Big Eyes (I) (2014) User Reviews

Domestic Abuse and Denigration

[3xHCCH · 7/10 · 3 March 2015]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[blanbrn · 8/10 · 1 January 2015]

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

6.5/10

[Giacomo_De_Bello · 6/10 · 2 January 2015]

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

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

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

traditional biopic

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 25 May 2015]

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

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

Good but lacks substance for lasting impression

[ArchonCinemaReviews · 7/10 · 1 February 2015]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lovely comedy drama

[851222 · 9/10 · 20 April 2015]

Greetings from Lithuania.

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

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

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

[shawneofthedead · 7/10 · 3 February 2015]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tavm · 8/10 · 31 August 2015]

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

It's good, but not great.

[grainnemorris · 6/10 · 17 January 2019]

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

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

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

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

All in all, entertaining but disappointing. 6/10

Superficial Beyond Belief

[Rogue-32 · 4/10 · 24 April 2015]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[xodanielcasterox · 7/10 · 9 January 2015]

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

A rather peculiar art fraud story...

[skepticskeptical · 6/10 · 17 January 2023]

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

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

Not a typical Tim Burton film

[WorldProxy · 6/10 · 15 October 2020]

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

"Mother, I know..."

[ReadingFilm · 10/10 · 6 April 2019]

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

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

There would be inheritances in stories like this.

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

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

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

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

Pretty cool.

[hughchilles · 6/10 · 6 August 2021]

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

How manipulative can a person be?

[lee_eisenberg · 8/10 · 28 June 2015]

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

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

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

TV movie with Cinematic production values

[Jerghal · 7/10 · 8 February 2015]

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

A Beautiful Movie!

[buhaydallas · 10/10 · 29 December 2014]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ClaytonDavis · 6/10 · 24 December 2014]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Keane Eye for Art

[richardchatten · 6/10 · 29 October 2020]

An uncertain mixture of drama and comedy (such as the scene where Christoph Waltz interrogates himself in the witness box like Everett Sloane in 'The Lady from Shanghai').

The resemblance of 'Big Eyes' to the Tony Hancock vehicle 'The Rebel' seems to have been noticed by even fewer people than that of 'Basic Instinct' to 'Play Misty to Me' (with Danny Huston performing a function similar to George Sanders in the earlier film). Except that in 'Big Eyes' it's as if the struggling artist played by Paul Massie found fame and fortune by laying claim to the authorship of the daubs of Anthony Hancock.

Since you won't find either Keane in any of the usual art histories, the decision in 1986 of Margaret to take Walter to court was presumably motivated by the prices their paintings were commanding rather than hurt creative pride. (Significantly Andy Warhol was a fan, declaring in 1964 that "I think what Keane has done is just terrific. It has to be good. If it were bad, so many people wouldn't like it".)

Unfortunately, the miscasting of a key role in 'Big Eyes' makes many scenes appear unreal.

[MrPupkin · 7/10 · 18 November 2019]

If I were to speculate about what happened behind the scenes when they made this, it felt as if Tim Burton was given a sort of a dare: "you couldn't make a regular film if you tried!" and that this film was the answer to that challenge. Adams and Waltz seem to endeavor to stretch beyond the Movie-Of-The-Week limitations in place but fail, kitsch ultimately winning out over sentimentality. It's a generic film, surprisingly so.

About recognition

[sol- · 7/10 · 27 December 2015]

After years of letting her charismatic husband take credit for her paintings, artist Margaret Keane decides to speak out in this Golden Globe winning biopic from Tim Burton. The film is a noticeable change of pace for Burton with the lead performances outshining the sets, camera-work, mood and atmosphere, but this is not necessarily a bad thing as the performances are superb. Amy Adams is well cast as the all-too-vulnerable Margaret Keane, torn between helping her husband perpetuate the lie (lest bad publicity affect sales) and wanting recognition for her own art. Christoph Waltz is also superb as her charming husband who always seems to have a card up his sleeve. Some have called his performance over-the-top, and with his manic running back forth in the courtroom scenes, it is easy to see why, but Waltz renders his character more human than just that; he is lost in the delusion just as much as Adams is consumed by it. The film nevertheless only scratches the surface of what was going on between the two real life Keanes. There is a suggestion that Margaret stayed quiet believing that it would be best for her daughter. There is also a suggestion that her husband was a necessary catalyst since she would have never had the courage to promote her work on her own. These only ever remain suggestions though with the film never quite getting at the symbiotic nature of their relationship and why she stayed silent for so long. Whatever the case, the film is encapsulating for the most part, which is always a plus with a biopic like this where the outcome is well known.

Film making could be the windows of the soul...

[hitchcockthelegend · 8/10 · 8 January 2016]

Directed by Tim Burton and written by Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski, Big Eyes brings to the screen the story of artist Margaret Keane (Amy Adams), who was producing a number of paintings of waifs with big eyes that captured the art world's imagination. Unfortunately her charlatan husband (Christolph Waltz) manipulated the interest in her work to claim it as his own, leading to Margaret having to front up to the lie and take the case to court.

Quite often the beauty of filmic cinema is that it can bring notice to the public about certain topics in history. The story of Margaret Keane is a story well worth telling, it may not be all encompassing as a biography since it is just about the key part of her life, but getting the story out there is to be applauded. I myself knew nothing about the Keane case, but I'm glad I do now, this film adaptation forcing me to seek out further reading on the subject.

It actually doesn't matter if you have a bent for art on canvas (me, but I do find those paintings beautifully beguiling), this is more about the human spirit, the crushing of such and the birth of. However, sadly to a degree the film often seems at odds with itself via tonal flows. There's whimsy where there shouldn't be, the drama should be front and centre, whilst Waltz's performance is awfully cartoonish, way too animated, and these problems are laid firmly at Burton's door, an odd choice of director for the material, it's like they felt the off kilter look of the paintings marked Burton as a shoe-in to direct.

Conversely he gets a sparkling turn out of Adams, she plays Margaret as being so vulnerable but radiant, yet she's perfectly infuriating as well, tugging our heart strings whilst troubling our anger senses. It's the strength of Adams' turn that steers Big Eyes away from choppy waters, for even as the court case that makes up the finale is given too little time to breath and make the ultimate mark, Adams as Margaret holds her own court and seals the deal for a big uplift - which in turn marks Big Eyes out as a film of great warmth and importance. 7.5/10

Watchable

[madahab · 6/10 · 5 December 2021]

First things first: The paintings of Margaret Keane are terrible. I understand that art is very subjective and this type of kitch art is not for me. But this is a serious detriment of the film to really engage me. Whether she has real talent is a matter of debate. I imagine some enjoy it and I was not on her side when a prominent New York Times art critic ripped her work to shreds. I agreed with him.

Had I not know otherwise I wouldn't have guessed that this was directed by Tim Burton. It his least "Tim Burton" film. This is both refreshing and its biggest drawback. It is as superficial as the paintings the film is highlighting. Apart from a fleeting moment when Margaret Keane is in a supermarket and sees several customers sporting her iconic "big lies" in a fantasy sequence it is very conservative in its style.

But with all that being said I kind of enjoyed the film. It's highly unlikely that I will ever see it again but I was never bored. It was primarily due to the performance of Amy Adams as Margaret Keane. Even though her character is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier there is a genuine quality to her passion for painting that keeps us invested. But then there is Christoph Waltz as Walter Keane, essentially the film's villain. I understand that films play fast and free with "true stories" but I cannot believe anyone would not see through this obvious con man. He plays the character like a silent film villain --all that was missing a comically large moustache to twirl and give an occasional exaggerated chuckle. There is really no nuances to either main character and we don't get much insight into their livrs apart from a very surface level. Madeleine Arthur as Margaret Keane 's daughter looks like a Keane painting come to life. Had this film been made about twenty years ago I imagine Christina Ricci would have been ideal casting.

I didn't hate the film despite all that I have written. It is primarily watchable for Amy Adams. I don't know what reaction the film got upon its initial release but I imagine that Amy Adams was singled out as being its best aspect. Emotions plays so subtly on her faces and eyes. It's admirable that Tim Burton attempted to branch out from his usual brand of films, away from terrible remakes and try something in the vein of Ed Wood (my favourite of his films), however the story is so underwhelming and doesn't have charm of Ed Wood that made us root for him despite a complete lack of talent.

Eye Did It

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 23 December 2014]

Greetings again from the darkness. Based on the true events of artist Margaret Keane and her husband Walter, the latest from director Tim Burton is the closest thing to reality he has produced since his only other biopic, Ed Wood (1994). But fear not, ye fans of the Burton universe, his style and flair remains ever-present with a stunning color palette on this trek through the 1950's and 60's.

If you have never heard the story, Margaret Keane is an artist with a unique style that features exaggerated eyes of her subjects, hence the movie title. When she first met Walter, she fell hard for his charm and his exuberance and professed love of her work. What happened next seems impossible to imagine these days, but this was the 1950's. Walter began to market and sell her paintings as his own … in fact, the real marketing was himself as an artist. The empire of Keane paintings, postcards, posters, etc literally exploded forcing Margaret to paint in silence and solitude while her husband inexplicably took public credit, sighting his defense as no one will buy "lady art".

That may sound like the description of an "issues" film – one that digs into the male dominance of the pre-women's movement era, or possibly even a look at artistic integrity or the battle of popular kitsch versus critical acclaim. Instead, this is more of a relationship film and a character study. We witness how Walter (Christoph Waltz) lures Margaret (Amy Adams) into this trap and truly undervalues her as an artist or a person. She is merely a means to his financial and public success. Margaret feels trapped right up to the point where she doesn't.

There could have been real fun in the exploration of Dick Nolan (played by Danny Huston) from the "San Francisco Examiner" in his role as cheesy journalist contrasted against the socially revered serious art critic John Camady (played by Terence Stamp). Instead, both the relationship aspects of the Keanes and the tabloid battles of the critics come off as a bit lightweight, though right in line with Mr. Waltz' incessant smirk through most of his lines. Fortunately, the film is filled with subtext … each scene carrying the weight of multiple issues.

Many will enjoy the deliciously evil approach Waltz takes for the role, but I mostly felt sad that a woman as apparently smart as Margaret would fall for this obvious shyster and his over the top self-promotion. Still, her battle for independence and ownership is quite interesting given the times and the hole that was dug. Adams is terrific in the role, and she is one of many actresses who bring their own "big eyes" to the picture (Krysten Ritter and Madeleine Arthur are others).

The film never attempts to answer any social issues or even take on the question of "what is art?". The lack of a stance doesn't change the fact that it's beautiful to look at, and brings to light an incredible true story. The set design and costumes are wonderful, and composer Danny Elfman delivers a complimentary score. For those wondering, neither Johnny Depp nor Helena Bonham Carter (both Burton staples) appears in the film. However, the real Margaret Keane is shown sitting on a park bench while Ms. Adams paints in one scene. So if you are after a good-looking film that doesn't (on the surface seem to) ruffle many feathers, the battle of the Keanes is one that should satisfy. If you are willing to dig a little deeper, there is much to discuss afterwards.