Da Couch Tomato

An attempt at a new layout, with horrible glitches, and very minimal knowledge of HTML.
Showing posts with label tim burton. Show all posts
Twin children everywhere will probably dress up like the creepy twins this Halloween.

The title pretty much gives you the premise of the entire movie. It pretty much sounds like an institution, sort of like an orphanage, the wards of which are children with peculiarities, under the guardianship of a lady named Miss Peregrine. And although this very much sounds like the uncanny X-Men (replace "institution" with "school for the gifted", "peculiar children" with "mutants", and "Miss Peregrine" with "Professor Charles Xavier"), this is not a superhero movie.

First off, it's not based on a comic book by Marvel, but from a novel by author Ransom Riggs. Second, it's not science fiction, and neither is it fantasy, despite the fantastical elements of the story. The proper literary term for this is magical realism, a genre that Netflix has tried to force on their Pablo Escobar series Narcos.

Tim Burton is one of the few directors that can tackle magical realism quite effortlessly. It's like his default genre, the way the suspense thriller is Alfred Hitchcock's or the biopic is Ron Howard's. Visually, this film definitely has Burton's trademark look, accentuated by the excellent costume designs by his frequent collaborator Colleen Atwood. The bleak Welsh atmosphere captured perfectly by cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, who also did Inside Llewyn Davis, a film which also utilised the bleach-bypass look, which is a technique with film negatives, though I'm not sure if Delbonnel shot on video.

Would've been nice if one of them had the power to blow endless streams of marijuana smoke.

The strength of this film is not in its story. Although I haven't read the source material, I think the screen adaptation hasn't fully captured what the book has to offer. It's like somehow, you can feel that there's more to this story which the two-hour running time failed to translate. That said, the screenplay isn't bad. But it isn't great either. The actual strength of this Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children lies in the performances. Of course, I'm not talking about Asa Butterfield, who's already hit the awkward stage of his adolescence. With his gangly frame and commendable American accent, he just can't outshine the adults; none of the children can, actually, even with Ella Purnell's promising talent.

Samuel L. Jackson as the Barron might seem like his standard villain performance, but the fact that he never utters any curse word or profanity is a big achievement in itself. I was always half-expecting him to say something like "motherfucker", until I remembered that this was supposed to be a young adult film adapted from a young adult novel. Chris O'Dowd is brilliant as Jake's dad, playing the comic relief with just the right subtlety, and impressing Hollywood with his near-perfect American accent. And of course, Miss Eva Green as Miss Peregrine is splendid as always, and although she plays the title role, she is not the main protagonist in this film. Despite her screen time being comparatively limited, she manages to outshine everyone else here. The only one who could've upstaged her would be Dame Judi Dench as Miss Avocet, so it's probably a good thing that Dame Judi had way less screen time, and spent a significant part of that as a bird.

"Dame Judi ain't upstaging me."



Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. USA/UK/Belgium. 2016.



Original rating: 7/10
Terence Stamp's short screen time: -0.1
Ella Purnell's pretty face: +0.1
Time travel element: +0.1
Enoch's power of necro-puppetry: +0.1
Emma's power to control air: +0.1
Jake's power to see the monsters: -0.1
Hugh's power of bees in his mouth: -0.1
Bronwyn's super strength: +0.1
Claire and the mouth behind her head: -0.1
Fiona's power to make things grow fast: +0.1
Horace's power to project his dreams from his eye: +0.1
Olive's pyrokinesis: +0.1
Millard's power of invisibility: +0.1
Twin gorgons: +0.1
Final rating: 7.6/10
Disney

You might be asking yourself “When is Tim Burton going to do a computer-animated flick?” And the answer to that is: probably never.

Disney
"Nevah!"

YouTube

A lot of people who wish to sound smart will comment on the fact that director Tim Burton seems to be using the same actors over and over again. Well, yes he is. But you can't blame him for that. It saves thousands of dollars per movie, money which can be redirected to the other departments such as costumes and special effects. So if you're a director, it pays to marry and be best friends with great actors.

But going back to the topicis there a Team Burton? The answer is yes, there is definitely a Team Burton, and yes, that pun was forced. And I shall show you by analyzing the last five movies of Tim Burton, this film included. And those films are, in reverse order of chronology: Dark Shadows, Alice in Wonderland, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Corpse Bride, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

On the surface, the three actors common to all five films are:

Johnny Depp

Those finger extensions look fake
as well as horrendous.

Weird, oddball role: Check.
Weird, oddball acting: Check.


This is an animated film from Focus Features. And you can tell that it's not like the animated films from the bigwigs such as Pixar and DreamWorks Animation. It was less streamlined. If you know what I mean.

This is possibly the film with the shortest title I have ever encountered. Plus it's not even a Roman character.

Character designs were...plain. Ordinary. They look like stuffed old socks, you know.

The voice actors were good. But they were sometimes distracting. Especially Elijah Wood. He sounds like a girl.

Story was great. It kinda reminded me of The Matrix.

And contrary to popular belief, this is a Tim Burton production, not a Tim Burton film. Shane Acker directed this. It's his first film, and surprisingly shows a lot of promise.


*some info from IMDb
pic from eonline.com


9. USA. 2009.


Rating: Seven out of ten.

By now, you will have noticed my obsession with 3D films. Well, let's not call it an "obsession", but rather, a "devotion" to what I consider the medium of the future.

As such, the first part of this review shall be devoted to its 3D-ness, while the second part will be the regular review.

First, I didn't like its 3D-ness. When I was in the theater, I could really sense something was amiss. This wasn't like Avatar.

So when I got home, I researched on it, and confirmed my suspicion: This film was shot in conventional 2D, with the footage converted to 3D in post-production. James Cameron, in all his Avatar arrogance, criticized this, saying that "It doesn't make any sense to shoot in 2D and convert to 3D." Tim Burton felt, however, that 3D cameras were too bulky and expensive, and that there was really no difference between converted 3D and those originally shot with 3D cameras. Well, maybe to regular moviegoers there isn't; but Mr. Burton, there is a difference, because I felt it.

Okay, how did I feel it? I could feel it in the depth of the shots. There was just not enough depth.

And now I consider myself a certified 3D addict. You know you're a 3D addict when you can detect the difference between converted 3D and original 3D footage.

And now, on to the regular review.

This version is based on, but is definitely not, the original Lewis Carroll books of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Those stories were more of a stream-of-consciousness hallucination all throughout. In this version, however, screenwriter Linda Woolverton attempted to put a narrative structure to it, and so it ended up as a retelling (which Tim Burton would vehemently deny). It worked, I must say. But I sort of liked the hallucinatory quality of the Lewis Carroll version.

The first part starts off in Victorian England. And for a moment there, I forgot that this was a Tim Burton film. I can't really imagine Tim Burton directing Sense and Sensibility. It only becomes Burton-esque once Alice enters Wonderland.

Among all the countless visual adaptations of Lewis Carroll's beloved tale, this version, I believe, is the one that truly puts the "mad" in "Mad Hatter". And we can thank Johnny Depp for that. His Hatter was bonkers. Like totally. And even the March Hare was cuckoo.

Helena Bonham Carter, a.k.a. Mrs. Tim Burton, was perfect as the Red Queen. Plus I loved how Burton made her head bigger. Bonham Carter brought a new edge to the Red Queen. Tyranny with insanity.

Anne Hathaway, I now have no doubt about your acting skills. Yeah, she was really great in Rachel Getting Married. But as the White Queen, you could see that she can take any role given to her, and execute it with style. And I now officially have a crush on Anne Hathaway because of her acting prowess.

Mia Wasikowska, I admit that I thought you wouldn't be able to pull this off. But surprisingly, you did. Good job. But you're still not as pretty as I thought you would be.

Crispin Glover, I don't even have to say anything. You are one talented actor. You may not be mainstream enough, but all your fans since Back to the Future know that you are one talented actor. I think I already said that.

And Alan Rickman, I'd know your Severus Snape voice anywhere. But I've nothing against you, as I like you as an actor.

The Cheshire Cat was the best portrayal of the Cheshire Cat I've ever seen, floating around like a ghost, disappearing in a puff of smoke. I can't help but compare this to the animated Disney version, where the cat was more of an annoyance that didn't really help propel the story forward. Oh, wait. The original didn't really have a story. Oh well. The only thing I didn't like was when they addressed the Cheshire Cat as "Ches". Please stop Americanizing Lewis Carroll's creations. Thank you.

And finally, great character design for the Jabberwocky. I think this design was lifted straight out of Sir John Tenniel's illustration. But why oh why did Mr. Burton decide to use Christopher Lee to voice this monster? Again, my only explanation: to milk Mr. Lee for all the movies he can make, before he snuffs it. Sorry if I sound so mean.

Anyway, I've learned a valuable lesson with this movie, one that could save me a lot of money. And that is: Never watch a 3D film that wasn't shot on 3D cameras. If it was just converted 3D footage, just watch it in regular cinemas. You should be paying for the 3D experience, not the conversion.


*some info from IMDb and Wikipedia


Alice in Wonderland. USA. 2010.


Rating: Eight out of ten.
3D-ness: Five out of ten.

Not as excellent as it was hyped up to be.

Let's take the strengths first. Johnny Depp as always shows terrific acting, and his singing voice is not bad. Mrs. Tim Burton is also great in belting out those tunes, although frankly I'm wondering when Tim Burton will stop using her in his films. Alan Rickman too fleshes out the despicable judge, and one will not feel sorry once Todd slits his throat. And Sacha Baron Cohen's brief appearance is one of the film's redeeming moments.

Cinematically, the film is a sight to behold. Burton masterfully paints the visual mood of the story, with bright crimson blood contrasting the cinematography's de-saturated tones. Production design is also good, especially the meat shop, where the filthy kitchen (with all its roaches) sends shudders up your spine and takes away your appetite.

And now, the weaknesses. Well, there is only one basic weakness: the songs sucked. A musical film must excel on two grounds: visually, and musically. Tim Burton took care of the visual part, but frankly the songs were not even good enough to creep into my head and subconsciously plant themselves as a last-song syndrome.

Bottom line is, the music wasn't great, and the songs weren't catchy. It therefore fails as a musical.

Rating: Three and a half stars.
Premium Blogspot Templates
Copyright © 2012 Da Couch Tomato