ideas and make them all look like The Crow.
And yeah, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory stunk. But it is hella evil if you hear it with a German dub. Something about little guys that all look identical and singing in German just had "creepy" all over it. Gene Wilder is the only one who should have ever held that role, because Burton made Willy Wonka out to be some pathetic goth kid instead of a eccentric lunatic like he was supposed to be played. Wilder was the bomb in Willy Wonka, yo!

Alice in Wonderland... the whole thing just sounded like a wet bag of crap being flung at audiences, particularly children I assumed. After all, this is supposed to be a kid's story, and can't be worse than the made-for-TV version we had in the 80s. Ok, might have been nice to see that presented in a more modern way as far as effects could go, just don't jerk around the story line. Keep it simple and just make it more pretty, not stick Depp in there and dress him like a pimp on LSD and make the movie revolve around him. Isn't Johnny Depp getting too old to keep playing these roles, or is there some weird Martin & Lewis routine going on with Burton & Depp? Can't have one without the other?
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,467
0
0
Worth reminding people that Burton didn't direct Nightmare before Christmas (but he might as well have I suppose) I agree with Planet of the Apes and Charlie totally except that Tim Roth made Planet of the Apes watchable. He chews the scenery in a really intense villain. As for Bats I'm just grateful he went with his instincts and didn't do the 60's style version he originally planned, though it still shows. I hated Sweeny Todd even when everyone else loved it. it had all the Sleepy Hollow ingredients going on but none of the charm. I just could not get over how the film wanted to be as fucked up as possible but was entirely predictable and felt like a re tread of all his themes. On the other hand credit where credit is due, he's not afraid to take risks.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Mullahgrrl said:
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Tim Burton is like Tim Schafer. (Tim and Tim again?)

When they're good, they're very, very good, but when they're bad, they're horrid.
In theory, but when was shafer ever bad?
Full throttle? Making Brutal Legend an RTS...

Cousin_IT said:
I haven't heard that poem in years. Brought back Nursery rhyme memories
Given the subject matter, I thought it was appropriate :)
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
So, in your schema of Burton-themed movies, where does Corpse Bride fit in? Good, bad, stellar, just-good-enough-to-not-make-the-shit-list, smack dab in the middle?
 

ioudas omnis

New member
Jul 2, 2008
11
0
0
I utterly loathe Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory to the point that I would not even watch the remake when it came out until I was convinced that they weren't the same. Nothing about the first one appeals to me at all. So I watched the Burton one. It felt completely and utterly Burton, and that annoyed me, but otherwise I rather enjoyed Depp's significantly more malicious and indifferent approach to playing Wonka.

Then I read the book, watched Willy Wonka again, and my particularly purist side when it comes to adaptations would not stop screaming.

Neither of the movies really captured Wonka, but Wonka is a short little troll man who is significantly creepier than Wilder or Depp.

I also hate the Burton Bat-movies. I like Adam West's Batman, and the Conroy-voiced Animated Batman more. Significantly more. I don't actually recognize "Forever" and "Batman and Robin" unless I absolutely have to. Everything about the Burton-Bats are really what Bob said. Michael Keaton was also a horrible choice and utterly failed to convince me that he was either Batman or Bruce Wayne.
 

Tarkand

New member
Dec 15, 2009
468
0
0
iddstar said:
I sometimes worry that I'm the only person who DIDN'T think that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the batman movies were great big piles of poop.
No, you're not the only one.

I saw Batman when I was 11, I loved it. I still watched the Batman TV series with Adam West on TV, so the zanny-over the top cheese wasn't a problem for me, but the fact that it was so much darker and violent (the joker's buzzer gave me nightmares) really thrilled me and made an impression. It was the first movie I bought (got the VHS).

I didn't like Batman Return so much... the movie is bad. There's a lot of fridge logic going on in it and while it looked cool and stylish and all that... a bad script is a bad script.

A few years back (early 2000s) I saw Batman again. I don't even have a VHS player anymore and it had been years since I had seen it... and my god did it not age well. It's terrible really. Groan inducing - the 'funny' bits aren't funny anymore, they're retarded. I wonder how long it has been since the people defending it have actually seen it.

It doesn't take away from the fact that this movie did a lot for geek culture and I loved it when I was a young teenager... but yeah, is it a good movie? Not really.
 

AvsJoe

New member
May 28, 2009
9,055
0
0
I really enjoy many of Burton's films because I grew up watching them. He may not be my favourite director but he generally gets the job done in the entertainment category. However I too agree that he has made some "turkeys" as MovieBob put it. I am one of few who disliked Beetle Juice, for instance, and even one of fewer who hated Nightmare Before Christmas. But Big Fish is an incredible yarn, I still love the Keaton-era Batman movies, and Sweeney Todd was nothing except hilariously Gothic entertainment in its purest form.

...

Reading back, I don't know the point I was trying to get across when I wrote this. This was a bit of a rambling session I guess. So to change the topic to something a little more straightforward: I lmao'd when Bob compared Will Smaith to Taft. He is my least favourite US President (including Dubya) and I'm glad to see someone else taking a swipe at him. lol good show.
 

ShinningDesertEagle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
30
0
0
I am not going to debate whether Burton's Batman films were faithful adaptations or not because I do not care. Burton's Batman films were great movies and Moviebob is simply being closed minded to an alternate interpretation of the character which will happen when any character shifts mediums. In my estimation, if MovieBob would remove his geek hat for his analysis hat he would be a much better reviewer.

And in case anyone wants to know I saw the Batman films a couple of years ago and did not grow up with them.
 

LiquidGrape

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,336
0
0
ShinningDesertEagle said:
I am not going to debate whether Burton's Batman films were faithful adaptations or not because I do not care. Burton's Batman films were great movies and Moviebob is simply being closed to an alternate interpretation of the character which will happen when any character shifts mediums. In my estimation, if MovieBob could remove his geek hat for his analysis films he would be a much better reviewer.
Someone give this soul a media outlet.
- The world would benefit from it, I guarantee.
 

ccesarano

New member
Oct 3, 2007
523
0
0
Ah, the Escapist Forums. So full of people so full of their own intelligence that anyone that disagrees is obviously an idiot. How do you people have friends if you can't converse and disagree? I mean, Jesus Christ, you're like children.

I watched both Burton films recently, and while they are entertaining, they aren't really all that great either. I can only conclude that people that still love them are full of nostalgia. "It's got style!" Well, that's nice and all, but style isn't everything.

In particular, I blame Batman Returns (and in some ways even Jack's portrayal of the Joker) for ruining the later films. See, having The Penguin have weird gadgets, penguins with jetpacks and giant rubber ducks, it all basically meant Batman villains were supposed to be absurd to a comedic, evil clown extent. Hence Two Face being a ridiculous attempt at being another version of the Joker and The Riddler...well, under certain circumstances Jim Carry could be an excellent Edward Nigma, actually. But that variation was just basically a typecasting. Basically, they were just trying to fit a model established by Burton.

Nolan's Batman has actually done a similar harm to the potential of the franchise. By being grounded in reality so much you'll never see Victor Freize, who is PERFECT for the atmosphere and mood Nolan is going for. A man that isn't necessarily evil, but does evil things. Unfortunately, you can't do Mr. Freeze without breaking reality (and considering Nolan is more interested in the comics anyway, he likely wouldn't be interested; Mr. Freeze was always a joke until The Animated Series made him something awesome).


I actually dig Planet of the Apes for what it is, but it lacks something. The original was a very different movie, but it also felt like it had more meaning and purpose to it. To this day I enjoy watching it.

As for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, maybe movie buffs have a reason for preferring Gene Wilder but I swear NO ONE CARED about Willy Wonka until Tim Burton "remade" it (which is more like "reinterpreted" it). It's the biggest cluster of bullshit that people hate on it JUST because Gene Wilder was "better". He may have been, but the first movie is still boring and a victim to the time period (or maybe the studio? I can't even tell it's that uninteresting).

It's worse than when people ***** about the new Producers being so much worse than the original and yatta yatta, even though it's based off the script WRITTEN BY MEL BROOKS. "Ferris Bueller is totally wrong for the role! Gene Wilder was perfect!" Gee, it's a shame because that's who Mel Brooks cast for the stage version. Guess he was wrong!


I do feel the need to mention Sweeney Todd is a film I have not yet seen, because I saw the stage version before the film was in the works, thought it was awesome (a friend was basically proving to me that there are musicals that aren't complete gay-bait), loved the music. Then Tim Burton comes along and takes an aggressive psychotic intent on revenge and casts an actor who is more fit playing a timid psychotic intent on stalking your adolescent daughter. Not only that, but I've heard the film soundtrack and neither Johnny Depp nor Moira-from-Fight-Club are right for the roles because they can't sing them right.

Everyone makes a big deal out of it, like Tim Burton made this awesome film when he took an established piece of excellent entertainment and did it anything but justice. I'm sure the film is entertaining, but because I know there were better performances out there it will always be ruined for me. Now I can't wait until he ruins Into the Woods and all the little Hot Topic girls with their plastic vampire fangs squeel about how awesomely dark it is without even getting the point of the play.

Argh.

Rant over.
 

DemonicVixen

New member
Oct 24, 2009
1,660
0
0
Le Tueur said:
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.
Isnt that because he is GOOD??

Sweeny Todd, Edward Scissor-Hands and various others are all my deepest favourite movies and i can safely say that they rank higher then Twilight and Newmoon, both of which have to come second to any Tim Burton movie that has Johnny Depp and even better, Johnny Depp with Helena Bonham Carter ^^ excellent actor/actresse and i love them both. Not totally sure if im going to like Alice in Wonderland as previous ones have been good already and this one just seems... OTT for my liking.
 

skylog

New member
Nov 9, 2009
153
0
0
Is a director using the same actors in his movies such a bad thing? Every time I hear people complaining about Burton re-using Depp and Carter, I can't help but think of Osamu Tezuka's method of placing characters he created into different roles within his all of his books. He equated this to a director using the same actors in his movies in order to create a sort of mythology surrounding the director's resume. Burton does this, Kevin Smith does this, and it's worked for them.
 

Michael826

New member
Aug 17, 2009
269
0
0
i agree completely, for the most part. i hated charlie and the chocolate factory. admittedly, i wasn't a massive fan of the original, but it was still SO much better than the new one. johnny depps performance was depressing and it was magnified by the fact that the movie was focused around him instead of CHARLIE - who is IN THE FUCKING TITLE. granted - charlies performance was just as bad, so maybe it was a good thing:S
 

DeathQuaker

New member
Oct 29, 2008
167
0
0
Regarding Charlie, I liked it myself, but it was really a very hit or miss thing for a lot of people and very understandably so (and even though I liked it, there are some creep factors that do creep a bit too much--but then, is it possible to creep too much in an adaptation of a Roald Dahl story?)

I will quibble with one criticism: Mike TeeVee's sin was NOT being intelligent. Mike TeeVee's sin was taking his intelligence and using it to behave in real life like a troll does on the Internet: nitpicking over silly things, belittling others around him, and trying to draw attention to himself for no good reason, rather than apply his intellect to being helpful or useful.

Back to the article at hand... to be fair, I also enjoyed the Batman films, especially Returns, even for all its flaws.

So the article's informed me I probably will like Alice in Wonderland in general, but balk at a few details.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Sep 3, 2020
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
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.
 

syndicated44

New member
Apr 25, 2009
1,009
0
0
I honestly enjoyed Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Not really for the movie but I more or less enjoyed the songs and the bright colors. Yes occasionally you can win me over with pretty sparkly things on a screen.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
DemonicKitten said:
Le Tueur said:
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.
Isnt that because he is GOOD??

Sweeny Todd, Edward Scissor-Hands and various others are all my deepest favourite movies and i can safely say that they rank higher then Twilight and Newmoon, both of which have to come second to any Tim Burton movie that has Johnny Depp and even better, Johnny Depp with Helena Bonham Carter ^^ excellent actor/actresse and i love them both. Not totally sure if im going to like Alice in Wonderland as previous ones have been good already and this one just seems... OTT for my liking.
So then his movies beat out something that ranks at zero? Anything to compared Twilight is a masterpeice in my eyes. I could stare at a wall for seven hours stright and still call it better than watching that raw sewage people call a movie series. I'm sorry but I have no mercy for justifying how "good" he is by simply using your own opinion. Show me reviews, show me examples, show me some kind of justification that he is a "good" director. Till then he is just another director.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
Latinidiot said:
wha-

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

the antithesis said:
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.
 

Rocketboy13

New member
Oct 21, 2008
149
0
0
Just imagine if Planet of the Apes had been done up with all of this Gothic carnival glory with Depp as the Spaceman. It wouldn't have been forgettable, and it would have been unforgivably mismatched in premise-meets-style.

Yes Planet of the Apes was a terrible failure and should have been given to someone else to be done, like Johnathan Frakes (who directed Star Trek: First Contact) or Peter Jackson (who at the time was affordable but would have jumped at the chance to show off some epic-ness).
 

Rocketboy13

New member
Oct 21, 2008
149
0
0
michael_sturtridge92 said:
i agree completely, for the most part. i hated charlie and the chocolate factory. admittedly, i wasn't a massive fan of the original, but it was still SO much better than the new one. johnny depps performance was depressing and it was magnified by the fact that the movie was focused around him instead of CHARLIE - who is IN THE FUCKING TITLE. granted - charlies performance was just as bad, so maybe it was a good thing:S
Charlie was boring and so moral as to be annoying too. Really that story was all over the place too. I don't know, it just sucked, though I have my own issues with the original.
 

Andronicus

Terror Australis
Mar 25, 2009
1,846
0
0
I really think Burton needs to get some new friends in Hollywood. I'm starting to get a little tired of the same lineup of actors in each Burton film. It's nice that Depp can remain comfortable in the knowledge that, as long as Burton is still making movies, he'll always have a job in the acting profession. But, when it gets the point where the audience can usually accurately guess the director of a film based only on its actors, then it's time to start looking around for a new line-up.

For the record, I rather liked Batman. That said, I watched it ages ago, so I guess my opinion could conceivably have skewed over the years. Note to self: rent Batman.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
As much as I hate to say, Burton has lost my interest of late. Even Sweeney just didn't do it for me, really his last real hit with me was Sleepy Hollow, which managed to be a good gothic horror flick with just enough Burton style as to be Burton, but not so much as to drown in curvy plant tendrils. Another one is Kevin Smith (particularly with Zack and Miri, though Cop Out looks to be following), it's like this generation has run out of steam so they're coasting by on what got them their initial fame and hoping it keeps them afloat. Which is a shame, Burton used to be a fairly reliable go-to guy for a decent movie.

This obsession with Depp and Carter doesn't help. Director/actor pairings can work. Look at Scorsese/DeNiro and now DiCaprio, or Herzog/Kinski. But Burton/Depp/Carter just doesn't work. He puts too much weight on Depp's shoulders, when even a fellow like him needs something to work with, and Carter is... well, I guess he wants to keep getting laid.
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
Warachia said:
wasn't there supposed to be FOUR others? There are only 3 (four including alice) where's the fifth?
Apes, Factory, 2 batman movies and the one I don't remember.

I see 5.

Also, the only reason I didn't hate Chocolate Factory is because I love Johnny Depp... as a dude, but you get the idea. Movies can suck, but Depp is awesome on his own.
 

Scrythe

Premium Gasoline
Jun 23, 2009
2,368
0
0
I liked Charlie only because it was closer to the source material than the other one. Having said that, I couldn't get over the fact that Depp essentially did the same fucking role that he did in Ed Wood. I half-expected him to tell the children that he likes to wear women's clothes and that his mother used to dress him up like a girl.
 

likalaruku

New member
Nov 29, 2008
4,291
0
0
I've read the comments on your Alice review. I recall seeing only 1 person who agreed with you. I'll also take personal offence, as Burton is one of 3 American directors I can even tollerate. Plus, I own every movie & animated version of Alice ever made, & they're ALL good.
 

CrysisMcGee

New member
Sep 2, 2009
1,792
0
0
Allright, I disagree with 3 out of the 4. Planet of the Apes was the only one I agreed with...and Batman Returns I halfway agree with. Mind you, I never read any Batman Comics, so I don't know much about the source material.

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.

Corpse Bride is the most boring thing I have ever seen.

I like the rest of them, even Ed Wood which I thought I wouldn't. Although I haven't seen Big Fish.

Sometimes I swear you read too much into things, over analyze, and over criticize, but your a critic. So that goes hand in hand.
 

likalaruku

New member
Nov 29, 2008
4,291
0
0
theultimateend said:
Latinidiot said:
wha-

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

the antithesis said:
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).
 

likalaruku

New member
Nov 29, 2008
4,291
0
0
Nightfalke said:
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 thought so too, but he was the dweebiest looking Bruce Wayne.
 

zauxz

New member
Mar 8, 2009
1,403
0
0
Dr. Dan Challis said:
Burton's Busts? Try his entire career (excepting Ed Wood and, maybe, Sweeney Todd).
Edward scissorhands? Beetlejuice? Sleepy hollow? The nightmare before christmas?
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
skylog said:
Is a director using the same actors in his movies such a bad thing? Every time I hear people complaining about Burton re-using Depp and Carter, I can't help but think of Osamu Tezuka's method of placing characters he created into different roles within his all of his books. He equated this to a director using the same actors in his movies in order to create a sort of mythology surrounding the director's resume. Burton does this, Kevin Smith does this, and it's worked for them.
To make a gaming reference, you could also compare this to Square using many of the same names for characters, spells, and equipment. If you're playing a Square game and your mage learns Ultima, you know he's gonna start kicking some ass, and when you meet Cid you know the airship is parked outside.
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
I thoroughly enjoyed Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and more than anything I like that Burton is not afraid to ignore the original story and instead go where his heart leads him. I mean, if I want the story told to me exactly like the book, I'd read the damn book.

Also, Check out the book of Poetry "The Melancholy Death of Oyster Boy" for a real brilliant look at some contemporary poetry.
 

katsabas

New member
Apr 23, 2008
1,515
0
0
I would place Planet of The Apes on the number one spot any day of the year cause yeah, I almost forgot that happened. Liked both Charlie and the 1989 Batman. Liked when he used the batclaw to steer the Batmobile. My favorite scene as a kid. Also this:


'My face on the one dollar bill'
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
The Youth Counselor said:
but I'm glad to know he hasn't inhaled the dangerous drug of nostalgia.
You should check out his overthinker vids, when it comes to video games he does nothing but...0o
 

Hurr Durr Derp

New member
Apr 8, 2009
2,558
0
0
WafflesToo said:
BTW, thank you very little for making Scarecrow permament second-rate cannon fodder... jerks
Scarecrow has been a bit of a joke for a lot longer than that. From remarks about him being useless without his fear gas to him getting blamed for stuff he didn't do (in Living Hell), references to the Scarecrow not being taken serious as a top-tier villain pop up every now and then in the comics.
 

GrinningManiac

New member
Jun 11, 2009
4,090
0
0
I liked to sit down, turn on Charlie (Burton version) and just let my mind drip out my head

The soundtrack was particularly awesome when you don't pay an ounce of attention
 

pumasuit

New member
Aug 7, 2009
79
0
0
there were some elements of his aesthetic in Planet of the Apes. In the ape costumes (armor and such) there is the Burtonesque spiral, and the helmets look like many other hats that Burton characters have doned. Still, that's all there is. makes you wonder whether or not Burton was put on a leash for that film to appeal to a larger crowd?
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
Not to sound like a sheep but I'll be honest with you. I've never been that big of a fan of Tim Burton. I just think he's a shit director. His characters are never really all that deep and even when they do have depth it's usually because it's an adaptation of other source material with deeper characters. The story can some times be lacking and the plot can make very little sense. On the bright side I do like his artistic style but that doesn't excuse the other faults.

I also thought The Nightmare Before Christmas was the biggest pile of over-rated shit on this planet. I just don't see the appeal, yeah a few nice songs and the stop-mo is pretty good but other then that?. I just don't see how it became popular, the titular character less complex then a disney hero. But what do I know I'll probably get flamed by the hard core fans just for mentioning this. On the other hand I did like Sweeney Todd.
 

PunchClockVillain

New member
Oct 3, 2009
232
0
0
jabrwock said:
Burton just needs to find a good writer to shepherd him. Guide his random scenes into a more coherent overall story.
I concur with this. As a director, his visual styles are flowing and graceful, but his stories lines are often rats nests, nested inside entire nests of rats. Funnily enough, when the screenplay is original, the movie is usually good. Look at the list. All of them are reworks of existing material, whereas stuff like sweeney todd, nightmare, and edward scissorhands were all firsts as far as I know and they were great.
 

Brother Pain

New member
Dec 17, 2008
19
0
0
If you seriously put Batman and Charlie And The Chocolate Factory on the list of Burton's worst films together with the new Alice, then it sound like I can look forward to a really good movie when I watch it tomorrow.

I'd completely agree on Planet Of The Apes if I'd ever been able to bring myself to watch it though.
 

Jaebird

New member
Aug 19, 2008
1,298
0
0
I had tried to watch Batman a while back, and I emphasize the word "tried."

After having become engrossed into the comics for about a year now, and revisiting the old animated series, I couldn't sit all the way through Batman. It just didn't work for me, at all. I can state out the obvious about the whole "Joker killed the Waynes" shtick, but that would be too easy. But, I can't really nail down what I don't like about the film anymore.

It's an instance where you watch something from your childhood and it doesn't even hold up as well as you remember. Now, I'm not saying Batman Begins is perfection incarnate; I'm saying I agree with Movie Bob that the film hasn't aged very well.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
likalaruku said:
theultimateend said:
Latinidiot said:
wha-

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

the antithesis said:
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.
 

commasplice

New member
Dec 24, 2009
469
0
0
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.
 

HentMas

The Loneliest Jedi
Apr 17, 2009
2,650
0
0
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/ [those storyes]
 

Lord Thodin

New member
Jul 1, 2009
1,218
0
0
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.
 

maximara

New member
Jul 13, 2008
237
0
0
Nightfalke said:
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.
 

maximara

New member
Jul 13, 2008
237
0
0
Lord Thodin said:
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.
 

Wounded Melody

New member
Jan 19, 2009
539
0
0
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.
 

Wounded Melody

New member
Jan 19, 2009
539
0
0
CrysisMcGee said:
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
 

SimGrave

New member
Jan 7, 2010
96
0
0
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.
 

CaptainCrunch

Imp-imation Department
Jul 21, 2008
711
0
0
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.
 

inkfool

New member
Sep 17, 2009
6
0
0
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)
 

unwesen

New member
May 16, 2009
91
0
0
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.