Hurt or Heal: Tim Burton Films

Polls and games that do not call for discussion.
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 16239
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Dr. Frankenollie wrote:...I think Sweeney Todd is the best out of the three left, sorry.
I agree, actually. The only Batman film I've ever been enamored with is The Dark Knight, with isn't Burton. That said, I didn't like Ed Wood nearly as much as Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney, or even Big Fish, tbh. I'm glad Corpse Bride and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory went early though. Bleh.

Batman - 15 Points
Batman Returns - 3 Points (-2)

ELIMINATED:
Planet of the Apes
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Alice in Wonderland
Mars Attacks!
Sleepy Hollow
Big Fish
Pee-Wee's Big Adventure
Edward Scissorhands
Ed Wood
Beetlejuice
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Lazario, I think my biggest problem with Batman Returns is that it's just plain depressing. It begins with a baby being thrown into the sewers, introduces a pitiful and nervous secretary nearly murdered by her cold-hearted boss, which turns her into a rampaging psychopath, falls in love with the hero, the baby grows up to be another psychopath determined to murder other first born babies, and the romance ends tragically. I'm not saying it has to be a cheerful movie, but there's nothing about this movie to lighten the mood; the first Batman film had Jack Nicholson being hilarious as well as frightening, but only a handful of Batman Returns' few jokes are good.

On top of it being extremely depressing, it's the epitome of style-over-subsance, and the protagonist is much less developed than the antagonists. Nonetheless, Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny DeVito are both energetic and move around the sets in memorable, rythmical and entrancing ways, and the cinematography, makeup and production design are all very good.

I've just watched several clips of it to make a fairer judgement, and while it's not as bad as some of Burton's big stinkers (e.g. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Planet of the Apes, Alice in Wonderland, etc.), I still think it's inferior to the majority of his films.
Lazario wrote:I don't think it's perfect. For me, Penguin is the weak spot. But, you have to admit he gets KILLER one-liners. Lines that aren't just cool, they have power behind them. Again, if you were able to plug into the movie. It's a strong movie whether it's bad or not. I cared about it.
Yeah, the dialogue is occasionally powerful and darkly funny ("Er, Penguin - killing sleeping children? Isn't that a little..." *Penguin shoots henchman* "No, it's a LOT!"), and I have to agree, it is a strong movie. I vividly remember some of the shots and even though I didn't entirely enjoy it, it did have an emotional impact on me.
Lazario wrote:(I haven't seen the whole of Sweeney Todd yet but I'm guessing it'll suffer from the same problem that plagued Sleepy Hollow and Wood- slick and loud and expensive but entirely lacking the heaviness that made me live through the Batman movies and Scissorhands. Hollywood wants everything to move along now, gloss over really important tone and mood details.)
Nah, the words slick, loud and expensive are probably the last words I'd associate with Sweeney Todd (then again, I wouldn't associate them with Sleepy Hollow, so we obviously have different outlooks on Burton films). I think you should watch it - I haven't seen it all the way from beginning to end, but I've seen the first hour and watched a lot of the rest online. It's a really passionate film, and the excitement doesn't come from big, expensive SFX or loud, explosive set-pieces, but from the sheer emotion put into all the songs.

Depp, Bonham Carter and the like aren't exactly pitch perfect, but instead of musical perfection in the songs, the audience is provided with compelling passion and character depth (infinitely more important in my eyes). Also, the extremely bloody violence is like something from a Hammer Horror film.
Lazario

Post by Lazario »

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Lazario, I think my biggest problem with Batman Returns is that it's just plain depressing. It begins with a baby being thrown into the sewers, introduces a pitiful and nervous secretary nearly murdered by her cold-hearted boss, which turns her into a rampaging psychopath, falls in love with the hero, the baby grows up to be another psychopath determined to murder other first born babies, and the romance ends tragically. I'm not saying it has to be a cheerful movie
I can understand that. But the subject matter was meant to be that depressing, otherwise how can Burton proclaim to really get inside the bitterness of what being used can (and usually does) do to people.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:only a handful of Batman Returns' few jokes are good.
Perhaps, but it's not the kind of one-liner movie designed to make the audience chuckle and kids feel clever. The one-liners are meant to have dramatic or satirical resonance. I think it does a unique job (as only Heathers screenwriter Daniel Waters can- you are acquainted with Heathers, aren't you?) of showing the nasty side of social climbing (a theme carried over from Heathers, but with blood this time where that movie chickened out a little on that aspect), image "handling," etc. Again, coming from someone who really lauded the first movie because of its' horror aspects, this one is a fantastic follow up on that level. Hell, there are horror movies that aren't this dark. But anyway, when this movie makes a one-liner, it really means something.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:On top of it being extremely depressing, it's the epitome of style-over-subsance
Are you sure you're not talking about Nolan's thick on the outside, hollow on the inside sporty action thrillers?

Again, I say: not if Burton feels something for the loner characters. I think you're misreading the movie. And even if he had short a fuse, the acting is full of substance and there - as I explained - is a very compelling point to the movie. I'm still shocked he was able to do this kind of movie, with a huge budget, and so much publicity supporting him.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:and the protagonist is much less developed than the antagonists.
Well, duh. That's been discussed at length in interviews. Both Burton and Keaton agree that that is Batman's best function. You have to watch his actions and judge from each one what is going on inside him. If you want this character to get more formulaic explanations of why he's doing this or what lead him to do that, it's like you don't get the point. Besides, it's like you're arguing that the movie should be about a hero when "movie" heroes are overglamorized anyway. Burton's films are like much more realistic wake-up calls to say there's very little true glory in doing this sort of thing. The city "loves" him when he kills the bad guy. But it's very easy for them to think he's still more of a monster than a hero or to just not know. I prefer Burton's less conventional approach with this subject matter. You have to give these movies credit- at least there is nothing else like them. Burton is a true original. At least in / with the Hollywood crowd. Not like Nolan, another face in a sea of "ooh(!;) can I play mindfuck with the audience; can I, can I(?!)" twits who think they're much more deep and interesting than they really are. He's an M. Night Shyamalan Flavor-of-the-Last-Couple-Years himbo who merely managed to tap into a cultural zeitgeist (Michael Bay did the same thing and it's likely his fault that so much braindead crap passes for substance these days in the first place) for manly men who think they're serious thinkers and stragglers who've yet to become initiated into the Saw or Rob Zombie fanclubs. (I'm actually talking about those films as thrillers, not torture flicks. Since I've seen them and there's no horror there.) If you ask me, he's got all the true depth of Tarsem Singh. He just gets away with being every bit as shallow because his style looks realistic (again, for what passes as realism these days- which again we can thank Saw and Rob Zombie for) whereas Burton's looks fantastical.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Nah, the words slick, loud and expensive are probably the last words I'd associate with (...) Sleepy Hollow
Then I think it's been awhile since you've seen it.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Also, the extremely bloody violence is like something from a Hammer Horror film.
But how do I know it doesn't suffer from the same problem Sleepy Hollow did - repetitiveness? You can't cut off every character's head and expect the audience to be shocked every time. (Well, maybe Takashi Miike could pull it off. But... not Burton.)
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Lazario wrote:I can understand that. But the subject matter was meant to be that depressing, otherwise how can Burton proclaim to really get inside the bitterness of what being used can (and usually does) do to people.
But Burton didn't have to make it all so...mean-spirited. Every single character does something villainous, even Batman. And while I do feel sorry for Selina/Catwoman, I just think it's a hard movie to watch - yet it's so visually magnificent that I can't help but keep watching.
Lazario wrote:Perhaps, but it's not the kind of one-liner movie designed to make the audience chuckle and kids feel clever. The one-liners are meant to have dramatic or satirical resonance. I think it does a unique job (as only Heathers screenwriter Daniel Waters can- you are acquainted with Heathers, aren't you?) of showing the nasty side of social climbing (a theme carried over from Heathers, but with blood this time where that movie chickened out a little on that aspect), image "handling," etc. Again, coming from someone who really lauded the first movie because of its' horror aspects, this one is a fantastic follow up on that level. Hell, there are horror movies that aren't this dark. But anyway, when this movie makes a one-liner, it really means something.
:oops: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Heathers, but I will check it out (Winona Ryder and Otho are in it, so that intrigues me). Anyway, I understand what you're saying; most of the one-liners that I can remember were powerful, but I haven't watched Batman Returns for some time.
Lazario wrote:Are you sure you're not talking about Nolan's thick on the outside, hollow on the inside sporty action thrillers?

...Well, duh. That's been discussed at length in interviews. Both Burton and Keaton agree that that is Batman's best function. You have to watch his actions and judge from each one what is going on inside him. If you want this character to get more formulaic explanations of why he's doing this or what lead him to do that, it's like you don't get the point. Besides, it's like you're arguing that the movie should be about a hero when "movie" heroes are overglamorized anyway.
Sorry Laz, but I have to disagree with you, Burton and Keaton. The Nolan films are much more faithful to the original Batman comics, especially The Dark Knight; have you ever read the graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns? Or The Long Halloween? The former is particularly a fascinating character study of Batman - the only thing that can separate him from his enemies is his one rule of not killing, but by not killing the Joker, he is indirectly responsible for the deaths of countless innocents. The Dark Knight is the greatest and most faithful adaptation of Batman to date, showing how incorruptible Batman is but also suggesting that he may have been pushed into killing the Joker.

Batman Returns completely fucks up the whole essence of what makes Batman, well, Batman, and allows him to kill his enemies from the get go. Coupled with Batman's lack of depth in the movie (even if Burton wants to focus on the antagonists, he should have developed the supposed protagonist a bit more), he is as bad as Catwoman and Penguin. There's nothing that separates him from the villains; and rather than making the film seem realistic and unique in that sense, it makes me dislike Batman. The only character in Batman Returns I like is Catwoman, but she is often just as horrible as Batman and Penguin.
Lazario wrote:Then I think it's been awhile since you've seen it.
It is. :P
Lazario wrote:But how do I know it doesn't suffer from the same problem Sleepy Hollow did - repetitiveness? You can't cut off every character's head and expect the audience to be shocked every time. (Well, maybe Takashi Miike could pull it off. But... not Burton.)
Sweeney Todd avoids repetitiveness from shifting the focus from the murders, but to the songs; the gory stuff usually happens quickly and in the middle of the songs, except for the final kill in the movie, which is quite different from the earlier murders.
PixarFan2006
Signature Collection
Posts: 6166
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
Location: Michigan

Post by PixarFan2006 »

[quote="Disney's Divinity"]

Batman - 15 Points
Batman Returns - 1 Points (-2)

ELIMINATED:
Planet of the Apes
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Alice in Wonderland
Mars Attacks!
Sleepy Hollow
Big Fish
Pee-Wee's Big Adventure
Edward Scissorhands
Ed Wood
Beetlejuice
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

It looks like we have a winner:

Batman - 16 Points (+1)
Batman Returns - 0 Points (-1)

ELIMINATED:
Planet of the Apes
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Alice in Wonderland
Mars Attacks!
Sleepy Hollow
Big Fish
Pee-Wee's Big Adventure
Edward Scissorhands
Ed Wood
Beetlejuice
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Batman Returns

WINNER: Batman (1989).
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 16239
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Congratulations to Batman. :)
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Because some of this thread was dedicated to discussing/arguing about the Batman movies, this is probably the best place to say it: I've watched quite a bit of Batman Returns since criticising it (although I haven't watched it all), and...it's much better than I remember. Michelle Pfeiffer is fantastic, the dialogue and messages are very good, and its characters have depth. However...I still prefer the Christopher Nolan movies.
Lazario wrote:Are you sure you're not talking about Nolan's thick on the outside, hollow on the inside sporty action thrillers?
Sorry, but what the hell is wrong with them? Even though I've gained new respect for the Burton Batmans (although I already liked 1989's Batman quite a bit), they're nowhere near as good as Nolan's films.

I watched The Dark Knight for the umpteenth time quite recently, and I still find it spectacular. Look at the tension, sublime acting and great music editing in this sequence:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dJma8pVAvH4" frameborder="0"></iframe>

I think everything from 1:20 to 1:50 is especially phenomenal; the way the quiet, unsettling music sneaks in is brilliant. Even though the kid playing Gordon's son is slightly irritating at the very end of the film, during the moments when he's held hostage by Two-Face he is very good. And as over-the-top as Christian Bale's Batman voice can get, his lines still hold weight and power. Then of course there's Gary Oldman being great as usual, and Aaron Eckhart making Two-Face even more tragic and depressing than he already was.

How can you not enjoy The Dark Knight?!
User avatar
Mooky
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 2:44 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Post by Mooky »

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Because some of this thread was dedicated to discussing/arguing about the Batman movies, this is probably the best place to say it: I've watched quite a bit of Batman Returns since criticising it (although I haven't watched it all), and...it's much better than I remember. Michelle Pfeiffer is fantastic, the dialogue and messages are very good, and its characters have depth. However...I still prefer the Christopher Nolan movies.
Well, I'm happy about your new-found respect for the movie. All my arguing in favor of Batman Returns / against BB/TDK was not intended to make you dislike Nolan films, but rather to present why I thought Burton films were superior to them. I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong - like I said before, I really enjoy BB/TDK to a degree. In a perfect world, a perfect live-action Batman film would be somewhere in-between these two universes (much like Batman: The Animated Series) and we would not even be having this discussion. Either way, I'm really glad your disapproval of BR has whittled down :).
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Mooky wrote:In a perfect world, a perfect live-action Batman film would be somewhere in-between these two universes (much like Batman: The Animated Series) and we would not even be having this discussion.
Agreed. Batman: TAS is the most faithful and definitive version of Batman.
Post Reply