Big Eyes

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.

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!

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.

"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.

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