• incredibly fun to watch - absolutely brimming with absurdity, chaos and nail-on-the-head social commentary. • the conceit of the film is one of Burton's better original ideas, and allows for some really funny visual gags and over-the-top effects.

• the first Burton film to feel whimsical and fairytale-esque. the expressive colours and the emotive score by Elfman makes it instantly recognisable. • one of Burton's most visually striking films. the colours in the suburbs are bright and abrasive, and Edward's gothic castle is creepy and gothic. the design is what's most impressive however, and Johnny Depp's now iconic costume plus his very mannered, idiosyncratic performance clearly had a lasting effect in the pop culture psyche. • follows Beetlejuice's critique of the white, suburban middle class families and how they exploit a socially vulnerable artist for there own gain (artistically, and sexually at one point). clearly themes Burton is very personally invested in. • characters exaggerated mannerisms are well acted, if a little stereotypical and 2D to a fault at points (especially the family's father and Winona Ryder's boyfriend). • Depp manages to portray a lot with very little in his performance. his dynamic with the 'normal' people is very fun to watch. • the imagery is very strong - the use of the snowglobe, the Inventor and his stark mansion, the cookie-cutter and overexposed suburban neighbourhood etc. his knack for colour here makes the film feel almost proto-Wes Anderson. • most of the story elements are fairly disposable but functional, ie the robbery setup and the final confrontation. the film would probably have benefited from being a little more meditative and formless, guided more by tone and atmosphere which Burton is clearly more adept at handling.

• another foray into musicals, and another almost-sort-of-horror film. kind of a neat idea to see Burton apply his tired 'misunderstood outcast' prototype to an actual serial killer. • unlike Corpse Bride and C&tCF, the music here is actually very well executed. difficult to say how much of this can be credited to him and not the musical's author, but it adds to the film. Johnny Depp proves himself to be a very competent singer in the lead role. his films have had a strongly music heavy element since Beetlejuice, but this is first and only good musical he has made. • the costume and set design is great as expected - and the lack of CGI seems to bring out the best in him. the title character's costume and signature knives are particularly fun to watch. the gore is also satisfyingly over the top and fun to watch. • the stylised colour palette is also well done, capturing the griminess of victorian london effectively. the red blood on a greyscale palette is a little cliche but still fun. • the sequence with Sacha Baron Cohen is particularly fantastic and genuinely hilarious - with snappy editing akin to that of his earlier films. • becomes a little repetitive towards the end, and the pacing could definitely be better. balances the tone between the whimsical Burton humour with graphic violence well. however, some of the side-plots (as trimmed down from the 3 hour musical) do feel a little added on. • the aesthetic felt like it really caught on at the time, really seemed to resonate with Burton's many teenage fans who knew of him through TNBC and Edward Scissorhands.

• a genuinely bizarre, large budget studio film. seemingly made as a practical joke on audiences, where it sets up sci-fi disaster film tropes and repeatedly, violently subverts them. ie, Michael J Fox having a unfulfilling relationship with his wife... only to be disintegrated in the first 30 minutes. • the satirical humour is pretty cutting for a 90s, especially considering this was just 1 year after Independence Day. • the multiple character thread plotline with every character as an obnoxious caricature is a particularly well executed touch. quite accurately applies to almost everything Roland Emmerich released going forward too. • the zany anarchic energy is still here in the visuals and editing. the visual effects are very weightless and bad but... it almost makes the satire sharper. still, some goofy practical effects would have made it funnier. still - you can tell Burton was having fun with the gleeful, wanton violence and its hard not to smile. • unfortunately, it does get a little un-engaging at points since none of the characters are very well fleshed out. the acting is mostly good (especially Jack Nicholson). • the yodelling ending is probably a step too far in the 'dumb-on-purpose' vein, but it is still kind of funny. • since the film is basically one giant non-sequitur its hard to criticise it for being unsatisfying, but despite all of positives in terms of it's humour and absurdity, my enjoyment still feels inherently surface level.

• sincere and genuinely heartfelt in execution - but ultimately i just don't think Tim Burton is very good at performance driven, streamlined storytelling required for this kind of material. • this pretty clearly exemplified in how unbalanced the flashbacks to current day scenes. the film doesn't pick up much momentum until the third act - which is easily the best portion of the film. • for the most part visually very nice, the colourful shine with occasionally punctuated with gothic imagery gives a lot of character. there's a scene with a really inspired use of slow motion. early 2000s CGI looks pretty terrible, unfortunately. • acting is generally good - Albert Finney in particular. Ewan Macgregor's accent is pretty distracting, but his wide-eyed enthusiasm for the role is quite infectious. • as far as meta commentary about story-telling goes, it's not especially compelling. Burton has better films with these themes in his own filmography. • feels like it's trying a little too hard to be 'moving' at points, Spielberg was initially attached to the project and his syrupy sentimentality would have fit neatly. • Billy Crudup's character is probably Burton's most empathetic portrayal of the 'naysaying detractor' to his 'misunderstood hero' dynamic.

• Burton's first truly big budget studio film. his success with this project clearly influenced him as a director. • one of the most creative takes on the Batman iconography. the visuals are heavily influenced by german expressionist art and film. lots of dutch angles, industrialist and mechanical imagery with a grayed out and dark imagery. of all of the Batman films, Burton still has the most standout depiction of Gotham yet. • Elfman's melodramatic score with heavy piano keys is even somewhat reminiscent of photoplay music that would accompany a lot of the silent German expressionist films. • a distinct break from the campier depictions of Batman seen in the 60s, but still maintains a fairly silly sense of humour - mostly seen in Jack Nicholson's take on The Joker. • Burton seems to be oddly uninterested in the titular character for the most part, and doesn't make the film an origin story. Michael Keaton is fine but he doesn't get a great deal of characterisation and generally under-acts. he did apparently invent the lower pitch 'Batman voice' however, which is pretty iconic at this point. • Charlie Sheen, Bill Murray, Mel Gibson and Pierce Brosnan were considered for Batman. • if the storyline was as bold as the visuals there would be classic potential here - however it's take on Batman is a little average, and the build to the film's finale never really picks up much momentum. • as mentioned, the effects and early set design are excellent. any time a digital effect shows up it looks prehistoric. • Jack Nicholson is a blast to watch, even if his take on the Joker is not especially original.

• was produced concurrently with Charlie & The Chocolate Factory. was co-directed with Mike Johnson, who "work[ed] with the crew on a daily basis and get the footage as close as possible to how I thought he wanted it" • very similar to TNBC: dual-reality fantasy setting, dark grey-ish colours, zombie female love interest with long-limbed protagonist. and of course - more mean parent characters. • thematically feels like Burton on autopilot. forbidden love, oppressive society, misunderstood protagonist in awkward situation. its functional but not exactly compelling. • a lot of the visual gags and jokes in the afterlife world are really funny and charming. • the setup feels a little contrived, and Depp is a fairly bland protagonist - but it gains momentum, and Richard E Grant is a very entertaining villain despite his limited screentime. • the musical numbers are pretty bad. the opening one is an especially un-enticing way to open the film. Danny Elfman's poor form continues. • overall it feels like a run-of -the-mill Burton fare, elevated slightly by the stop-motion animation and fun visual comedy moments.

• feels weird that this was Burton's first true horror film given that its a genre that clearly had a great influence on him. • feels like a very authentic homage to Universal/Hammer horror films with it's setting, design and characters. Depp is a pretty on-point version of what Peter Cushing would have played in the Hammer equivalent of this. • unfortunately whilst there are no bad performances here, Burton is clearly only interested in The Horseman so its no surprise that he is the only memorable character. • its never really scary but it doesn't feel like it's supposed to be. the gore is well-executed and the action is pretty great too. • the atmosphere is well crafted and there is some genuinely striking imagery throughout (thanks in no short amount to Emmanuel Lubezki i'm sure). the tree of the dead and anything involving the horseman looks great. unfortunately, the core story and characters just aren't consistently engaging. it also dips into annoyingly cheesy territory more than once. • despite the pretty excellent cast, most of the characters are quite one note and the dialogue isn't great.

• who wants this? did literally any person besides Tim Burton want this TV show made into a Depp-Burton collab? • looks excessively clean and has a slick digital shine, which doesn't seem fitting given the retro-horror aesthetic (and source material). feels more like a finale to a high budget TV show than an actual film. • a fair amount of the comedy works. the fish-out-of-water stuff with Depp is predictable and repetitive but fun and the slapstick stuff involving vampire super strength is actually quite amusing. • whilst the milling around and family drama is amusing enough, the actual storyline is completely throwaway. Depp gets THREE romantic interests and somehow the film decides the least interesting girl with the least amount of screen-time should be the one he actually loves. the fishing company business war bits are all dull, and then the film flaccidly climaxes with a poorly executed fight scene. • Depp and Green are the standouts here and have actual chemistry + actual character arcs. Pfieffer, Moretz, Bonham-Cater and the rest just seem to serve as expensive background noise. • definitely feels like something Depp was more invested in, and it's unsurprising that he convinced Burton to join the project rather than the other way around. • whilst it's serviceable as a comedy, there's a serious tonal clash with the funny moments and when it decides to be a gothic melodrama, ie any serious romance moment or flashback sequence. • seems to be characteristic of any late-Burton film to have good design and costumes, but lacking the editing flair and immediately energetic visual style of his early work.

• proof that Tim Burton making two good Batman films does not make him qualified to make any film about eccentric rich weirdos. • has some visually inspired moments, and in typical Burton fashion its strengths lie in costume and set design. but overall feels horribly messy at best, and totally garish and ugly at its worst - which is anytime the painfully mid-2000s CGI is onscreen. • one of Danny Elfman's absolute worst scores. the chipmunk-ed choir vocals are horrendous, and the Mike TV musical number is borderline unlistenable. a couple of the musical numbers are ok (the Augustus Gloop one is solid), but it's pretty appalling and hard to sit though generally speaking. • it is consistently quite funny - Johnny Depp is just doing a quirkier impression of his Ed Wood performance, but it's distinct from Gene Wilder and it works. the child performances are also generally funny as the one-note caricatures they're intended to be. the only weak link is Freddie Highmore as Charlie, who is hugely underwritten and generally a bit of wet blanket. • almost every change from the original film is for the worse - even when its being more faithful to the source material of the book. as mentioned the songs are far worse and the post-Factory plot that delves into Wonka's backstory is a total misfire that completely undermines the most intriguing aspect of his character as an unknowable enigma. • apparently Dwayne Johnson was the second choice for the character? that would have probably been worse.

<p>• has there ever been a time where Mark Wahlberg playing a scientist hasn't been hilariously bad? <br />• actually quite visually stunning at points. the set design, mise-en-scene and costume design all look fantastic. only major gripe in that area is Helena Bonham-Carter's character's design, which clearly tries to look more human, but ends up being more comical and gormless. <br />• basically replicates the Beetlejuice dinner scene, with Burton's commentary on class and the bourgeoisie just being messily applied to the PotA race allegory. is momentarily quite funny, but still misses the mark overall.<br />• become significantly less interesting once the human characters break off from the apes. also, the removing the conceit that human characters can't speak is a huge misstep and just makes the film conceptually/thematically weaker.<br />• the cheesy wire-stunts are occasionally fun, but the action in general is just average. the final battle is pretty weak too - especially anything with digital effects.<br />• the final twist is funny, but also cheap and blatantly stupid. the Matt Reeves films might be more stylistically bland, but at least they understand what makes the franchise enjoyable.</p>

• Burton's 5 years too-late attempt at adapting a young-adult fiction book into a film. quite blatantly an attempt at a franchise starter but it just makes me sad that he never got to direct a Harry Potter film. • the editing in this film is among his worst ever. the pacing is also generally off, with the villain only appearing over an hour into the film. the first half hour is terrible and the film feels way overlong. • has some fun visual moments, ie the slow-motion used to show the time loop and the third act ups the silliness. still hardly satisfying, but it becomes more enjoyable. his action direction is somewhat dampened by the weak CGI, but the film at least becomes more entertainingly weird as it progresses. • Asa Butterfield is trying but he is not quite up to leading actor standard - at least under Burton's generally quite weak actor direction. • Eva Green and Samuel L Jackson are fun to watch, but almost entirely on the base level of their cartoon-y performances. • this could just be an issue with the source material, but the kids and their powers are basically sidelined as a minor gimmick when they should be the major draw.

• halfway between Burton's attempt at Oscar-bait and a Lifetime TV film. • the story itself is quite interesting, but the way it's told feels very by the numbers. you can spot exactly where it's going from a mile off, which superior biopics can avoid (The Social Network, Amadeus, Ed Wood etc). The one interesting plot reveal is just explained by a character out loud in the least satisfying way possible. • some decent period costume design and set design to found, but aesthetically quite bland for a Burton film. it's clean, digital sheen does it absolutely no favours. • Amy Adams is fine, buy Christoph Waltz is genuinely quite awful. Feels like he's doing a version of his Inglorious Basterds/Djano Unchained characters - but Burton is clearly not a strong actor's director. • Danny Elfman's worst score with Burton by far.

• visually cluttered and needlessly ugly once again. halfway through becomes weirdly steampunk, but the designs are still quite uninspired. Dumbo himself just isn't suited for live-action, and watching him fly around forces me to consider the physics required for a baby elephant to fly, whereas the animated version clearly had no issue here. • impressively poor performances from Farrell, Keaton and Devito. the child actors are also quite bad. • somehow squeezes 2 hours the narrative of the barely 1 hour 1941 original. you can feel yourself ageing as it plays. • Burton removes the racially questionable birds and cushions almost all of the most sadistic elements of the darker 1941 film and also tacks on a more PC ending. conjures up an entire third act based around the ensemble of characters escaping an evil, steampunk Circus corporation. feels like an entirely different film. however, a step-above Alice In Wonderland as the escalation of stakes at least feels coherent here. • the 'Pink Elephants on Parade' sequence happens, but just for no reason. the film feels like half a checklist by Disney, half creative freedom as taken by a bland imitation of Tim Burton.

• visually hideous. almost every single design is ugly and the CGI has already aged incredibly poorly. should be colourful and surreal - looks grimy and muted. all out of proportion characters and super-imposed faces look comically uncanny-valley. somehow won Oscars for Art Direction and Design?! • characterisation is at an all time low for Burton, Alice and the Mad Hatter get perfunctory back-stories. Alice even get the uber-cliche dead parent backstory added on... because of course she does. • forgoes the surreal and hallucinatory style of the source material and original 1951 film for a bizarrely convoluted story. explores Alice's prophecy regarding her appearance in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter's tragic backstory and a military coup by the Knave of Hearts. feels incredibly expository and lore-heavy, like it's trying to ape Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings. fails spectacularly. • Johnny Depp is playing a caricature of himself, Helena Bonham Cater is quite annoying and shouts almost all of her lines. Mia Wasikowska is fine but does barely anything other than act as a conduit Burton can use to shuffle from setpiece to setpiece. Stephen Fry is a good choice for The Cheshire Cat but hardly gets any screentime • structurally incoherent - no sense of exploration. • made 1bn dollars, and began the still running trend of Disney doing soulless live-action updates of their earlier properties.