There’s an animated cartoon film being advertised, called
Corpse Bride. It’s a Tim Burton production. Then
again, I’m not usually one for Tim Burton cartoons. That
version of Legend of Sleepy Hollow was so far from the
book that I cannot see how he can call it based on it.
Everyone finds Tim Burton productions disturbing. Probably even Johnny Depp.
Kevin Krell
I usually like Burton’s work. I’d say Sleepy Hollow was the weakest I’ve seen. Most of his stuff has noticable flaws, but the oddball charm and originality generally outweighs them. His Batman had a lovely dark quasi-gothic feel. The realisation of Gotham was inspired.
Even when he just writes and/or produces his style shines through blending with that of the director, as in the two animated ones he did with Henry Selick (sp?), James & the Giant Peach and Nightmare before Christmas.
Big Fish was brilliant. One can excuse the borderline oversentimentality because the movie has real heart and just works… despite the brits doing dodgy American accents.
I like Burton, even if he does wear silly hats.
I usually like Burton’s stuff. I actually liked Sleepy-Hollow. I didn’t care for Nightmare Before Christmas. Fortunately it was less then 2 yonks long.
I didn’t care much for most of Nightmare Before Christmas…I thought it could have been a better movie if it were shorter. It had a few nice touches though.
Corpse Bride looks interesting, in a sick sort of way.
I have an oddball sense of humor, anyway, though, and tend to laugh at all the wrong things in movies.
–James
Here’s favorable review. There was also one in our local rag this morning.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050915/ap_en_re/film_review_corpse_bride_3
What disturbing is that when I saw the preview I thought, “For a dead chick, she’s kinda hot.”
The fact that Helena Bonham Carter does her voice helps too.
My favorite Burton film is the short about a boy and his resurected dog… I believe it was called Frankenweenie. Of course, it helped that the dog Frankenweenie was a Bull Terier. 
Nightmare was OK, but I expected a little more ‘Burton’ from Tim.
I’m not usually a movie-goer–the last time I was in a theater was with my sister to see “The Incredibles.” But no, I’m not disturbed. I haven’t liked all of Tim Burton’s films and never got all the way through “Edward Scissorhands.” But I have liked some of them–“Beetlejuice” among them.
I’ve always figured that being a Southerner of Irish extraction gives me a genetically morbid sense of humor. And I really like animation, particularly the stop-motion animation used here and in my other favorite films “starring” Wallace and Grommit.
I just checked out Ebert’s review before writing this reply. He gives it 3 stars and has some interesting things to say.
But back to “disturbing”–I fully realize that my sense of humor doesn’t mesh with everyone elses, so if the concept bothers you, don’t go. I don’t go to very violent movies because that’s what I find disturbing in the cinema. I’m not going to pay 8 or 10 bucks to give myself nightmares.
M
I can pretty much second Marguerite here, right down to the weird sense of humor.
There was a very favorable review in the Baltimore Sun this morning, which mentioned that Burton partially derived this movie’s concept from a Russian folk-tale which does involve a guy accidentally marrying a dead person. The reviewer also likened it to a tale of adolescent romance in which the classic somewhat-less-than-confident hero botches his chances with the perfect girl for him, meets up with a bolder girl on the rebound (who in this case, happens to be dead,) and through that relationship develops the self-knowledge he needs to stand a chance with Ms. Right.
It sounds very interesting to me, but I have written fiction involving strange themes as well. Perhaps those of us who are already disturbed are not disturbed by this kind of thing!
So far, we’ve like all the Tim Burton films we’ve seen, Sleepy Hollow among them (in fact, it’s on our ‘to own’ list). But then, we don’t go into the theatre expecting to see the book… it’s a bit impractical, given that each person who reads a book gets a slightly different vision of the characters, the scenery, and tends to see slightly different aspects of the story as more important than others. I can’t see how anyone could get a book from the author’s brain onto the screen without clips, snips, fudges and the like… even if it is the author that produces and directs… some things can be gotten across in print that have to be handled differently in visuals. It’s the nature of the beast.
Also, I don’t expect, nor really even want to go into the theatre and see “the book”… I’ve read the book (usually), and no-one can match that… so I go to see that person’s take on it. In the cases where I have not read the book first, if the movie is good, I will often decide to read the book, and have almost always enjoyed the book even more. They tend to differ, yes, and that can be a good thing.
That movie got my kid in some trouble when he was in 1st grade, fer cryin’ out loud! Here’s why:
The kids were reading this in school:
My kid had just seen Frankenweenie.
The teacher asks if anyone can tell something they know about frogs and toads.
My kid says “when you touch a dead frog with an electrode, it twitches.”
(see, in Frankenweenie, it was just such a science demonstration that gives the kid the notion that he can reanimate his departed bull terrier.)
I got a call later that day from the school principal, no less, to discuss the appropriateness of a first grader having thoughts of this sort. I gather she and the teacher presumed that we had a large slab in our basement with lots of switches connected to a lightning rod on the roof.
I tried not to laugh at her.
My kid only lasted one more year in that elementary school before it became evident that they were incapable of teaching a child who was dyslexic, ADD, and rather an extreme right-brain thinker.
Interestlngly, he’s in 8th grade now at a great private school which serves his needs very well. Still, when I talked to his science teacher last night she was giving me the old how-he’s-doing-this-year talk, and mentioned that his math class had had a survey assignment in which they created a list, and polled people on such topics as favorite ball team, favorite band–whatever they chose.
Gabe’s list was something like this: Which is coolest?
a. a supersonic ray gun
b. a teddy bear that tries to kill you when you’re
not looking.
c. a cute cuddly teddy bear.
d. a Vortex of Doom.
…I can’t remember the rest…
At least the teacher laughed about it, even when I mentioned that I had chosen Vortex of Doom.
That really is the fun part of seeing cinematic versions of books; seeing that particular director’s interpritation of the book/story in question is part of the whole expereince for me…for as much as I read, i try and put out of my head the literary version until the movie is over. Then I try not to be overly critical of where the movie is lacking; has there ever been a movie made of a book that has exceeded its namesake? Probably not, so I try not to worry about it…movies are fun, books are more fun, but they are also a different kind of fun.
The directors interpritation of the book is paramount to making the story work on film, and as we know from the LOTR movies (and many others) there are just some things that would be far too difficult or impractical to film, for either budget, time or continuity reasons…
Take the proposed Star Trek DS-9 movie that was shelved…
(ok, not a book, but to make a movie with DS-9 as the center is tough after the fact, because it’s no longer there!)
For continuity reasons, technically a DS-9 film cannot be done because DS-9 was destroyed, but the idea behind the movie was to create an “alternate reality” situation, a storyline that was completely removed from continuity with the series… the original idea was to try to comprise the story with the final events of the series as a seperate story line…which is why it was shelved before it got off the ground.
That example is a bit of a stretch, but y’all get it right?
Your kid sounds way cool, Emm!
put me down for a Vortex of Doom too!
Vortex of Doom is a dead giveaway. Its full of words that you aren’t sure what they mean but it sounds big and dangerous and powerful. Similar to the facination with dinosaurs. Given a choice between a ho-hum word like raygun, anything to do with the words “teddy bear”, and Vortex of Doom, VoD is going to win for coolness every time.
djm
OMG! I used to date VoD back in the 70s!
Its soooo much more peaceful now…
The kind that sucks up all your money and you get nothin outta it?
Ah, no…not at all…
reasonable guess though
Sorry, I got some of the choices wrong. It really goes like this:
Which is coolest:
a. racing cars blowing up in a video game
b. a movie (any movie)
c. zombies
d. Vortex of Doom
e. a teddy bear that tries to kill you when you’re not looking
f. a normal teddy bear
g. a gelatinous people-eating monster
h. a spider-like people-eating monster
no rayguns.