Dumbo (2019) review

It’s safe to say that out of all the live-action remakes that Disney has been making since 2010, Dumbo has been one of the more controversial entries to come from this venture. A lot of this stems from the legacy of its source material, which was Disney Animation’s 4^th official feature. The original Dumbo was released in 1941 and provided the studio a way to recoup from the financial losses of their previous outing, 1940’s Fantasia, by being a far more simplified project from a production standpoint. Nevertheless, the film went on to become yet another classic for the studio and has continued to be a staple of Disney’s pop-cultural identity, including the creation of one of the most iconic attractions at Disney theme parks, Dumbo the Flying Elephant. In other words, while a lot of animation fans have been against the idea of remaking Disney’s animated classics, to begin with, it probably doesn’t help that this latest live-action remake happens to be one that’s using one of the studio’s Golden Age features as its source material. There was also some skepticism when it was announced who was directing it, Tim Burton, effectively making this the second live-action Disney remake that he’s directed after 2010’s Alice in Wonderland. Sure, Burton may be one of the most iconic directors in the industry, but his recent directorial efforts haven’t necessarily been as successful as his earlier outings. And yet, you may be surprised to find that Dumbo kind of fits perfectly into Burton’s directorial wheelhouse. Thus, while it may not be perfect, this new take on the story of a lovable flying elephant manages to be a charming endeavor complete with Burton’s trademark visual flair.   

Following the end of World War I, veteran Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) returns to his old job as one of the performers for the Medici Brothers’ family circus. Unfortunately, the circus has fallen on hard times recently to the point where owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) had to sell the horses that were key to Holt’s original act after the death of his wife. Thus, Medici assigns Holt to be the circus’ new elephant handler, and as luck would have it, one of the elephants, Jumbo, ends up giving birth to a young calf. However, when it’s discovered that the young elephant has abnormally large ears, thus earning him the derogatory nickname of ‘Dumbo’, Medici tries to keep this a secret from the public to avoid any potential humiliation. Things begin to change, however, when Holt’s daughter Milly (Nico Parker) and son Joe (Finley Hobbins) discover that Dumbo can fly with the help of his ears and a single feather. Thus, when Dumbo’s ability is eventually revealed to the public, he quickly becomes a sensation. This ends up attracting the attention of theme park tycoon V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Medici a business partnership to have Dumbo perform at the circus at his lavish theme park, Dreamland. There, he’s partnered with Dreamland’s star performer, trapeze artist Colette Marchant (Eva Green), to become what Vandevere hopes will be his latest and greatest attraction. However, when it’s discovered that Dumbo’s mom is being held in one of Dreamland’s exhibits, the Farriers and their friends begin to formulate a plan so that they can reunite the young elephant with his mama.

To this film’s credit, it arguably has a lot more opportunities to do something new with the story of Dumbo when compared to most other Disney live-action remakes. At just 64 minutes long, the original Dumbo is one of Disney Animation’s shortest features and, as a result, is very simply-plotted. In fact, the iconic moment where Dumbo discovers his flying ability doesn’t even occur until the very end of the film. Thus, the remake does expand upon this plot to the point where almost all the major moments from the original film, including Dumbo’s mom being locked up for attacking people, the famous ‘clown firefighter’ circus act where Dumbo flies in the circus for the first time, and of course, the ‘Baby Mine’ sequence are covered in just the first half hour. Admittedly, though, the new stuff that is added in to bolster the narrative for a longer runtime is sort of in the same simplistic vein. Compared to the original, this version relies a lot more on its human characters, thus meaning that there aren’t any talking animals; no baby-delivering storks, no ostracizing adult elephants, and no Timothy Q. Mouse (though he is alluded to, for the record). Despite this, however, the new plot that’s built around them is a rather basic ‘stop the corrupt businessman’ storyline that doesn’t really give these new human characters a lot to work with. Ultimately, though, there are still plenty of great moments of emotional poignancy in this film, and yes, many of them involve the adorable CGI elephant that shares its name.

As with any Tim Burton film, one of the biggest reasons to watch this new take on Dumbo is to see the latest showcase of that lavish visual style that he’s well-known for. And while this one doesn’t rely on his usual gothic imagery, it still manages to capture the majestic atmosphere of a classic circus of yesteryear with its bright color scheme and grand locales. Plus, unlike Burton’s previous Disney remake, Alice in Wonderland, this film has a far more balanced mix of practical sets and CG imagery instead of being a case of actors in front of a green-screen for a good chunk of the runtime. Speaking of actors, this film’s cast manages to do solid jobs in their respective roles even though, as noted earlier, they don’t really have a lot of material to work with. Much of the main cast is made up of Burton’s most frequent collaborators. Danny DeVito, for example, provides much of the film’s comic relief as the occasionally bumbling Medici while Eva Green (one of Burton’s newer regulars) gets a decent little arc in which her character Colette slowly but surely warms up to the little flying elephant. Meanwhile, Michael Keaton manages to overcome his character’s straight-forward ‘corrupt businessman’ persona thanks to his slick charisma. And yes, I too am amazed that this Disney-released film managed to get away with a villain character who’s clearly meant to be a caricature of Walt Disney himself. Finally, closing out the main cast is Colin Farrell as Holt Farrier and Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins as his children Milly and Joe, all of whom help bolster the film’s big emotional moments due to them taking on the role that Timothy Q. Mouse had in the original as Dumbo’s biggest allies.

As noted in the intro, there was quite a bit of skepticism when it was announced that Tim Burton would be directing this film because it didn’t seem like the kind of project that he’s known for doing. And yet, it ironically makes perfect sense for him to direct Dumbo because the character’s status as an outsider amongst his peers at the circus due to his large ears ties very effectively into Burton’s tendency to do films about outcast-type characters as evident from the likes of Edward Scissorhands and his two Batman films, and that’s just to name a few. Sure enough, this new take on Dumbo once again succeeds in endearing audiences to its titular protagonist. And while the new stuff that’s added in to buff up the plot is ironically just as simple in execution when compared to everything that we got from the hour-long 1941 original, its heart is very much in the right place. Plus, as one would expect from a Tim Burton production, its gorgeous visuals are second to none right down to the various nods to the original… and yes, that includes a reference to the infamous ‘Pink Elephants on Parade’ sequence. In short, while I’m not saying that it’s ‘better’ than the original Dumbo, it’s still a worthy adaptation of a Disney classic. And as anyone who’s been following this blog for a while will recall, this sums up my views on Disney’s live-action remakes in a nutshell. Contrary to what some may claim, these aren’t meant to be ‘replacements’ for their animated counterparts. Instead, they’re simply interesting new takes on these iconic stories, and regardless of how they turn out, the originals will still be there at the end of the day for both young and old to enjoy. And while this film does break the streak of well-received remakes that the studio has been experiencing since 2015’s Cinderella, I’m still genuinely looking forward to all the new spins on the animated classics of my childhood.

Rating: 4/5

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) review

In 2016, I did a ‘Directorial Retrospective’ on the filmography of the most eccentric filmmaker in all of Hollywood, Tim Burton, who’s brought us classics like Beetlejuice, Batman, Ed Wood, and Edward Scissorhands, just to name a few. However, I decided to leave off one of his most notable films mainly because he didn’t direct it, and yet, seeing how it’s celebrating its 25^th anniversary this year, I figured that it was now the perfect time to finally talk about one of Tim Burton’s most iconic creations, The Nightmare Before Christmas. But again, to debunk one of the internet’s longest-running myths, this film was not directed by Tim Burton. Instead, it was only produced by him as an adaptation of a poem that he had written in 1982 while working as an animator at Disney. Directorial duties ultimately went to Henry Selick, who would later go on to direct other stop-motion animated classics like 1996’s James and the Giant Peach (which Burton also produced) and 2009’s Coraline. And while The Nightmare Before Christmas was initially restricted to Disney’s Touchstone Pictures banner for fear of being too scary for younger audiences, calling it one of the most beloved films of all-time nowadays would be a massive understatement. Upon its release, it became the highest-grossing stop-motion animated film of its time, and it would eventually get properly placed under the Disney banner several years later thanks to annual 3-D re-releases. But this film’s massive imprint on the world of pop culture doesn’t stop there. Its characters have made various appearances at Disney parks, Disneyland’s iconic Haunted Mansion attraction does a special Holiday overlay every year based around the film, and it’s also been featured in several installments of the popular Kingdom Hearts video game series. And when you watch the film that started it all, it’s easy to see why it’s become a holiday tradition for its many devoted fans as it’s truly one of the all-time greats.

In a world where all the major holidays are represented by a collection of fantastical realms, one of the most prominent is the one found behind a pumpkin-shaped door in a tree known as Halloween Town. This land of monsters, ghouls, demons, and all the creatures that you’d expect from this kind of place is ruled by the benevolent ‘Pumpkin King’, Jack Skellington (voiced by Chris Sarandon, with singing vocals by Danny Elfman). However, unbeknownst to the residents of Halloween Town, Jack has begun to grow bored of all the usual Halloween routines and is desperate for something different. Luckily for him, that ‘something different’ soon comes around when he finds the entrances to the other holiday-themed worlds and is immediately drawn to the one themed around Christmas, Christmas Town. Amazed by the sights and sounds of this wondrous landscape, Jack decides that it’s time for the people of Halloween Town to try their hand at this ‘Christmas’ thing. Thus, despite the skepticism of Sally (voiced by Catherine O’Hara), a rag doll who has feelings for Jack, the Pumpkin King leads the rest of the town in preparations to develop their own Christmas, blissfully unaware of how people will react to their unique methods. This plan of theirs also includes them kidnapping the one they call ‘Sandy Claws’ (voiced by Ed Ivory) so that Jack can take his place as the one who gives out all the toys to folks all over the world. However, things get a little more complicated when the three kids who Jack sends to kidnap Santa, Lock (voiced by Paul Reubens), Shock (also voiced by Catherine O’Hara), and Barrel (also voiced by Danny Elfman), instead bring him to the sinister Bogeyman, Oogie Boogie (voiced by Ken Page), who has sinister plans for old St. Nick.

Even after 25 years and all the various stop-motion animated films that have come out since then, the stop-motion animation in this film still stands as some of the best to come from the medium. For those who aren’t that familiar with the process, stop-motion animation is usually quite a laborious procedure to the point where there are often only a few frames of animation that are finished in a single day, and one can only imagine how long it must’ve taken to film some of the sequences in this film, especially the final fight between Jack and Oogie Boogie. Tim Burton may not have been the director on this one, but his trademark visuals are on full display, with director Henry Selick and their team of over 100 artists doing an amazing job when it comes to honoring Burton’s unique style. Plus, while the folks at Disney may have been initially fearful of the film being too intense and scary for younger audiences, this ultimately isn’t that big of an issue. Because the film maintains such a lighthearted and lively atmosphere throughout, its dark, macabre humor (which, of course, is another Burton trademark) manages to undercut the darkest moments in the story without completely neutering any of its horror elements. Just look at the classic sequence where the people of Earth witness Halloween Town’s distorted rendition of Christmas, effectively making the film a fun, twisted spin on classic holiday specials a la Rankin-Bass. And, of course, this film is backed by one of the best soundtracks of all-time courtesy of Tim Burton’s most frequent collaborator, Danny Elfman, with a wide variety of classic tunes ranging from lavish show-tunes like ‘This is Halloween’, ‘What’s This?’, and ‘Oogie Boogie’s Song’ to wistful solos like ‘Jack’s Lament’ and ‘Sally’s Song’.

This film also benefits heavily from a tightly-written script that never skimps on its plot or characters throughout its breezy 76-minute run-time. Nothing ever feels underwritten and nothing ever feels overdone in this endearing story of someone who’s just trying to find a new way to spice up his life. With that in mind, the one and only Jack Skellington proves to be an incredibly sympathetic and likable character right out the gate, even when his optimism about his Christmas plans makes him a little naïve (though not in a ‘bad’ way, to be clear…) when it comes to the consequences of where it’ll lead him. This also applies to a lot of the other characters in this film, because even though they come from a world of scary monsters that regularly celebrates everything that there is to do with Halloween, a lot of them are just as good-natured as Jack is and their passion for the holiday is apparent throughout. There’s Jack’s main love interest Sally, who helps to keep the Pumpkin King in line (after all, she is, as Santa puts it, ‘the only one who makes any sense around this insane asylum’) while also pining for his affections, leading to a sweet romance between the two. There’s the two-faced (figuratively AND literally) mayor of Halloween Town (Glenn Shadix) who consistently (and hilariously) reminds everyone that he’s ‘only an elected official here’. And as for the main villain Oogie Boogie, while his screen-time is mostly reserved for the second half of the film, cabaret singer Ken Page very much steals the show as the exuberant, gambling Bogeyman.     

Now I’ll openly admit that I didn’t necessarily ‘grow up’ with The Nightmare Before Christmas the same way that a lot of people from my generation did. At the very least, I was generally familiar with it thanks to Jack and company’s many appearances in Kingdom Hearts and some instances of seeing it in print and whatnot, but to the best of my knowledge, I never watched the film in full until I was already a teenager. Thankfully, though, this did not have a negative effect on my thoughts on the film after that initial viewing. The Nightmare Before Christmas is a meticulously crafted masterpiece, and yes, ‘meticulously crafted’ is a fitting advective in this scenario given that this is a stop-motion animated film. All the hard work that Selick, Burton, and their team did to make this film happen can be seen on-screen, with gorgeous stop-motion animation and a delightfully wacky visual style that is one of the best representations of the artistry that has made Tim Burton the legendary filmmaker that he still is today. This is then paired nicely with a well-written script with layered characters that, in turn, features some of the best songs to ever come out of an animated musical. And at the end of the day, one of the biggest reasons as to why The Nightmare Before Christmas is such a timeless classic is that it manages to work as both a Halloween film and a Christmas film, perfectly representing the best of both holidays to produce what is easily one of the most enjoyable films to watch this time of year.

Rating: 5/5!

And that concludes this review of Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas, directed by Henry Selick (Remember that, internet!). Thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal memories of this legendary film.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016) review

Ever since he made his feature-length directorial debut in 1985 with Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, Tim Burton has proven himself to be one of the most visually unique filmmakers in the entire film industry. Thanks to big hits like Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, and his two Batman films, he’s become well-known for his dark and quirky gothic style. And even though some of his more recent films haven’t exactly fared as well with critics, including the remakes that he did of films like Planet of the Apes and Alice in Wonderland, he’s still very much one of those directors whose films are always worth checking out just to see what he does next. For his latest film, Burton takes on a very Burton-esque kind of story that some might describe as a cross between Harry Potter and X-Men; Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children. The film is based on a 2011 book of the same name by author Ransom Riggs, who was inspired by a series of vintage photographs that he had been collecting over the years. Originally intended to be released as a picture book, Riggs instead decided to use these photographs and craft a story about a series of children with extraordinary powers or, to be more precise, ‘peculiar’ powers. The book became a big hit and has since led to two sequels, 2014’s Hollow City and 2015’s Library of Souls. Five years later, it now spawns a feature film directed by the one and only master of the macabre himself, Tim Burton. And while it ultimately may not be one of his ‘best’ films, it’s still a solidly entertaining film that highlights Burton’s talents as a director, especially in terms of visuals.  

As the film begins, 16-year old Jacob Portman (Asa Butterfield) is suddenly dealt with the tragic loss of his grandfather Abraham (Terence Stamp). When he was younger, Jacob’s grandfather always used to tell him stories about a group of children with extraordinary abilities (or ‘peculiarities’ as they’re referred to in the film) living on an island in Wales being looked after by a woman named Miss Peregrine. Given the mysterious circumstances surrounding his grandfather’s death, Jacob convinces his parents to let him travel to the island so that he can seek ‘closure’ and find out whether or not his stories were true. Once he gets there, Jacob does end up coming across the children his grandfather told him about and they take him to their home, where he meets their protector, Miss Peregrine (Eva Green). Jacob learns that because those with ‘peculiarities’ are often frowned upon by others, Miss Peregrine and her children live in a peaceful abode away from the outside world, with Miss Peregrine having the ability to keep them within a closed time loop that has them reliving the same day over and over again safe from harm. However, the peaceful lives of the ‘Peculiar Children’ are soon threatened by the arrival of the Wights, a group of immortal human-like creatures, led by Mr. Barron (Samuel L. Jackson), who hunt peculiars for their eyes in order to maintain their immortality. When Mr. Barron ends up taking Miss Peregrine hostage, Jacob takes on the responsibility of keeping the Peculiar Children safe from Barron and his fellow Wights, as Jacob learns that he himself has the ‘peculiarity’ of seeing the monstrous creatures known as hollowgasts that the Wights control and yet are invisible to others.

Admittedly this film starts off on a rather slow note. It does take a little while before it really gets going and starts to get into the stuff with the titular ‘Peculiar Children’. But once it does, I can safely say that this is where the film really starts to shine. In terms of story, this definitely matches with Burton’s visual sensibilities as well as his tendency to focus on characters who are generally seen as ‘outcasts’ (e.g. Edward Scissorhands, Batman, etc.). As a result, the visuals are definitely the best part of the film, from the action sequences (the big action sequence involving re-animated skeletons and hollowgasts at a carnival is easily the best moment in the entire film) to even minor details like the shift in color scheme that occurs whenever characters go in and out of time loops. But ultimately the key success of this film comes in the form of its titular ‘Peculiar Children’. While her name does come first in the title, Miss Peregrine ultimately isn’t the main character of the story; the children are. Granted, like I said before, it takes a while before they really start to let the kids use their abilities but when they do, they’re easily the best part of the film. They work very well together and there is a nice variety to their abilities, from Emma (Ella Purnell), who can control air, to Olive (Lauren McCrostie), who can control fire (and yes, their abilities were switched from the book which is really no big deal in terms of the overall story), to Enoch (Finlay MacMillan), who can bring inanimate objects to life (e.g. those aforementioned skeletons). So in short, while the first half of the film does start off rather slow, the second half does end it on a good note.

Because the focus is on the kids, they get plenty of screen time during the second half of the film. And for a cast of general unknowns, they all do a really solid job. Sure character development is admittedly pretty simple in this story but the ‘Peculiar Children’ do make up for it thanks to the variety of their abilities and their solid camaraderie. As for some of the other members of the cast, Asa Butterfield does a good job acting as the audience’s avatar in this world of peculiarity. He also has solid romantic chemistry with Ella Purnell in what will no doubt be her breakout role as Emma, who’s easily the principal member of the ‘Peculiar Children’ and quite frankly provides a lot of the film’s heart. While Miss Peregrine does end up taking a back seat to the Peculiar Children during the second half of the story, Eva Green, in her second collaboration with Tim Burton following 2012’s Dark Shadows, brings just the right amount of eccentricity to the role while also very much conveying the compassion that she has for the Peculiar Children that she protects. As she put it, she’s ‘Scary Poppins with a Big Heart’. And finally there’s Samuel L. Jackson as the film’s main villain, Mr. Barron. I’ll just say it straight up; Jackson is very much hamming it up here. But if you ask me, that’s totally fine. Campy Samuel L. Jackson is fun Samuel L. Jackson and it’s very clear that he’s having quite a lot of fun in this role. And just like in The Legend of Tarzan earlier this year, he gets plenty of the best lines.

Admittedly I wouldn’t really say that Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children is one of Tim Burton’s best films. Given the films that he’s made over the years, this one is admittedly a bit standard by comparison, especially in terms of story. And as noted earlier, it does take a bit for it to really get going. But once it does, that’s when the film really starts to shine. It smartly focuses on what it should be focusing on; the ‘Peculiar Children’. The kids are easily the stars of the show and they all do a really nice job for being a cast of general unknowns. The other members of the cast are solid as well and this is very much a Tim Burton film in terms of visual style and how it reflects Burton’s quirky sensibilities as a filmmaker. Overall, if one were to rank all of the films that Burton has directed over the years, this one would fit somewhere nicely in the middle. As noted in the intro, this is based off of the first installment in a series of books that author Ransom Riggs wrote that was directly inspired by the collection of vintage photographs that he has amassed over the years. At the moment it’s unclear if this will be followed by a sequel and for the record, this can technically be classified as being part of the ‘Young Adult’ genre that’s had generally mixed results in terms of film adaptations the past few years. But in that case, at the very least I can say that for a film that’s based off of a ‘Young Adult’ novel, this is definitely one of the better ones and I wouldn’t mind seeing another film set in this universe.

Rating: 3.5/5

Directorial Retrospective: Tim Burton

It’s time once again, folks, for another Directorial Retrospective here on Rhode Island Movie Corner. We’ve covered an eclectic bunch of filmmakers over the course of this ongoing series. Since it was started in March 2014, we’ve looked back upon the filmographies of filmmakers like DC’s current top director Zack Snyder, the master of ‘Bayhem’ himself Michael Bay, David Fincher, the man behind dark thrillers like Se7en and Zodiac, Christopher Nolan, the man who revived the Batman franchise with his Dark Knight trilogy, and master of snappy dialogue Quentin Tarantino. And today’s subject is yet another highly notable filmmaker; the master of quirky macabre himself, Tim Burton. His newest film, an adaptation of Ransom Riggs’ Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, hits theaters this weekend so I thought it’d be the perfect time to look back upon the filmography of the director who is well known for his uniquely dark and gothic style… and for repeatedly casting Johnny Depp in his films. He’s had quite a long career, having been directing feature films since 1985. And he has also worked in the film industry long before that, including a brief stint as an animator for Disney. Since then, he’s done quite a lot of different films, from superhero flicks to stop-motion animated films to even a few biopics. And while critical reception towards his films has tended to stray a bit more negative with his more recent efforts, there’s no denying that Burton’s trademark visual style will always be something to look forward to with each new film that he does, hence why he’s one of my favorite directors. So with that said, it’s time to look back upon the filmography of Tim Burton… and for the record, this will only count films that he himself directed. So even though it’s a major part of Burton’s filmography to the point where some might actually confuse it as being directed by him, I will not be covering The Nightmare Before Christmas in today’s post.

PEE-WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE (1985)

After spending a few years as an animator for Disney, working on films like The Fox and the Hound and even Tron, Tim Burton was hired by comedian Paul Reubens to direct the first feature-length film starring the latter’s highly popular stage character; Pee-Wee Herman. The end result was Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, an extremely charming family film that very much set the stage for what we would come to expect from the master of macabre on an annual basis. The film is full of Burton’s trademark surreal and kooky imagery (e.g. the production design), which sometimes results in some really freaky scenes, namely the scene in which Pee-Wee gets a ride from a truck driver named Large Marge (who is later revealed to be a ‘ghost’) and she pulls one hell of a scary Claymation face at him. But at its core, this film very much wears its heart on its sleeve. Paul Reubens of course is excellent as Pee-Wee, the innocent man-child embarking on the journey of a lifetime to retrieve his most valuable possession; his bike. And that journey is a very fun one to go on as it is full of memorable characters and moments, from the scene in which Pee-Wee dances to the song ‘Tequila’ in order to appease a bunch of bikers to the scene where, while suffering from a temporary case of amnesia, he notes that ‘he remembers the Alamo’. It all culminates in a fun chase involving Pee-Wee and security guards through the Warner Bros. studio lot. With this film, Burton manages to capture a perfect slice of Americana and as a result, Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure definitely stands out as one of his most entertaining directorial efforts. It’s interesting to note that when Reubens first developed the character, originally his style of humor was a bit more adult. That changed with this film and the subsequent TV series Pee-Wee’s Playhouse and as a result, Pee-Wee very much became a cultural icon for both young and old. That was very much clear to me when I saw how positive the crowd was at a screening for the very enjoyable follow-up, Pee-Wee’s Big Holiday, at SXSW this past March. People love Pee-Wee Herman and this film is a prime example why.

Rating: 4/5

BEETLEJUICE (1988)

Following his work on Pee-Wee, Burton then took on an original project in the form of Beetlejuice. The film centers around a couple from Connecticut, Adam and Barbara Maitland, who unexpectedly pass away after a car accident. Somehow still connected to the human world, they are then forced to deal with the unwelcome arrival of a new family, the Deetz family, that moves into their house. Looking to get rid of them, they consider getting help from the titular supernatural ‘exorcist’ Betelgeuse (note: that’s how his name is spelled in the film) played by Michael Keaton. But as it turns out, Betelgeuse proves to be quite a handful. This film is an absolute visual delight, which of course is something that you can always expect from a Burton film. Not only that but this is a PG-rated horror film (back when filmmakers were able to get away with that) that greatly appeals to both young and old, especially thanks to Michael Keaton’s excellent turn in the title role. Sure he may not actually be in the film as much as you think (he’s only in it for less than 20 minutes) but he’s an absolute comedic riot from beginning to end. It very much showcased the versatility of Keaton’s acting chops, which should’ve been enough proof that he was more than capable of taking on the lead role in Burton’s next film (more on that in a sec). But the rest of the cast is really solid as well; Geena Davis, Alec Baldwin, Jeffrey Jones, Catherine O’Hara, and Winona Ryder in one of her earliest roles. In short, with an excellent visual style and a scene-stealing performance from Michael Keaton in the title role, Beetlejuice is definitely a classic in Tim Burton’s directorial career. What more can be said but… “Day-o, day-o, Daylight come and me wan’ go home”

Rating: 5/5!

BATMAN (1989)

Having talked about this film before in my retrospective onthe Batman franchise back in May 2014, I’ll keep things rather brief this time around in detailing Tim Burton’s 1989 adaptation of the popular DC Comics character of the same name. This film is very much one of the pioneering entries of the superhero genre, namely in regards to it establishing a much more serious tone than the more light-hearted and sometimes very campy superhero film/TV projects of years past, especially those that involved Batman. As for the film itself, it’s admittedly become rather dated in certain parts, namely from the odd choice of having a soundtrack full of Prince songs. However, it still holds up in quite a few other places, namely in regards to its lead performances. Michael Keaton, despite being the original archetype of a controversial superhero film casting choice, proved to be an excellent Batman thanks to his ability to be totally unassuming while as Batman’s true identity, billionaire Bruce Wayne. But the real star of the show is Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Nicholson very much steals the show as the eccentric villain but the film does do a solid job of balancing out the roles of Batman and the Joker in the story (at least when compared to the other Burton Batman film… more on that in a bit). I also like how this film does connect the two characters by showing that both were responsible for making them who they are today; the Joker, back when he was known as ‘Jack Napier’, is revealed to be the mugger who killed Bruce’s parents while Batman is the one who knocks Napier into a vat of chemicals, which turns him into the Joker. Sure the part about the Joker killing the Waynes obviously isn’t ‘comic-accurate’ but in the case of the 80’s era Batman films, I think it’s a decent plot twist. In short, despite the parts of it that haven’t aged very well, Burton’s Batman is still a pretty solid entry in the superhero genre and will always be one of the most important as it helped kick-start a new generation of films for the genre while reaffirming Batman’s status as one of the genre’s most popular characters.

Rating: 4.5/5

EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990)

Edward Scissorhands is easily one of Tim Burton’s most personal films. Keeping in line with Burton’s tendency to focus on outcasts (e.g. Pee-Wee, Batman, etc.), the film tells the story of the titular Edward, an artificial man whose inventor died before he was finished, resulting in him having scissor-like tools for hands. Found alone in the inventor’s abandoned mansion by the local Avon saleswoman, Edward soon finds himself being introduced to suburban life. What follows is quite simply one of Burton’s absolute best films. Of course visually the film is excellent, from Burton’s typical ‘dark’ visuals to the intentionally cheesy pastel colors that are used for the houses in the suburb. But at its core, the film also very much wears its heart on its sleeve by allowing us, the audience, to fully sympathize with Edward. This was the first collaboration between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp and the latter delivers one of the best performances of his career as the titular character. He’s very much an endearing character and it’s fun to watch him interact with the real world. Obviously though, his ‘scissor hands’ prove to be a problem at times, sometimes leading to unfortunate situations. And I won’t lie… the ending to this film is quite the emotional one as Edward accepts his fate as an outsider and shares one final moment with the girl he fell in love with, Kim, played by Winona Ryder who also does a fantastic job here as well. In short, Edward Scissorhands is a very touching and beautiful tale of, to quote the film’s theatrical poster, ‘an uncommonly gentle man’. This is arguably Tim Burton’s masterpiece.

Rating: 5/5!

BATMAN RETURNS (1992)

This might be a rather controversial opinion but unfortunately I don’t think that Burton’s second Batman film, 1992’s Batman Returns, holds up very well after all of these years. This was very much a case in which Burton was given perhaps way too much creative control over the project because while the film once again carries his trademark style, it goes a bit overboard this time around. It legitimately gets to the point where it actually proved to be rather controversial amongst parents, to the point where McDonald’s canceled their Happy Meal toy-line for the film, who didn’t want their kids to see it due to more intense scenes of violence and even a few sexual innuendos. And yeah, all of the sexual references do feel quite out of place. Seriously the whole scene in which Catwoman and the Penguin meet for the first time is pretty much nothing but sex talk (Penguin: “Just the pussy I’ve been looking for”). But another issue with the film is that it actually restricts the role of Batman in the story despite the fact that, you know, he’s supposed to be the main character of the damn film. Clearly Tim Burton wasn’t that big a fan of the character because in both films, the villains technically get more screen-time than the Dark Knight himself. It may have worked fine in the previous film as a result of the solid balance between Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson and their overall roles in the plot but here Keaton really doesn’t get much to do this time around. Instead, the focus shifts more towards Danny DeVito’s Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman, who are admittedly rather ‘meh’ villains at best.

DeVito’s take on the Penguin very much contrasts with the typical portrayal of the character in the comics. Instead of being a classy mobster and a ‘gentleman of crime’, this film envisions the character as a deformed/creepy ‘sideshow freak’ who plots to kidnap/drown all of Gotham’s first born sons. And while the film does try to make the audience feel sorry for him at times due to his tragic backstory as an orphan and scenes in which he is ridiculed, his generally detestable nature and, you know, the aforementioned ‘killing first born sons’ scheme basically negates any of the film’s attempts at doing just that. At the very least, DeVito is still pretty memorable in the role. As for Pfeiffer as Catwoman, her overall role in the plot lacks focus at times but she is very much one of the film’s biggest standouts as the iconic ‘cat burglar’. Christopher Walken also proves to be quite memorable as the other ‘villain’ of the film, businessman Max Schreck. But as I stated earlier, an overt focus on the villains, not enough Batman, and an overuse of Burton’s visual style results in a film that’s way too dark and actually rather dull for the most part. As far as the pre-Nolan era Batman films are concerned, I actually prefer Joel Schumacher’s first Batman film, 1995’s Batman Forever, over Returns. And I know that seems like blasphemy to some people but A.) at least I didn’t say Batman and Robin, am I right? And B.) as cheesy as Schumacher’s films are compared to Burton’s films, Forever actually focused on Batman even with its dual villains (which actually became the trend for all future Batman films leading up to Batman v Superman). So unfortunately, due to a lack of focus, especially in regards to its titular protagonist, as well as an overly dark style, Batman Returns was a pretty lackluster follow-up to the 1989 Batman.

Rating: 2.5/5

ED WOOD (1994)

Serving as Tim Burton’s very first R-rated feature, Ed Wood tells the true story of filmmaker Edward D. Wood Jr., who in the 50’s became known for directing a bunch of films that would become regarded as some of the worst of all-time, namely due to his tendency to shoot fast and on the cheap. Specifically, this film focuses on the productions of three of his most famous films; 1953’s Glen or Glenda, 1955’s Bride of the Monster, and 1959’s Plan 9 from Outer Space. However, despite the poor reception that his films have garnered over the years, this film actually doesn’t try to demonize him. Instead, it celebrates him not by the merit of his work but through his passion for the art. No matter what the struggle, whether it was his producers constantly giving him notes or him not having enough money for filming, he mustered on because he loved doing what he was doing. As a result, up-and-coming filmmakers will no doubt connect with this film and more importantly the dreams of its main character and the idea that one’s visions are worth fighting for, the latter of which is told to Wood by none other than Orson Welles (played by Vincent D’Onofrio but voiced by Maurice LaMarche in a memorable cameo). But the film itself is also a highly entertaining biopic that’s very well-shot with its great use of black-and-white and its great attention to detail in regards to recreating the low-budget stylings of Wood’s films. Johnny Depp absolutely shines in the role of Ed Wood while Martin Landau absolutely transforms into horror icon Bela Lugosi in his Oscar-winning turn. Ed Wood is a film that both celebrates and makes fun of its title character. It recognizes that his films weren’t really of the best quality but it celebrates him for his unabashed passion. The end result is definitely another one of Burton’s best… and also one of his most underrated because it didn’t do so well commercially. Regardless, film fans will no doubt love this clearly unconventional love letter to the art of filmmaking.

Rating: 5/5!

MARS ATTACKS! (1996)

Based on the ‘infamous’ sci-fi themed trading cards of the same name that were produced in 1962, Mars Attacks!... is a very, very goofy film. That’s the key thing to remember when it comes to this film; it is absolutely ridiculous from beginning to end. With this film, Tim Burton very much made a sci-fi B-movie. From the intentionally cheesy visual effects (that were originally meant to be done via stop-motion animation before being changed to CGI in order to keep costs down) to the massive ensemble cast portraying a group of straight-up stereotypical characters, this is very much paying homage to the sci-fi B-movies of the 50’s. And when I say massive ensemble cast, I mean ‘massive ensemble cast’. You got Jack Nicholson (in two different roles, no less…), Glenn Close, Annette Bening, Pierce Brosnan, Danny DeVito, Sarah Jessica Parker, Martin Short, Michael J. Fox… and that’s seriously just to name a few. Admittedly the film takes a little while to get going as it doesn’t really get into anything alien-related until half an hour in. But once they do officially bring in the aliens and they start blowing s*** up… yeah that’s when the film starts to get really entertaining. Like the other big alien sci-fi flick that was released in 1996, Independence Day, this is very much an unadulterated popcorn flick. It is completely silly and the scenes in which the aliens attack are completely chaotic… and this film is very much self-aware of that. It clearly knows how goofy it is. I mean for crying out loud the way the aliens in this film are killed is via Slim Whitman’s ‘Indian Love Call’. In short, do not go into this film expecting Oscar-worthy material because you obviously aren’t going to get any of that here. It’s pretty darn mindless and completely cheesy from beginning to end… and it’s so damn entertaining. What more can be said but… Ack Ack! Ack Ack!

Rating: 3.5/5

SLEEPY HOLLOW (1999)

Burton’s first major R-rated ‘horror’ film, Sleepy Hollow is a unique spin on the classic short story ‘The Legend of Sleepy Hollow’ by Washington Irving, which was most famously adapted by Disney in 1949. Burton’s version takes it in a much darker direction while also straying in certain ways from the original plot. Namely, this film re-imagines the character of Ichabod Crane as a police constable who investigates into a series of killings in Sleepy Hollow that were supposedly committed by the mythical ‘Headless Horseman’. But ultimately this film isn’t as much of a ‘horror’ film as you might expect. It certainly has some dark moments as well as a solid atmosphere but overall the film actually sort of maintains a rather campy tone. That’s pretty much Burton’s filmography in a nutshell. Even with all of his films’ dark undertones and creepy imagery, they tend to be very light-hearted in tone to the point where some might find the humor in his films to be a bit too silly at times. But in the case of Sleepy Hollow, perhaps that was the point. This could be seen as an ode to the classic horror films produced by Hammer Films, namely from a stylistic perspective, and if you’re able to accept all of the goofy moments in this film, you’ll find it to be a pretty entertaining horror adventure. Depp is solid as Ichabod and is joined by an impressive ensemble cast that includes Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, and even Christopher Walken, yes Christopher Walken, as the Headless Horseman. So in short, I suggest that you go into this not taking it too seriously and not expecting it to be a straight-up horror film because if you do, you might be rather disappointed.

Rating: 3.5/5

PLANET OF THE APES (2001)

Just like Burton’s Batman films, I had gone over this film before in a previous post. In this case it was my retrospective on the Planet of the Apes franchise back in 2014 so, again, I’m going to keep things simple on this one. Basically, this was a case in which Burton wasn’t really the best choice to helm a film like this. This remake of the 1968 sci-fi classic Planet of the Apes doesn’t really feel much like a Burton film at all. Seriously if it wasn’t for the fact that Burton is one of those filmmakers who always does opening credits in his films, you’d swear it was directed by someone like Steven Spielberg. This is probably the most ‘Anti-Burton’ esque film of his career and it really shows. It’s also quite dull for the most part and most of the actors’ performances reflect that, namely Mark Wahlberg in the lead role of astronaut Leo Davidson. The only real standout member of the cast is Tim Roth as the main villain, General Thade. And of course, as many have pointed out, the film’s biggest disaster comes in the form of its ending. Simply put, it makes no sense as there was no indication as to how Thade managed to escape from the imprisonment that he ended up in during the final battle and was able to basically become the leader of an all-ape Earth. While Burton claims that this was meant to set up a sequel, that sequel never came to be and instead the franchise rebooted with the Andy Serkis-led Rise and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, which to put it bluntly are very much superior films. I’ll admit I don’t dislike this film as much as most of the internet does but there’s no denying that it was a pretty darn lackluster remake and one that Burton probably shouldn’t have decided to take on as it ends up being the least ‘Burton’ esque of his entire career.

Rating: 2/5

BIG FISH (2003)

In a way, Big Fish is Tim Burton’s Forrest Gump. Both films center around an individual and the fantastical adventures that this person has during his life. However, this film is so much more than just ‘Tim Burton’s Forrest Gump’. It is a particularly personal tale of a man who tries to reconnect with his father during the latter’s final days, as he feels that he doesn’t really know anything about his father as the result of all of the ‘tall tales’ that he often tells. So is the tale of Edward Bloom, who according to his stories met a giant, worked in a traveling circus, and caught a big catfish using his wedding ring as a lure, among other things. All of this results in an extremely charming ‘fantasy drama’ that very much maintains Burton’s knack for a unique visual style. The film also has a terrific ensemble cast, including Ewan McGregor as young Edward, Albert Finney as old Edward, Billy Crudup as Edward’s son Will, Jessica Lange as Edward’s wife Sandra, Alison Lohman as young Sandra (and seriously talk about one of the most pitch-perfect ‘younger version of a character’ castings ever because Lohman so closely resembles Lange in this film), Marion Cotillard as Will’s wife Josephine, Danny DeVito, Steve Buscemi, Helena Bonham Carter, and so on and so forth. I’ll admit that when it came to this particular entry in Burton’s filmography, I went into it fairly blind. I had heard about it before but never really knew much about it. And that ultimately was the lead-in to how I first watched this film… and I was pleasantly amused by what I saw. Overall I do think that it’s one of Burton’s best films; certainly one of his more underrated efforts. It’s very much a Burton film but one that has a strong emotional core as shown through the reconciliation of Edward and Will Bloom. If you haven’t seen this one before, this is one that I do highly recommend.

Rating: 4.5/5

CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (2005)

And now we come to what is, in my opinion, one of the most underrated films of the 21^st century. Sure it did well at the box-office and it fared perfectly fine with critics but it seems to me that you don’t really see this film talked about that much in a positive manner nowadays. I find that this is mostly due to the result of comparisons between this film and its predecessor, 1971’s Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and I can only imagine how much more frequent these comparisons have become in the wake of the recent passing of the original film’s Willy Wonka, Gene Wilder (R.I.P.). But when it comes to this new adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic children’s novel, I feel that Burton’s version is arguably just as great as the original film. Now the main reason why this film tends to get a lot of flak nowadays is Johnny Depp’s turn in the role of Willy Wonka. And yes, I’ll admit that there is a quite noticeable awkwardness to his performance as Wonka, with Depp’s version of the character acting very ‘Michael Jackson’-y throughout. Not only that, but compared to Gene Wilder’s Wonka, Depp’s Wonka doesn’t really seem to care that much about the kids who win the Golden Tickets even though, as we all know, the whole point of the ‘factory tour’ was that he was trying to find an heir. However, I don’t think that he’s outright terrible in the role. He legitimately does have his moments from time to time, which admittedly is due to the fact that, as noted earlier, this Wonka can be rather awkward at times, like when he tries to sound hip while talking to Mike Teavee. And for the record I don’t care how stupid it is, I always laugh when he says ‘Slide me some skin, soul brother!’ I also think that it’s actually pretty cool that the film decides to explore the character’s back-story, namely his rocky relationship with his father Wilbur (Christopher Lee).  

Ultimately, though, one of the main reasons as to why I feel that this version is just as good as the original is the fact that this version is actually much more faithful to the novel. That’s nothing against the 1971 film, for the record, but admittedly that version did deviate from the source material quite a bit, from Charlie’s father being ‘absent’ to having the character of Slugworth, Wonka’s candy-making rival, blackmailing the kids into stealing Everlasting Gobstoppers. Simply put, there’s a good reason why Dahl wasn’t too big on that version, to the point where he refused to have an adaptation made of the sequel novel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. As for the newer film, while there are still some changes (e.g. the aforementioned added back-story given to Wonka), it does stick to the plot of the novel a lot more. Plus, as one would expect from a Tim Burton film, it’s an absolute visual delight from beginning to end, especially once the characters enter Wonka’s fabled chocolate factory. From the elaborate rooms of the factory to the Oompa Loompa songs done by Danny Elfman that were lifted straight from the books, this is a very entertaining film that is very much a Burton film in every way. It’s a shame, then, that the film doesn’t get a lot of positive attention nowadays. And don’t get me wrong, if I were to compare the two Chocolate Factory films, the original is still the better film; it’s a classic in every sense of the word. However, that doesn’t mean that Burton’s take on the story isn’t worth checking out too. Ignoring Johnny Depp’s take on Willy Wonka for a moment, the film primarily shines thanks to its faithfulness to the source material and Burton’s always terrific visual style. This was always a personal favorite of mine growing up and as a result, I’d argue that it’s just as good as the original and is most certainly better than the internet frequently puts it out to be.

Rating: 5/5! (Yes, 5/5!)

CORPSE BRIDE (2005)

While 1993’s The Nightmare Before Christmas obviously still stands as the most famous stop-motion animated film that Tim Burton was involved with, there is a common misnomer that he himself directed the film. However, while the film very much felt like a Burton film in every way, it was Henry Selick who directed the film while Burton only produced it. 2005’s Corpse Bride was Burton’s first true stop-motion animated directorial effort. Released just a few months after Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and co-directed by Mike Johnson, who was an animator for both Nightmare and the other stop-motion film directed by Selick and produced by Burton, James and the Giant Peach, the film’s animation was done by none other than the current top dogs of stop-motion animation, Laika Entertainment. As a result, the stop-motion animation is just as terrific as it has been in their more recent efforts. Design-wise, this is a Burton film through and through and it maintains his trademark dark and quirky gothic style complete with some fun bits of humor, some legitimate emotional moments, and a collection of toe-tapping songs provided by, who else, Danny Elfman. The story, in which a young man named Victor (voiced by Johnny Depp) accidentally ends up ‘marrying’ a ‘corpse bride’ named Emily (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter), is an enjoyably original ‘fairy tale’-like story and Depp and Bonham Carter do a really nice job in regards to making their characters a likable lead duo, particularly Bonham Carter as Emily. I wouldn’t go as far as to say this is Burton’s ‘best’ stop-motion animated film, as a result of it being perhaps a little underwritten in some parts (i.e. the villain), but it’s still a very enjoyable 75-minute affair that is pure Burton in every sense of the word.

Rating: 4/5

SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET (2007)

For his next film, Burton took on his first full-blown musical with an adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s 1979 Tony Award winning musical, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Johnny Depp (of course) stars as the titular Sweeney Todd AKA Benjamin Barker, a London barber who enacts his revenge against those who wronged him in the past, namely the Judge that banished him due to the affections that he had for Todd’s wife, by killing them during appointments with him. All the while his assistant, Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter, of course), uses the bodies for her meat pies. Like Sleepy Hollow, this is very much an R-rated Tim Burton film; violent and bloody. But also like that film, the graphic violence of this film’s story is, in a way, played up more for camp. All of this comes together in yet another delightfully visual flick, courtesy of Burton, while also being well-balanced by Sondheim’s music. And said music is handled very well by the cast, even Johnny Depp who is obviously not known for doing musicals. Probably my favorite songs from the soundtrack include the piece ‘Johanna’, sung first as a solo by sailor Anthony (Jamie Campbell Bower) as he becomes enamored by Todd’s titular daughter and later done as a quartet involving Anthony, Todd, Mrs. Lovett, and a beggar woman, and ‘Pretty Women’, a duet between Todd and his arch-enemy, Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman). As someone who is a fan of musicals, I feel that this is definitely up there as one of the best of the past few years. It was certainly an ‘against-type’ kind of film for Burton but ultimately the dark nature of the musical’s plot ended up matching perfectly with his directorial style. As a result, the film is a delightfully campy but stylistically terrific experience.

Rating: 4.5/5

ALICE IN WONDERLAND (2010)

Burton’s slew of polarizing ‘remakes’ continued with Alice in Wonderland, the first of Disney’s current trend of live-action re-imaginings of their animated classics. In this case, however, Burton’s Alice is actually a ‘pseudo-sequel’ to the events of Lewis Carroll’s original novel and, in turn, the original Disney animated film from 1951. The film sees a teenaged Alice return to Wonderland (referred to in the film as ‘Underland’) where she finds herself caught in the middle of a conflict between the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) for control of Underland. As noted before in my review of the sequel, while Burton’s film proved to be quite polarizing amongst critics and audiences, it did somehow manage to reach a billion at the box-office. So to reiterate another point from that review, that means that while this film very much has its critics, it also has its fans and I’m not afraid to admit that I am a fan of these live-action Alice films. Sure they do have some noticeable flaws, namely in regards to the writing. In the case of this film, the plot does seem a bit too complicated at times for a story that’s usually portrayed as being nothing more than a series of random encounters that Alice has in the world of Wonderland (sorry, Underland). All this stuff about her having to live up to the prophecy of her being the one who slays the Jabberwocky kind of hinders the film because Alice ends up spending most of the film unsure of herself and constantly denying what’s going on by saying that she’s only in a dream. It wouldn’t be until the next film when Alice truly became a confident heroine. It should also be noted that perhaps Burton’s ‘dark’ style was a bit overdone in this film as it maintains a generally diluted color scheme throughout. Not only that, but there are a few scenes that do kind of push the limit of the PG rating, most infamously a scene in which Alice traverses the Red Queen’s moat on the heads of her victims.

But despite the flaws of its script, I still found the film to be fairly enjoyable. Even with the rather gloomy color scheme, the visual effects and overall production design in this film truly are fantastic. Sure they may get a little overbearing after a while, namely due to the fact that almost all of the scenes set in Underland were pretty much shot entirely on a green-screen, but this film still very much succeeds in regards to its visual style. As with the cast, they’re perfectly fine. As noted earlier, Mia Wasikowska’s Alice stood out more as a lead heroine in the sequel but she’s still fine here. The same can be said for Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. Of the ‘human’ cast, the biggest standout of the film is Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen. Simply put, the character is an extremely over-the-top villain and Carter absolutely steals the spotlight whenever she’s on screen. But the film also has a pretty impressive voice cast who take on the roles of the various creatures of Underland, including Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat and Alan Rickman as Absolem the Caterpillar. So in short, while this film certainly isn’t perfect it’s not one of the worst things either (the same can be said for its sequel but we’re not talking about that one today seeing how it wasn’t directed by Burton). If you’re someone who’s a big fan of the Carroll books, I’m pretty confident that you’re going to absolutely detest this film for all of the changes made to the world of Wonderland and its characters. But if you’re willing to accept some of the stranger elements of this particular adaptation, it’s ultimately harmless. I’ll admit I’m still sort of boggled by the fact that this film managed to gross over $1 billion at the box office despite its generally mixed to negative reception but like I’ve saying over and over again, these films ‘do’ have their fans so there’s at least one legit reason why it was able to reach that mark.

Rating: 3.5/5

DARK SHADOWS (2012)

The most recent collaboration between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp to date, Dark Shadows is based on the gothic soap opera of the same name created by Dan Curtis that ran from 1966 to 1971. The film, however, is unfortunately a rather bland affair despite the best efforts of Burton and the film’s cast. The biggest problem with the film is that it is very uneven, primarily in tone. The film mostly tries to be a comedy with its ‘fish out of water’ plot of Barnabas Collins (Depp) adapting to modern life in 1972 after being buried alive for nearly two centuries after being turned into a vampire by a vengeful witch. However, at times the film also tries to be a dark horror flick and while that actually does keep in line with the show’s original tone, it means that the film is constantly off tonally. And even then, the humor in the film is pretty lackluster. There are a few legit chuckles here and there but ultimately most of the jokes fall flat. This general unevenness also extends to the writing as well. Focused primarily on Barnabas and the conflict that he has with the witch who turned him into a vampire, Angelique (played by Eva Green, who enjoyably vamps it up in the role), certain members of the cast end up getting severely underused as a result. This includes Jonny Lee Miller as Roger Collins, to the point where he’s literally written out of the film entirely before it’s over, and Chloe Grace Moretz as Elizabeth Collins’ (Michelle Pfeiffer, who’s easily one of the biggest standouts of the film) daughter Carolyn who without giving it away has a rather big reveal at the end that comes right out of nowhere. So unfortunately, Dark Shadows ends up being a really disappointing effort from the duo of Burton and Depp. While I’m sure that they put their all into it, and the film certainly does have Burton’s trademark visual style along with a pretty nice 70’s rock soundtrack, the film ultimately suffers from a severe lack of focus when it comes to trying to figure out just what it wants to be.

Rating: 2/5

FRANKENWEENIE (2012)

In 1984, back when he was still working at Disney, Tim Burton directed a 30-minute black-and-white short film titled Frankenweenie about a boy named Victor Frankenstein who, in the footsteps of his namesake from the classic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, re-animates his dog Sparky with electricity after he is hit by a car. However, this ended up getting Burton fired from Disney because the studio felt that he had wasted company resources on a project that they felt they couldn’t market to their usual target audience. However, the short film was eventually released on home video, albeit partially censored, and 28 years later, after Burton re-teamed with Disney to make Alice in Wonderland, Burton returned to his original story to make a feature-length black and white stop-motion animated remake. In preparation for this film, I did watch the original short film and I must say that it’s quite good. Even as a fairly short 30-minute film, it was very much one of the early showcases of Burton’s talents as a director. The same can be said for the remake as well. Obviously some things had to be added to meet a longer run-time, namely a subplot in which Victor’s classmates re-animate their own pets, but the same solid story, which at its core is a heartwarming ‘boy and his dog’ story but is also a fun homage to classic monster films, namely Frankenstein of course, is still very much there. The stop-motion animation is excellent, especially thanks to the film maintaining the original’s black and white color scheme, and, of course, perfectly captures Burton’s gothic and quirky style. So in short, Tim Burton’s feature-length take on Frankenweenie is definitely another one of his best films as it’s also another one of his most personal efforts. I’m not going to compare this film to its live-action predecessor but I will say that both are very good and showcase his talents as a filmmaker.

Rating: 4.5/5

BIG EYES (2014)

After a long string of remakes and adaptations of various bits of media, Tim Burton scaled back things quite a bit for his next film. With a small $10 million budget, Burton helmed the second biopic of his career in 2014 with Big Eyes. This film tells the true story of artist Margaret Keane, who is most well-known for her portraits of ‘big-eyed waifs’ that became hugely popular during the 60’s. However, as it turns out, during their successful run the whole world was led to believe that they were actually done by her husband Walter Keane. It’s a fascinating story with a terrific arc for Margaret as she learns to stand up for herself in order to get the credit that she truly deserves for her ‘big eyes’. Amy Adams is absolutely fantastic in the role of Margaret, making her an incredibly endearing person with the aforementioned terrific character arc. Christoph Waltz is also fantastic in the role of Walter, as Waltz’s charisma perfectly fits Walter’s talent for showmanship, hence why he was able to turn Margaret’s paintings into the global phenomenon that they became despite the fact that he was taking all the credit for it. Stylistically, Burton definitely toned down a lot of his usual visual directing habits for this film, restricting it to mostly scenes in which Margaret imagines other people having big eyes like the children in her paintings. But despite that, it still very much feels like a Burton film and it sports a nicely bright color scheme that no doubt matches the art seen on screen. At the end of the day, what ultimately mattered was the story of what Margaret Keane had to go through, namely dealing with her credit-stealing husband, in order for her to take full credit for her work. And as a result, Big Eyes is definitely one of Burton’s best films. It’s certainly one of his most scaled-back efforts from a filmmaking perspective but considering the increasingly negative opinion towards his more recent big-budget efforts, I have the feeling that many people were happy to see him dial it back with this film.

Rating: 5/5!

Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) review

(Disclaimer: The following review of Alice Through the Looking Glass will not be addressing the recent domestic abuse scandal surrounding its star Johnny Depp. Just like the sexual abuse lawsuits that Bryan Singer dealt with prior to the release of X-Men: Days of Future Past, Depp’s domestic issues are not connected to this film in any way.)

In 2010, Disney released what would become their first big ‘live-action reimagining’ of one of their classic animated films; Alice in Wonderland. Directed by Tim Burton, the film was a ‘sequel’ to the original story of the same name written by Lewis Carroll (which of course served as the basis for Disney’s 1951 animated classic) and followed a teenaged Alice as she returned to the world of Wonderland, or to be more specific, ‘Underland’, as it’s referred to in the film. Upon its initial release, the film received mixed reviews, attracting praise for its visual style but also criticism for its writing. But when it comes to its box-office performance, that’s another story because the film actually managed to join the billion-dollar club. I’m still in shock that it was able to do so given its extremely polarizing reception, though from what I hear this was primarily due to the fact that A.) since it was released in March, there wasn’t much competition in terms of family-friendly releases and B.) it was also released in 3-D, which was still a big deal at the time thanks to James Cameron’s Avatar unlike nowadays where it rarely gets attention anymore. So because of it, we now have a sequel in the form of Alice Through the Looking Glass, though like the previous film, this film is only loosely inspired by the story that shares its name (in this case, Carroll’s 1871 sequel, Through the Looking Glass). Tim Burton isn’t in the director’s chair this time around, however. Instead, in his place is James Bobin, who most recently helmed Disney’s last two Muppets films; 2011’s The Muppets and 2014’s Muppets Most Wanted. And like the first Alice, this film has been subjected to generally mixed to negative reviews from critics. It’s clear that when it comes to these films, people either really love them or really hate them. As for me, I’ll admit I lean more towards the former. Because while the film definitely isn’t perfect, there are still some genuinely good things about it that make it worth seeing.

The film opens up three years after the events of the previous film, which ended with young Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) taking up her late father’s business in overseas trade. However, when she returns home to London, she learns that her ‘former’ fiancé, Hamish Ascot (Leo Bill), has taken over his father’s company and plans on buying her father’s ship. Amidst all of this, Alice soon finds herself summoned back to the world of Underland to help deal with a pressing matter regarding the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp). She learns that the Hatter has been in a funk recently, claiming that the rest of his family, who supposedly died during the Jabberwocky attack (as seen in the previous film), is still alive. With his health slowly deteriorating, Alice, following the suggestion of Mirana the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), travels to the castle of the physical manifestation of Time itself (Sacha Baron Cohen) in order for her to travel back in time with the use of his ‘Chronosphere’ device, which powers all of the time in Underland. In doing so, she finds herself traveling through time, back to when the Hatter, the White Queen, and the rest of their Underland friends were young, in order to save the Hatter’s family from their supposed doom. But in doing so, Alice not only runs amok of Time himself but also finds herself once again crossing paths with Iracebeth the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), who seeks to use the Chronosphere herself in order to change a certain event in her past that caused her to become the big-headed (figuratively and literally) tyrant that she is today.

Like the first film, this film definitely deserves recognition for its visuals and overall visual style. Clearly a lot of time went into making all of the film’s intricate visual effects and they do look really nice. With that said, however, like the first film, some might find all of the film’s CGI, which was pretty much done in the same way that the Star Wars prequels were by having the majority of Underland done in CG save for the human cast members, to be a bit overkill at times. And admittedly the writing is about the same as it was in the first film, tending to be rather messy and sometimes even a bit meandering at times in terms of its plot. However, even with that in mind, the film does at least have one major advantage over its predecessor and that is that it carries a much more pleasant color scheme in terms of its visuals. Whereas the previous film was very much a Tim Burton film with all of its gothic designs, this film has a much more vibrant look to it as a whole, which is definitely an upgrade if you ask me. Plus, the film doesn’t pull any of the rather extreme punches that the original did that did make you question if it was right to be rated PG, namely infamous scenes in which the Dormouse takes out one of the Bandersnatch’s eyes and another scene where Alice crosses the Red Queen’s moat on the heads of her unfortunate victims. So because of that, this film will definitely be easier for kids to handle than the first film. And at the very least, regardless of the film’s scriptural flaws, there really are some good messages for younger audiences, like being true to yourself and your friends and the fact that it’s okay to be a little weird sometimes. There’s actually even a few rather effective heartfelt moments.

A good chunk of the film’s heart and strong messages are exemplified by its main female lead Alice. While in the first film she spent a considerable amount of time questioning the fact that she was in Underland, resulting in her being a bit too passive of a protagonist at times, this film’s Alice is much more assertive and as a result actually becomes a pretty great ‘role model’ for young women. There’s a really great sense of confidence to her, not only in how the character is portrayed this time around but also in Wasikowska’s performance. As for Johnny Depp as the Hatter, it’s exactly what you would come to expect nowadays from Johnny Depp whenever he steps into a role that allows him to don quirky costumes, makeup, and/or accents. At this point you’re either fine with it or you’re really sick of it; me I don’t mind it. Plus, the Hatter is much more toned down this time around, though admittedly that’s primarily because he does spend most of the first half of the film in a muted state. In fact, this film definitely feels a bit more toned down in terms of how campy some of the performances are compared to the original. Though with that said, Helena Bonham Carter still relishes her role as the Red Queen, camping it up whenever she’s onscreen. The same goes for Sacha Baron Cohen as Time, although not as much as Carter. In short, I can say that, at the very least, the ensemble cast is a bit stronger this time around, mostly as a result of Bobin not cranking these characters’ personalities up to 11, which is sort of what Burton did with the previous film.

So here’s the deal with these live-action Alice films. As both of their critical receptions clearly suggest, these two films very much have their critics and quite a few of those critics have been very vocal in expressing their dislike of them. However, at the same time, it’s also clear that these films actually do have a pretty decently sized fan-base. This really can partially explain why the first film did as well as it did at the box-office and while this film hasn’t been doing anywhere near as good as the first film did from a commercial standpoint, I can tell that there will still be quite a lot of people who are going to like this film. And as someone who did like the first film, I can see why. Yes, the film does share some of its predecessor’s issues, namely in terms of the writing. Plus, like before, critics of CGI are no doubt going to take issue with the film’s very extravagant use of CG. However, this film really isn’t as bad as its low 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes may suggest. Because despite its flaws, the film definitely deserves merit for its impressive visuals. Visually speaking, this is easily one of the best-looking films of the year. And in some ways the film actually does improve on its predecessor, namely in regards to a much brighter color scheme and a much more confident lead performance courtesy of Mia Wasikowska as Alice. So in short, if you weren’t a fan of the first film, then suffice it to say this film ain’t gonna win you over because it’s very much a sequel to Burton’s original film and fans of the books in particular are most certainly not going to be pleased with how the world and its characters are being portrayed. But if you’re someone who was a fan of the first film, then I’m sure you’re going to like this film just as much.

Rating: 3.5/5

(Closing Note: On a sad note, this film serves as the final performance of Alan Rickman, who reprises his role from the previous film as Absolem the Caterpillar (now a Butterfly). The reason why I didn't bring him up in the review is because, well, he actually isn't in the film that much. He only appears in the scene in which Alice first returns to Underland.)

Planet of the Apes: Film Series Retrospective

So this past weekend saw the release of ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’, the sequel to 2011’s ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’, which itself was a reboot of the original/iconic sci-fi franchise; ‘Planet of the Apes’. It all began in 1968 with the release of a film that was based off of the 1963 book La Planète des singes by Pierre Boulle. The film, ‘Planet of the Apes’, was a major success both critically and commercially which resulted in the spawning of a film franchise that would see four more movies released through the early 70’s, with each sequel coming just a year after its immediate predecessor (excluding the first sequel, which came out two years after the original film). When the original franchise ended in 1973, the first film got a loose ‘remake’ in 2001 that was slated to revive the franchise. However, while it was financially successful at the box office, it didn’t fare as well critically resulting in the series being ‘rebooted’ once again in 2011 with ‘Rise’ and, safe to say, this newer film fared much better. Today, we’ll be looking at all of the films in the ‘Planet of the Apes’ franchise from the original that started it all to the series’ recent reboots. Now there have also been two TV series that were made following the original series; 1974’s live-action series, ‘Planet of the Apes’ and 1975’s animated series, ‘Return to the Planet of the Apes’ but I won’t be covering either of those series today so now let’s get started as we look back on the ‘Planet of the Apes’ film franchise.

(Quick Disclaimer: This is the first time I’m watching the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ films.)

PLANET OF THE APES (1968)

It’s been more than 4 decades since its release, and even with that in mind the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ film holds up quite well as one of the landmark sci-fi films of its time. It’s a film that has quite a lot of social commentary, namely in regards to the debate of civil rights and the belief that ‘some are superior’ to others. In this case, the ‘superior’ race of the mysterious world that the main character, astronaut George Taylor (Charlton Heston), finds himself in after his space-ship crashes on an unknown planet, isn’t humanity but instead a group of intelligent apes who have evolved to the point where they now possess the ability to speak. The make-up effects for the apes still look pretty good today and while we have definitely moved on since the days of having these apes created through practical makeup (as proven by this series’ recent reboot films), it is still done pretty effectively here. The cast here does a pretty good job; Charlton Heston gets a little over-the-top at times but still does a solid job as does Roddy McDowall as the archeologist ape, Cornelius. If I did have any complaints about this film, it would be that occasionally there are some very corny/over-the-top moments, some of which are attributed to, as I just noted, Heston’s occasional over-acting.

Something that newcomers to this film might not expect going in is that the film actually has a kind of a very pessimistic view on the future of civilization… though in retrospect pretty much all of these films have had that same view. As the ‘protagonist’, Taylor is actually a bit of a jerk to his allies, human or ape, though in the end he’s aware of the consequences that are arising from what mankind is doing to the planet. Of course, this relates to what was going on at the time when this film came out (e.g. civil rights movement and the evolution of technology, among other things). Of course those consequences are truly exemplified in the film’s iconic twist ending in which Taylor learns that the planet he was on just so happened to be Earth the whole time, many years into the future, which he realizes when he comes across the remains of the Statue of Liberty. I will admit that I did know about the twist before seeing the film but it is still an excellent twist and is set up so well because we are effectively led to believe that we’re on a different planet but as the film progresses we slowly discover that this isn’t the case. Unlike the twist of another ‘Planet of the Apes’ movie which I’ll get to later, this is one of the best movie twists ever. The original ‘Planet of the Apes’ is one of the finest sci-fi films ever made as it immerses us in this ape world while also maintaining some strong (even though it is fairly pessimistic) social commentary. It’s a must-see for any sci-fi movie fan.

Rating: 4.5/5

BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES (1970)

Umm, I really don’t know where to begin with this one because… well, you’ll see why soon enough. Anyway, ‘Beneath of the Planet of the Apes’ starts out okay enough even though it basically just rehashes a lot of the key plot points of the previous film; an astronaut crash-lands on the Ape-inhabited post-apocalyptic Earth, comes across the Ape City, at one point is one of the apes’ prisoners, he escapes, and then ultimately realizes where he truly is when he comes across an old New York landmark. It’s pretty much just exactly what Taylor went through in the last film, although here it doesn’t have the same impact as the previous film did. Plus, no offense to James Franciscus, but he’s no Charlton Heston, who only appears in this for a brief time and it quite frankly feels like he doesn’t really give a crap here (which isn’t that surprising seeing how he didn’t really want to return for this one in the first place. He only did on the condition that his character would be killed off by the end of it). So if one were to go by just this film’s first half, it basically just seems like your average sequel. But then we get to this film’s second half, which is for the record the most interesting part of the movie (it’s certainly much more interesting than what we got from this film’s first half) but it is also where things get really strange.

So in this film, there are a group of telepathic humans that are living underground in the ruins of the New York City Subway and they are worshippers of the atomic bomb… yes folks you read that right… that is the main plot of the film. I will give the film credit in that this really is an interesting idea, but quite frankly it kind of comes out of nowhere. Also, I think that by the time this whole scenario pops up, it feels like the film forgot about what movie franchise it’s a part of because the apes are kind of given the shaft in this half of the movie. Now don’t misinterpret me, because they’re still in it, but the whole ‘telepath’ plot doesn’t really connect with them. This is basically just two storylines in one and they really don’t mesh well together. And then we get to this film’s ending… I’m guessing that the filmmakers looked at the original film’s ending and thought to themselves, ‘Hell, we can go even farther than that!’ And quite frankly they do by literally blowing up the world with the telepath group’s atomic bomb. I know that some people actually like this ending but I’m sorry… this ending kind of sucks. I mean, sure it’s a ballsy ending and it does sort of follow in the footsteps of the previous film’s pessimistic twist ending but I feel like it just doesn’t work as well. In this case it feels more like it was just done for shock value and nothing else. Overall, this film just got really, really weird and in a film with talking apes… that’s saying a hell of a lot, folks. Now I don’t think it’s a bad film as there are some really good things in it (the makeup effects are still really good, especially for the telepaths when they reveal their ‘true forms’) but this is easily one of the weirdest sequels I’ve ever seen and I can’t say that this is a good thing.

Rating: 2.5/5

ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES (1971)

As you might have guessed, the ‘Planet of the Apes’ movies have generally been known for their fairly dark tones and equally dark endings, so it’s interesting to see that the first half of ‘Escape From the Planet of the Apes’ decides to go for a much more upbeat atmosphere than what we’ve come to expect from these films. In this film, the two main apes from the previous two films, Zira (Kim Hunter) and Cornelius (Roddy McDowall, who had to be replaced by David Watson in ‘Beneath’ due to scheduling conflicts but returns to the role here (which really helps)), along with a friend of theirs, Dr. Milo (Sal Mineo), salvage the spaceship used by George Taylor and his crew that crash landed in the first film, repair it, and then use it to escape the planet before, as seen in the end of ‘Beneath’, it is destroyed by the atomic bomb. They end up getting caught in the shock wave caused by Earth’s destruction and are sent back in time to 1973 Los Angeles. For the first half of the film, after Zira and Cornelius (Milo is killed by a non-speaking gorilla while they are held captive at a zoo) reveal to the world that they can speak and that they come from the future, they basically become celebrities but after Zira finds out that she is pregnant, soon the government starts to turn against them as they fear that this child will soon result in the apes becoming the ‘dominant’ species of the planet. In other words, the events of this film are pretty much setting up what will happen to humanity 2000 years later as we saw in both the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ and ‘Beneath’.

The first half of this film, which maintains a ‘fish out of water’ theme, is a welcome breath of fresh air after the mindf*** that was the second half of ‘Beneath’ and really the best part about this entire film are its two main characters: Zira and Cornelius. They are such a likable pair (just as they have been in the previous two films) and I really have to give a lot of credit towards Kim Hunter and Roddy McDowall for doing terrific jobs in these roles. We really do care about them, which is why the film’s dark ending is so impactful. As expected with this franchise, this film does end on a very somber note as Zira and Cornelius end up getting killed trying to protect their newborn baby. However, we soon find out that they switched babies with an ape in a traveling circus run by Armando (played by the original Khan himself, Ricardo Montalbán) and the film ends with the newborn, named Milo, speaking his first word; ‘Mama’. This is easily one of the best endings out of all of the ‘Apes’ movies. It’s built up very well given the film’s more light-hearted first half as the film does end up going the dark path that this franchise is usually known for taking. But at the same time, it is also legitimately emotionally impactful because we care about Zira and Cornelius, making their deaths very heartbreaking. Many say that this is the best of the original ‘Apes’ sequels… and after seeing this film, I must say that I certainly agree with that statement.

Rating: 4/5

CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (1972)

Some might refer to ‘Conquest of the Planet of the Apes’ as the original ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ as both films have a similar plot; heck, they even have the same main character, Caesar albeit in a different time. He’s played here by the same man who played his father in the original ‘Planet’ and ‘Escape’, Roddy McDowall. What comes of this is, well to put it quite frankly, the craziest entry in the series. I mean, this film is worth it just for the second half, in which Caesar leads an ape revolt against their human tormentors. This has to be one of the most chaotic battles that I’ve ever seen in any film. It’s certainly the most violent out of all of the original ‘Apes’ films, evident by the fact that this is the only ‘PG’ rated entry in the original series, whereas the others were rated ‘G’. The filmmakers even had to change the ending, in which the apes beat the main bad guy, Governor Breck, to death because it was ‘too violent’ though really it’s not that violent because it’s just implied what happens to him and is not actually shown on screen. Still, I actually do prefer the newer ending in which they don’t beat Breck to death, even though the additional speech that Caesar gives is kind of poorly edited (mostly because the filmmakers didn’t have the budget to shoot a new ending). I guess it’s mostly because I do sort of feel that the original ending did come off as a bit ‘too’ dark. I mean, this is the franchise where one film ended by literally destroying the world, but even with all of the chaos that goes on in this finale, it feels like just a bit too much. Plus, the original ending actually doesn’t really gel well with the following film in which humans do have a peaceful relationship with the apes despite the fact that the apes are the ‘dominant’ species.

On that note, one of the main problems with the film is that the abuse directed towards the apes by humans is kind of excessive. It does make us sympathize with Caesar (played very well by McDowall in a role that is arguably more layered than when he played Cornelius though that’s sort of up for debate) and the apes but at the same time it makes the film darker than it really needs to be. Again, this franchise has been known for going dark, but this is just too much in my opinion. Also, the cinematography is a little crappy at times, especially during the final battle. Still, I will give this film credit for, if nothing else, the crazy-as-hell finale which is both awesome and sort of over-the-top extreme at the same time. I can’t say that ‘Conquest’ is the best of the ‘Apes’ films (in fact, I’d actually recommend the ‘remake’ (and I use the term loosely because it really isn’t a remake) ‘Rise’ more than this one because I feel like the story in the newer film was executed much better and had much emotional depth) but it’s still a pretty entertaining entry in the series. It’s certainly the craziest of the films, that’s for sure.

Rating: 3/5

BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (1973)

The original series came to a close with ‘Battle of the Planet of the Apes’ which, like its immediate predecessor, must have inspired part of the plot of one of the recent reboots, in this case the just-released ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’… and while I hate to have to compare these two films, especially considering that one of these films just came out a few days ago, I have to in this case because ‘Battle for the Planet of the Apes’… is pretty much the weakest of the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ films. Despite focusing on the developing war between the human survivors of the Apes’ takeover and the Apes, the film doesn’t have the same emotional depth as ‘Dawn’ because we don’t really care for any of the characters in this other than Caesar but that’s because we already got to know him in ‘Conquest’ and we don’t get to know anyone else here so we can’t become attached to any of them. Director J. Lee Thompson, who is notably the only director to have ever made more than one ‘Apes’ movies having also directed ‘Conquest’, does his best with the small budget that he has but overall the film comes up short in many aspects, including a finale that’s fairly anti-climactic despite the fact that it revolves around Caesar going after the ape that killed his son. I’m aware that a couple of scenes were cut and that there is an ‘Extended Edition’ of the film that was released as a bootleg but I’m not sure how much that will help this one.

Rating: 1.5/5

PLANET OF THE APES (2001 REMAKE)

After more than a decade of development, which saw directors like James Cameron, Chris Columbus, and Peter Jackson all involved at one point or another, a ‘remake’ of the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ film was released in 2001 directed by Tim Burton. I use the term ‘remake’ loosely because this film involves different characters than the ones from the original film. However, the end result didn’t turn out as well as 20^th Century Fox had hoped. It did fare pretty well at the box office, but didn’t fare as well with critics and audiences. This ultimately resulted in Fox decided not to do a sequel to this film and instead reboot the franchise with ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’. So with that in mind, it could be argued that out of all of Tim Burton’s films, this is possibly the most hated of his amongst critics and audiences and after seeing the film I can sort of see why. Now for the record, I don’t really hate it as much as others but even with that said, this film definitely has some very noticeable flaws and it’s not just the one thing that everyone loves to talk about (which I will get to in a bit). For one thing, while watching this film, it doesn’t really scream ‘Tim Burton’ to me. Burton of course has been known for his dark macabre style but here it’s pretty much non-existent. Seriously, the studio could’ve lied and said it was directed by someone like Steven Spielberg and I would’ve believed it. That’s because this is pretty much the opposite of what you would expect from a Tim Burton film. It feels more like a ‘studio-made’ film and Burton must have been restricted when it came to utilizing his unique style on the film.

I hate to say it, but this film is actually kind of boring. It kind of drags along and nothing about it really stands out other than the prosthetic makeup for the apes done by Rick Baker, which is easily the main highlight of the film. It does have a really good cast that includes the likes of Mark Wahlberg, Helena Botham Carter, Tim Roth, and Paul Giamatti, but for the most part they’re fairly wasted in this film. I mean, I am a big fan of Wahlberg, but here it does feel like he’s just phoning it in… then again, this whole film kind of feels phoned in. Even most the action sequences are pretty forgettable, hence why this film feels like a chore to get through. Nothing about this film is memorable except for the makeup and its controversial ending. And oh yeah… now let’s talk about that ending (I would say spoilers here, but you’ve probably heard about this ending already so I’m not really going to bother doing so). At the end of the film, Wahlberg’s character Leo and his allies defeat the main bad guy, General Thade (Roth), and Leo, who had crash-landed on the ‘ape planet’ after trying to rescue one of his simian co-workers, resulting in him getting caught in an magnetic storm sending him forward in time, travels back in time using his co-worker’s space pod, and he ends up crash landing in Washington D.C.

However, he soon finds out that this Earth is now inhabited by Apes with the Lincoln Memorial monument replaced by one of Thade. Now I can see that they are trying to follow in the footsteps of the original film when it came to the ‘twist ending’, but this one really doesn’t make much sense. First off, Thade was clearly defeated as he was trapped inside a crashed space-station, so I can’t see how that would’ve changed anything when Leo went back in time and that’s really the main point that I’m stressing here; Leo went ‘back in time’!!! And yet there’s a monument to Thade built in the ape-inhabited Earth even though he technically wasn’t born yet. Is it a different Thade? Did Thade go back in time or something (we do see him coming across Leo’s crashed space-pod at one point but it’s still damaged when he finds it so it doesn’t look like he used it or anything)? Why is this turn of events occurring in the first place? I don’t know and the movie doesn’t do us any favors by explaining why this happened. This is definitely one of the weakest twist endings in movie history and as a result, Burton’s ‘Planet of the Apes’ is a pretty mediocre remake and easily Burton’s weakest film to date… at least from the ones I’ve seen.

Rating: 2/5

RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011)

So after Fox decided not to make a sequel to Tim Burton’s ‘Planet of the Apes’ (rightfully so after that damn ending), the series was instead rebooted with 2011’s ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ directed by Rupert Wyatt. This time, instead of using practical make-up effects on the actors portraying the apes, these apes were created via motion capture with the lead ape Caesar being portrayed by the king of motion capture himself, Andy Serkis, who of course became famous for his role as Gollum in the ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies and he also portrayed the titular King Kong in Peter Jackson’s 2005 remake of the same name. As for the movie itself, it was definitely a pleasant surprise. I mean I’m guessing that not a lot of people were expecting it to be as good as it was but what we got was a smartly written sci-fi film with a script that effectively pays homage to the original movie while also giving us some greatly written characters that we do care about. In the case of this film, the ones that I’m specifically referring to are scientist Will Rodman (James Franco, who gives a very solid performance here), his father Charles (John Lithgow, who’s also great here), and of course, Caesar. The relationships amongst these three provide the excellent emotional resonance of the movie which is probably the film’s greatest strength when not counting the film’s technical strengths (e.g. visuals).

And of course, as everyone’s been saying, Andy Serkis is phenomenal in this movie, as the terrific visual effects (though a little distracting at first though this in reference to an early shot of Caesar’s biological mother and not Caesar himself) as well as Serkis’ performance in the role blend together for a great sympathetic main character. I know this following statement has been brought up to death already (I already mentioned it in my original review for ‘Dawn’) but I’m reiterating it here… why the hell hasn’t this man won an Oscar yet? I know that some argue that it’s more about the visual effects artists when it comes to motion-capture performances, but the work that Serkis does in these kinds of roles is just as important in regards to making them work as well as they do and in fact, I’d argue this is probably his best performance to date (and yes, that means I think he’s even better here than in ‘Lord of the Rings’). Overall, this film’s cast is really solid, but if I did have one complaint about the film, it is that some of the characters in this movie are either underdeveloped or incredibly one-dimensional; the most notable example of the latter is Tom Felton as Dodge Landon, the son of the owner of the primate shelter that Caesar ends up in, who’s basically just Malfoy without the Hogwarts robes. But overall, with some excellent direction from Wyatt, great performances, and top of the line visual effects, ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ is definitely one of the best and smartest sci-fi films of the last few years.

Rating: 4.5/5

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2014)

(Link for my original review of the film: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2014/07/dawn-of-planet-of-apes-2014-review.html)

‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ is one of the rare sequels that not only manages to be as good as its predecessor, but ends up being even better than the previous film. Of course, as it was in ‘Rise’, the writing is superb and the film gives us a good group of characters that we really care about from both sides of this ‘conflict’ between the humans that survived the ALZ-113 virus and the apes who have made a life for themselves away from any human interference. But being that this is a sequel, the film also does what you would normally expect from most sequels in that it ups the scale and scope from the previous film and in this film’s case, it’s done really well. The film immediately immerses you in the post-‘Simian Flu’ world via a 15-minute opening sequence focused entirely on Caesar and his fellow apes and the film itself benefits from great direction from Matt Reeves and top of the line visual effects (which are even better here than they were in the previous film) and action sequences. Andy Serkis is even better here in the role of Caesar and is again backed up a terrific cast that includes the likes of Jason Clarke (I also have to give Clarke and Serkis credit as they work off each other really well in this), Gary Oldman, and Keri Russell. So in short, ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ is one of the best summer blockbusters of 2014 and overall one of the best sci-fi sequels in recent memory.

Rating: 5/5!

How would I rank these films, you ask? Like this…

8. Battle for the Planet of the Apes

7. Planet of the Apes (2001)

6. Beneath the Planet of the Apes

5. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes

4. Escape from the Planet of the Apes

3. Planet of the Apes

2. Rise of the Planet of the Apes

1. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

And for the record yes this list indicates that I do sort of prefer the newer ‘Apes’ films but I don’t want this to look like I’m bashing the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ film because I’m not… it’s still a sci-fi classic.