Wow! Such a good movie.

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Margaret leaves her husband and moves to San Francisco with her daughter, where she meets and marries artist Walter Keane. When Margaret's stylised paintings of (mostly) children with enormous eyes start to find a market (unlike Walter's Parisian street scenes), Walter markets them under his own name on the grounds that no-one is interested in paintings by women. Margaret finally leaves the controlling Walter, but ends up fighting him in court to establish the true artistic authorship of the Big Eyes/Waif paintings.Tim Burton directs Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz in this dramatization of a true story. It is a period piece, set mostly in late 50s/early 60s San Francisco, and is rather odd in terms of mood. Waltz plays Keane in a kind of constant manic good humour, in a slightly over the top comedic way. Adams, on the other hand, downplays the put-upon Margaret. The contrast between Keane who, despite the fact that we can always see him as a conman, is likeable and engaging, and his relationship with Margaret, which is essentially abusive, makes the film feel somewhat uneasy. I was very unsure about how I felt about the film at the end.The period feel is captured well and, as one would expect with Burton, it is bright, colourful and eyecatching. I was delighted to recognise the location where I watched a street scene being filmed, even though that scene wasn't in the film.

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

(Flash Review)This is based on a true story of Margaret Keane, a single mom and painter of figures with big eyes, who meets another painter fellow who hit it off. She isn't good at selling her work but he is a master at mingling and selling. He sort of backs into claiming her paintings as his and she reluctantly allows it as they are making money. He sells and markets the crap out of them, bringing in world-wide notoriety. From that point on, Margaret tries to deal with living the lie. How will that affect her marriage, relationship with her child and her own pride? The story was well-told with interesting scenes and a Burton-esc purposeful color pallet, atmosphere, symbolism and framing of scenes. Waltz and Adams's character portrayals were fun and filled with depth and variety. Very enjoyable.

A drama about the awakening of painter Margaret Keane, her phenomenal success in the 1950s, and the subsequent legal difficulties she had with her husband, who claimed credit for her works in the 1960s. As much as i love Tim Burton and his movies such as Batman, Batman Returns, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands and many other great films but unfortunately this is one of his worst films it has zero substance and it's simply not that great nothing happens for the entire film and it was neither dramatic or funny it was just weird. I get it that Burton wanted to stay away for a bit from the whole Gothic, Dark and Moody things he usually does but he could have choose a much better film to make and the saddest part is that as far as actors go the film has many great of them such as Amy Adams, Danny Huston, Krysten Ritter, Christoph Waltz and Terence Stamp and yet it ends up being a disappointing film that wanted to be something different but ended up being boring and just uninteresting.