Big Eyes
When the Oscar nominations were released at the end of last year I was surprised to find that Tim Burton's "Big Eyes" was not on the list, like, anywhere. It seemed like a shoo-in, as it starred a two-time winner of Best Supporting Actor, and a five-time nominee in various acting categories. It was also a bio-pic, which the Academy always favors, and it was directed by Burton in his first bio-pic directorial effort since "Ed Wood." After seeing the film however, it became clear why it didn't get much acclaim.
While the subject of the film is upsetting, it's not stirring enough to warrant any nominations. It's a run of the mill biopic dealing with an interesting if tepid subject. Second, it's a strange kind of film, for various reasons. It makes sense for Burton to gravitate towards this film, as it deals in curiously odd looking paintings. Burton employs familiar tactics from past films to create the mis-en-scene for this film, including blockish, colorful backgrounds, ("Edward Scissorhands") blending of fact and fiction, ("Big Fish") and adding crazy side characters, ("Ed Wood").
The character of Walter Keane (Waltz) is an eccentric, extravagant caricature of the bon savant. This lends to another criticism, which is that Waltz was not well reared in on his performance. Perhaps Keane was this huge in his gestures and voice, but it comes off as clownish and inappropriate for this kind of film. He doesn't even seem menacing in his portrait of Keane, just sinisterly silly.
The best moments in this film occur when it’s telling the story of Keane's rise to fame and stunning popularity in the public sphere, while emphasizing the distaste surrounding the work, especially by critics who called it kitsch. It's a story that makes clear that Keane's underhanded and reckless behavior was a product of pure manipulation. You will feel a mix of pity and empathy for Margaret Keane, but it will be hard won, making this a warranted if sluggish watch.