Big Eyes


Action / Biography / Crime / Drama / Romance

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 72%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 70%
IMDb Rating 7 10 77542


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 202,537 times
March 29, 2015 at 12:26 AM



Krysten Ritter as DeeAnn
Christoph Waltz as Walter Keane
Amy Adams as Margaret Keane
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
811.73 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 46 min
P/S 2 / 32
1.65 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 46 min
P/S 2 / 17

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by rmax304823 6 / 10

Small Issue Over Palpebral Tissue.

As Walter Keane forty years ago, Christopher Waitz is accused of pandering to the lowest common denominator in the art world. He throws up his hands and screams, "What is WRONG with the lowest common denominator?" In today's Zeitgeist? We need a sensible answer more than ever.

I can accept "Big Eyes" on the molar level but not the molecular. That is, I can believe that Walter Keane, a born showman, began exhibiting his wife Margaret's successful Big Eye paintings as his own. There were arguments. They divorced. Margaret revealed that she was the artist behind the work and won a suit against him. Walter died "bitter and penniless" and Margaret "continues to paint to this day," as the epilogue tells us.

I don't accept the molecular structure. I don't think Margaret was really imprisoned in a smoky attic to grind out her many paintings. I don't believe Walter threatened to have her bumped off if she squealed. I don't believe that Walter, drunk and enraged, followed them through the house, flipping lighted matches at Margaret and her daughter out of jealousy while they shuddered in fear. That's a little generic, isn't it? "The drunken wife abuser?" I could believe it if the film showed us a conspiracy between Walter and Margaret, cackling as they collected their massive amounts of dough and bought the mansion in the suburbs, away from North Beach. Then I could believe bitter arguments followed over not just credit but pelf.

North Beach, 1957. That was some place. I was there at the time and it was thrilling, what with the emergence of the Beatniks, Bufano's penguins and all that. I patronized many of the places mentioned and I can recommend Vanessi's Restaurant as still a superb dining experience. I remember too the commotion over Walter Keane's fight with Enrico Banducci, proprietor of the Hungry i, where I saw The Gateway Singers render a song in Yiddish.

I remember too the sudden avalanche of Big Eye paintings. They were all over the place. You couldn't escape them. I was at the time a humble enlisted man at a Coast Guard radio station in San Bruno. My mates were a proletarian bunch with a sprinkling of geniuses. When the Keane painting began appearing, we all laughed at them because even in our lowbrow circles we could tell they STANK. Rough-hewn young men who had never gotten through high school (and never deserved to) found them to be a joke.

They're still a joke, as this movie is a joke on everyone who took these works at all seriously. They've been endlessly parodied since. And it's amusing for Tim Burton to play visiting art aficionados as pansies gasping at the intensity of a painting of some kid in a tattered dress with eyes like dinner plates, a tear coursing through the dust of one cheek.

The movie is based on an interesting premise: who gets credit for expensive kitsch? But it devolves quickly into a soap opera of an abused woman fighting for empowerment. The movie goes out of its way to link this tabloid story to the oppression of women everywhere in 1960. "Does your husband allow you to work?", asks an employer. "Let your husband make the decisions," advises a priest. We're no longer in 1957 -- especially not 1957 San Francisco -- but back in 957 AD. What's a millennium here and there? There's been criticism of the performances but I don't know why. Amy Adams does just fine as the oppressed, whimpering wife, all clammed up, as the script requires, and there is a long withheld smile of satisfaction and revenge as she humiliates her ex husband in court. One reviewer claimed she wore too much makeup. Well, yes, for our tastes now.

The movie wouldn't be what it is without the performance of Christopher Waitz. He's amazing -- outrageously over the top. He cackles, he waves his arms expansively, he shouts instead of speaking, he tells wild stories, and his German accent lends a surreal quality to every line, whether angry or palliative.

The photography shows us a city and its innards in lurid colors, as in a cartoon or a Twentieth-Century Fox musical, saturated and blinding, and it suits the story like a substrate suits its enzyme.

Reviewed by dissident320 5 / 10

Fine but forgettable

I recently watched Ed Wood which is a biopic Tim Burton did 20 years prior to this. It's almost astounding how different they are. In Big Eyes the characters are charmless, the story is bland and even the overall look of the movie has no discernible qualities.

Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz are fine but they certainly don't elevate any of this decidedly mediocre material. Everyone appears to be coasting through this movie. The director, the cinematographer and the supporting cast are doing no more than getting the job done.

I think it did a good job of portraying that style of art becoming popular and the overall cheapening of what she was creating. But it never wants to present her as a real artist. It more treats it like a parlour trick.

It's difficult to map the exact movie where Tim Burton became mediocre but this one is a great example of why I don't usually don't make a point to watch his films anymore. They don't feel like his movies anymore right down to the stories and the set design.

Re-watch Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood or even Sleepy Hollow before you consider bothering with this.

Reviewed by sddavis63 6 / 10

Interesting Biopic, But A Knowledge of The Keanes And/Or Art Would Have Made It Moreso

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. Any 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.

Read more IMDb reviews