Gideon58's Reviews

Good review....it sounds like a movie I won't be watching...but Jennifer Aniston really looks good in your pic (and I'm not a big fan of hers either). So kudos to the make up department for making her look better than usual.

Aniston looked absolutely incredible in both this and the first film.

Gideon, did you like the first one? I sure did, and that's why I've had some interest in watching this one.

Biopics are a tricky thing for the filmmaker and the film goer. As a filmmaker you want to tell a story that presents the facts and entertains and often facts are altered or glossed over for the sake of entertainment. As a film goer, when we know the subject of the film, we want to make sure the facts are accurate and everything else comes second. I have to admit to enjoying a biopic where I know nothing about the subject...I have no preconceived opinions and find myself looking at the film strictly for entertainment value.

Big Eyes is the 2014 biography of painter Margaret Keane, who was famous for painting children with huge saucer-like eyes and her explosive relationship with her husband Walter, who actually took credit for his wife's work.

The film opens in 1958 California with Margaret leaving her husband and entering into a quick courtship and marriage with Walter, a real estate agent who has a passion for painting, but not the talent. Walter begins putting Margaret's work out there and when the opportunity presents itself, he begins taking credit for her work and keeps Margaret a virtual prisoner in an attic where she produces the work and he takes credit for it. For some reason, Margaret quietly goes along with this scheme, which almost destroys her relationship with her daughter. Walter continues to live the high life but finds consequences of sort when he reads of a particular art critic who hates Margaret's work, not to mention the legal ramifications of Walter's actions when Margaret finally has had enough.

This film stirred strong emotions as I watched, mostly anger, as I couldn't understand why Margaret would allow this monster to take credit for her work. Perhaps because it was the 1950's and 1960's and it was a man's world, but it still doesn't legitimize what Walter was doing and my heart broke for Margaret as she sat in that attic locked to that easel or when she had to lie to her daughter about what was going on.

Director Tim Burton, in a way, seems an unusual directorial choice for this kind of subject matter, yet, his last biopic, Ed Wood, is, for my money, the best film he ever made and I think this one is a worthy follow-up. I knew nothing about the subject prior to this film so I don't know how factually accurate it is, but while watching I really didn't care...except for a brief moment into slasher movie suspense near the climax, just about everything presented here rings true and Burton's direction is steady and balanced.

Amy Adams gives a beautifully controlled performance as Margaret and Christoph Waltz is gutsy and unapologetic in his flashy turn as Walter, a performance that is slightly grating but you can never take your eyes off the man when he is onscreen, he makes the transition of Walter from romantic leading man to dangerous and foolish psychopath completely believable. There's also a stylish turn from Terrance Stamp as the art critic who is instrumental in Walter's downfall.

As always, Burton's attention to period detail is on the money, flawlessly reproducing the 1950's and 60's with brilliant color schemes and cinematography and Danny Elfman's music is wonderful a well. And I'd like to personally thank Tim Burton for not casting Johnny Depp as Walter.

I liked the first one a lot...I think I gave it 8/10, there's a review of it in here somewhere, that's why I was looking forward to this one and was ultimately, extremely disappointed.

I didn't really care for Queen Latifah either.

Oh cool, you watched Big Eyes. I thought highly of that film too. I agree with what you say about Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz...two of my favorite actors working today. I was surprised Tim Burton didn't make this a wacky Butonesque type film, but he did a good a job with it. Enjoyed your review.

I also knew nothing about the movie Big Eyes before I watched it. In fact, I thought it was an animated movie when I saw the movie poster for it. I liked the movie, but I had a hard time feeling sympathetic for Margaret because she did nothing to stand up for herself. She basically just sat back and let her husband take credit for her work.

However I love her paintings.

Yeah, I couldn't understand why Margaret just allowed Walter to do what he did either. It's not like he was abusing her or blackmailing her in some way, he wasn't holding anything over her that forced her to sit in that attic and let him take credit for her work. That's one of the reasons my rating wasn't higher...we weren't really given an explanation for Margaret's behavior.

Quentin Tarantino first showed his penchant for unconventional and out of sequence storytelling with an unrelentingly intense and bloody 1992 crime drama called Reservoir Dogs, a story that never goes where you think it's supposed to or where you want it to, but remains riveting from start to finish, thanks primarily to the film's surprising economy. This is another one of those films that is extremely difficult to review without including major spoilers but I'm going to give it a shot.

The film opens quite unassumingly with a bunch of guys in black suits having breakfast together discussing the hidden meaning of Madonna's record "Like a Virgin" and the importance of properly tipping a waitress and before we realize it, it is revealed that these men have been brought together for the robbery of a jewelry store that goes terribly wrong and before we know it, we learn that one of the men we met at breakfast is dead, one is missing, one is dying from a gunshot wound to the stomach, one has stashed the jewelry, and one has taken a cop hostage and has him stuffed in the trunk of the getaway car. We also learned that it is suspected that the robbery went wrong because the cops were tipped off and that one of the crew is really a cop.

Tarantino and Roger Avary's screenplay is alternately aggravating and fascinating because we keep waiting to see what happened at the jewelry store, but Tarantino's introduction of the characters and how they came together for this crime becomes so fascinating that we actually find ourselves forgetting about the actual crime itself. I found myself caring less and less about the actual crime itself and more and more about the gathering of these men and the consequences of their actions, which I guess was Tarantino's intent.

As always with Tarantino's direction, his eye for cinematic carnage is unapologetic as is his ability to get riveting performances from his hand-picked ensemble cast. There is standout work from Michael Madsen, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, and especially Steve Buscemi, who I don't think has ever been better. The unrelenting violent eye of Tarantino has rarely been displayed with the intensity that it is with the scene of Madsen torturing his cop hostage, given even more power via Tarantino's flawless ear for music of the 1970's. This film is not for the squeamish, but if you want to see the genesis of Pulp Fiction, the Kill Bill franchise, and Django Unchained, this seems to be where it all started.

Disney Studios initiated a more sophisticated form of animated entertainment with the release of 1989's The Little Mermaid, a captivating and charming story that was the first time that Disney attempted to meld the animated comedy, the love story, and the Broadway musical to maximum effect, a groundbreaking piece of cinema that I suspect was the genesis of Pixar Animation.

The film is the story of Ariel (voiced by Jodi Benson), a teenage mermaid who is fascinated by the lives of humans on the surface of the sea, despite lifetime warnings from her father, King Triton (voiced by Kenneth Mars) to stay away from the surface. Her encounter with a handsome human prince named Eric (voiced by Christopher Daniel Barnes) motivates her to enter into an unholy alliance with Ursula (voiced by Pat Carroll), an evil sea witch who agrees to turn Ariel into a human for three days in order to make Eric fall in love with her and all she has to do is give up her voice.

Animators Ron Clements and John Musker have created a deliciously entertaining world that provides a wonderful bridge between classic Disney like Snow White into a more sophisticated form of animated entertainment, that would be molded into perfection with work like Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, but what works here is the simple good vs evil story with effective comic relief and not complicated by multiple and unnecessary endings, which seems to be a fixture of Disney Pixar films.

The story is simple and straightforward and Ariel is the first in a new series of independent Disney heroines that you can't help but fall in love with instantly. Jodi Benson's sweet speaking voice and clear soprano are a perfect match for the character as is the voice work of Carroll, Barnes, and especially the fabulous Samuel Wright as a very wise and loving crab named Sebastian.

The film features a handful of charming songs by Alan Mencken and Howard Ashman including "Your Part of the World", "Kiss the Girl" and 1989's Oscar winner for Best Song, "Under the Sea." A lovely animated gem whose intended demographic was definitely 13 year old girls, but I found myself enchanted as well.

Great review of Reservoir Dogs!

Reminds me that a rewatch is due.

Hitchcock is a rare cinematic look at the legendary director who never won an Oscar, but did receive a nomination for the film around which this film is based. The film is a look at Hitch's extraordinary journey to get Psycho to the screen, his obsession with his leading ladies and everything else in his life, but most of all, it looks at the sometimes ugly love story between Hitchcock and his longtime wife/collaborator Alma Reville, allegedly the woman behind the man whose influence on the directorial legend was news to me. Unfortunately, this film suffers from trying to be too much...biopic, docudrama, glossy romantic soap opera, and psychological drama, and though it doesn't really work as any of these genres, I found the film riveting from start to finish.

The 2012 film opens at the premiere of Hitch's 1959 classic North by Northwest where it is immediately pounded into our heads that Psycho was unlike anything Hitch had ever done and how no studio wanted anything to do with it, but this doesn't deter the director in the least. Hitch poured his own money into the film (including the mortgaging of his home) and apparently had all copies of the book Psycho bought and removed from bookshelves so that people would not know the ending of the movie.

We also get a surprising look into Hitch's marriage to Alma Reville, a former writer who gave up her own career in order to be Mrs. Hitchcock and who, also according to this film, had major influence on the film Psycho...from casting to rewrites and cutting room decisions. Ironically, a glance at the IMDB page for Psycho finds Alma Reville's name nowhere to be found in the credits and after seeing this film, I have to wonder whose decision this was. There's also a look at Hitch's obsession with Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, and how none of them ever stood up to Grace Kelly, who always was his number one obsession.

There are some wonderful performances here with Anthony Hopkins undergoing a remarkable transformation to become Hitchcock, but it is Helen Mirren's crisp and kinetic performance as Alma that really makes this film sizzle. I also have to mention a brief but absolutely incredible performance by an unknown actor named James D'Arcy, who plays Anthony Perkins. Also loved the always watchable Toni Collette as Hitchcock's loyal assistant. Sacha Gervasi's direction is a little syrupy and as mentioned before the screenplay tries to cover a little too much ground, but Hopkins and Mirren made this a very entertaining ride.

Writer and director Paul Mazursky made an impressive feature directorial debut with one of the most controversial and talked about films of 1969...a little gem called Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, which shocked audiences back in '69 with its bold look at the beginning of the sexual revolution and how sex could be displayed and addressed in a mainstream theatrical film. Though it's lost a lot of its shock value and suffers from dated plot elements and dialogue, it is still worth a look if you're a fan of the late director's work.

Bob and Carol Sanders (Robert Culp, Natalie Wood) are an affluent California couple who have just attended a weekend seminar on marriage and come back with a whole new attitude about sex and its role in their marriage, including the apparent theory that infidelity in marriage is acceptable as long as you are honest with your partner about what happened. Bob and Carol's new outlook on sex is completely foreign and unacceptable to their best friends Ted and Alice Henderson (Elliott Gould, Dyan Cannon) initially, but the Sanders' influence on the Henderson marriage becomes the canvas for this unconventional romantic comedy.

This film raised eyebrows for a lot of reasons back in 1969...it was one of the first mainstream theatrical films that I recall that featured full frontal female nudity (though not from either of the leading ladies) and the screenplay by the director and Larry Tucker is brave and shameless in its approach to sexual topics, something which really hadn't been seen on movie screens prior to this, which I suspect is one of the reasons that the screenplay received an Oscar nomination.

The performances by the four leads are first rate...Culp, an actor whose career was primarily based in television, proved he had the chops to carry a theatrical film and generates mad chemistry with Wood, who not only gives a strong performance but has rarely been more beautiful onscreen. But the real acting honors here go to newcomers Gould and Cannon, who both received Oscar nominations for their performances as the sexually uptight couple who find themselves re-thinking their entire relationship in more ways than one. This movie made Gould and Cannon movie stars and deservedly so...Cannon's scene in a psychiatrist's office is just brilliant.

A lot of the shock value has definitely worn off here and I doubt that this film would make a ripple if it were released today, but back in 1969, this was groundbreaking stuff and a testament to the genius that was the late Paul Mazursky.

My recent viewing of the film Hitchcock motivated me to finally sit and down and watch the master's 1960 masterpiece Psycho, the groundbreaking psychological thriller/murder mystery that completely re-defined the career of the amazing Alfred Hitchcock, crowning him the King of Cinematic Suspense.

This is the story of Marian Crane (Janet Leigh), a Phoenix-based secretary who steals $40,000 from her boss' client in order to be able to marry her hunky but empty-headed fiancee (John Gavin) and skips town. An exhausted Marian makes the fatalistic decision of pulling off the road and getting a room at the Bates Hotel, run by the outwardly charming Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who runs the hotel while taking care of his invalid mother.

The story is so not what makes this film work, but the way Hitchcock chooses to tell the story...he takes Joseph Stefano's screenplay and drapes it in such a dark and chilling atmosphere. It starts from jump with the opening credits flashed across the screen accompanied by Bernard Herrmann's flawless musical score (which was robbed of an Oscar) to the off-screen narration during Marian's journey where she has been found out to the unraveling of Marian's guilt about what she has done while relaxing in her hotel to the private investigator getting too close to the truth and, of course, Marian's fatal shower. It's not the story itself that is so riveting but the way Hitchcock chooses to tell it...there is cinematic artistry everywhere here...that shot of the blood going down the drain morphing into Janet Leigh's comotose eye is bone-chilling.

We had seen nothing like this before and though we've seen many imitators, this was the original and no one does it better than Hitch did. Everything take second place to Hitchcock's artistry here...Hitchcock makes sure the actors serve the vision of the story he wants to tell...Leigh is a revelation as Marian Crane, a surprisingly complex performance that earned her an Oscar nomination and Anthony Perkins was robbed of an Oscar for his raw nerve of a performance as Norman Bates, the most sympathetic and heartbreaking villain in cinema history. A cinematic textbook on the art of creating onscreen suspense that should be required viewing of all film students...breathtaking.

Not surprised you liked it as it's brilliant. But I am glad that you finally watched it. Have you seen Peeping Tom? If not, I'd recommend taking a look at that.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Have not seen Peeping Tom, but I respect your opinions, Honeykid and will add it to my watchlist.

The late John Hughes, the king of 1980's teen angst comedies, tried something a little different with a 1987 comedy called Planes, Trains, & Automobiles which is a little bit road trip comedy, a little bit buddy comedy, a little bit character study and though it's not completely successful in capturing the essence of these genres, it's an ultimately rewarding cinematic journey for the patient.

Steve Martin stars as Neal Page, a marketing executive who is trying to get home in time for Thanksgiving and when his flight home is cancelled due to bad weather, he somehow finds himself hooked up with a fellow traveler named Del Griffith (John Candy), a shower curtain ring salesman whose obnoxious exterior demeanor and well-intentioned motives for helping Neal get home prove to be futile, instigating an outrageous road trip that sometimes strains credibility, but more importantly, is the springboard for a friendship that was never meant to be.

Director/writer Hughes has mounted a surprising story that prepares the viewer for an outrageous slapstick comedy and there is outrageous slapstick comedy fueled by two of the best physical comedians ever, but the slapstick is peppered with scenes of flawed and human bonding between the central characters that sometimes defies explanation or logic, but we find ourselves accepting it and enjoying it, even if it takes a little too long to happen.

Martin offers one of his best performances as Page...a seamless combination of a believable everyman and wonderful physical comedy that provides laughs but never strains credibility and Candy's Del Griffith becomes more and more likable as the story progresses, something I didn't see coming at all because the character was never intended to be what I wanted it to be.

It is the work of these two incomparable screen comedians, the breezy direction and writing of Hughes and some striking location photography from varied parts of the country, especially Hughes' beloved Chicago, that make this road trip worth the investment.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles

Excellent review Gideon...This is the ONLY time that I have ever read a review here of a film that I had just seen. So this was totally cool to read your review as the movie is fresh in my mind and I can then see what you found in the movie, and be able to relate to it. I essentially agreed with everything you said, (I'll write a review latter today.)

I like what you say here. I too noticed right away the film felt different than other of Hughes' films. And you're right if one is patient the film will reward.


Yes he did. Martin makes the perfect straight guy. I need to watch more of Steve Martin's films.

I'm curious about this...what did you want Candy's character to be?

I thought Candy's character was going to be more of a direct protagonist, deliberately trying to make Martin's life miserable and that's not what he was at all...I'm trying to think of an example of what I'm saying but I'm drawing a blank right now, but I expected Candy's entire motivation throughout was to keep Martin from getting home and that's not what he was at all. OK, I just thought of an example...did you ever see Identity Thief with Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy? McCarthy's character fought Bateman most of the way and made it as difficult as possible for him to get home. Del Griffith wasn't like that at all,,,his intentions were always above aboard even if his actions weren't and I loved that he didn't reveal the truth about his wife until he did...he could have used that information much earlier than he did to elicit sympathy and help from Neal but he didn't.