Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Pluskylang Great Film overall

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Andrewwebb Not a great film but ending is quite good. I generally like Christoph Waltz but think he's completely miscast here. Otherwise it's an ok film but no more than that.

sddavis63 I have to say right off the top that I am no aficionado of art. I say that to make the point that there's nothing about the basic subject of the movie that leaped out at me. It was my wife who watched this and told me that because she had enjoyed it so much I had to watch it. And after checking it out I decided that since it starred Amy Adams (whom I adore!) I would watch it. And I will say that it's an interesting movie - a biopic about Margaret Keane and her efforts to gain credit for her artwork. Mind you, a lot of that was lost on me. I am so unfamiliar with the art world that I had never heard of Margaret Keane or Walter Keane or big-eyed waifs. That was all brand new to me - and, I suppose in that sense, that made the movie worthwhile (although not particularly engrossing) because I did learn something from it.Margaret Keane's life was difficult. She seems to have been a woman who lacked self-confidence. The movie opens with her leaving what must have been a troubled marriage (although nothing much is really said about it) with her young daughter in tow. There's a little bit about her attempts to make it as a single mom (in the 1950's, when that would have been very much out of the ordinary) but for the most part this deals with her relationship with Walter Keane. They meet and fall in love very quickly. Walter had been painting (maybe?) Parisian street scenes while Margaret had concentrated on her big-eyed children. They quickly fell in love and married and Walter began both showing Margaret's work - and claiming credit for it. "Keane" artwork became both popular and profitable as it started to be spun off onto posters and postcards, etc. etc., but even as the deception gave Walter and Margaret a very comfortable life, the tension between the two increased. Basically, the movie depicts Margaret's increasing resentment of Walter taking credit for her work, and Walter becoming ever more controlling and even dangerous. The movie culminates in their eventual divorce and a court trial which established her as the artist. I found this interesting as a study of Margaret's life and personality and her growing self-confidence, and it was very satisfying to see her finally revealed as the artist. The background reading I've done since suggests this portrayal (while taking a few liberties) is largely accurate. Amy Adams did a fine job in the role. Christoph Waltz was solid as Walter - sometimes fun-loving, sometimes hostile and frightening, sometimes even violent. Personally, I appreciated the look at the snobbery of the world of art critics, who are largely represented by Terence Stamp's portrayal of New York Times art critic John Canaday - who hated the big eyes. But frankly if people liked the big-eyes then who was Canaday (or any other art critic) to speak so contemptuously about them? The movie was directed by Tim Burton. There's not a lot of his classic, quirky Burton-esque style on display here - although the opening scene, which was a picture of the street Margaret lived on with her first husband, did strike me as the sort of street scene you'd find in perhaps "Edward Scissorhands."I found this movie enjoyable and interesting - but because of my lack of interest in the art world I had no strong connection with any of the characters. Had I been interested in art I would probably have rated it much higher than the 6/10 that I gave it.

drpruner I haven't seen the movie, since I'm familiar with Keane's story. The BBC had a piece on it ca. 2015. Recently a friend, a fellow Witness of Jehovah, saw it and said the portrayal of our Bible work was quite accurate. This is unusual in popular media.I offer this for any who are interested in an introduction to our 'strange deeds and unusual work'. Isa 28:21, NWTWe should all remember that Hollywood's claim "based on a true story" may mean only that the words 'a', 'and', and 'the' are found in both the original and the screenplay. :-)

Anthony Iessi I've said time and again that Tim Burton's dark quirkiness can be quite grating. But never has he made a movie so sorely missing it than Big Eyes. If you've seen any kind of biopic, you've already seen Big Eyes. Anyone could've made this film. If you didn't tell me who directed it, I would've never guessed Tim Burton. A wonderfully twisted world is waiting to be explored from Margaret Keane's haunting paintings, but that world is never discovered. Amy Adams is always a striking cinematic figure, but Burton doesn't allow her to bring that much life or personality into Margaret Keane. Christoph Waltz is Walter Keane and unfortunately this is his least convincing role. Hard to believe and even harder to watch, Waltz chews up the scenery, but brings no nuance to Walter Keane, other than being manic and insecure. He has captured the silver screen as a cold-blooded Nazi and a cunning bounty hunter, but playing an everyday schnook proves to be too oppressive for Waltz. I wasn't moved or engaged. The opportunity for a feminist revenge tale is hinted at early on, but the film gives up on it halfway through.