Jay H
One of my two favorite Tim Burton movies.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
02/23/24
Full Review
Teddy B
Fantastic and oozing fiery passion for the impossibly doomed filmmaker Edward. D. Wood. Jr, Tim Burton is truly at the top of his game in this tragic, aesthetically pleasing, and hilarious masterpiece that sadly glossed over when discussing Tim Burton's filmography.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
01/09/24
Full Review
Tabitha B
Easily my favorite Tim Burton movie
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
11/12/23
Full Review
matthias s
"Get ready for a sidesplitting ride through the world of hilariously awful filmmaking in 'Ed Wood.' Johnny Depp's portrayal of the enthusiastic yet talent-lacking director is a caffeine-fueled delight. The film's black-and-white charm, courtesy of Tim Burton's direction, adds to the nostalgia as we witness the making of spectacularly bad movies.
Martin Landau shines as Bela Lugosi, delivering dramatically funny lines that'll have you in stitches. With a giant octopus puppet gone rogue and a total lack of continuity or special effects, 'Ed Wood' celebrates the triumph of passion over skill.
This so-bad-it's-good gem might be far from a cinematic masterpiece, but it's a hilarious testament to the magic of dedication in the face of disaster. 3.5 stars – because who needs perfection when you've got genuine enthusiasm?
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
11/15/23
Full Review
ievgenii t
thought provoking and inspiring
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
10/13/23
Full Review
Matthew B
How many film directors have a secret fear that they are really Ed Wood? Not in those words perhaps, but fearing that they share his faults. How many wonder if they have compromised artistic integrity in getting a film funded? Or that they never had any talent to begin with? Or that the various chaotic elements of filming that they threw together do not really add up to a coherent or sensible film?
After all, what is it that successful film directors have that Edward D Wood Jr did not? Talent, most obviously. Yet perhaps it is not just that. Most film directors get to work with gifted actors, experienced camera crews, a team of scriptwriters, and competent editors who can throw all the fragmented recordings into one final coherent whole.
This is what Ed Wood lacked. He was a poverty row director, writer and actor who had to make his films with the materials he had to hand. What he did have was a colour-blind cameraman, actors who could not act, and no time or money to put together a good film.
That is part of the reason why Ed Wood is considered the worst film director who ever lived, whereas Tim Burton is a highly prestigious auteur whose films make millions. One only has to look at the making of Ed Wood to see the difference. Burton employs special effects, dolly shots, Dutch angles, zooms, arial and ground floor shots, superimposed images and montage footage, a bag of tricks that Ed could only have dreamed of using.
Burton can do this because he has a budget that dwarfs any Ed Wood production. This film alone cost more to make than every Ed Wood movie put together, and yet it was a low budget for a Burton movie. The director even waived his salary to make it. Burton and the studio probably sensed that the movie would not be a moneymaker, but it was a personal labour of love for Burton, a chance to do something he enjoyed. For fans of the movie, it is a cult classic, an underrated offering by a popular director.
In Wood's eyes, he is a struggling genius like Orson Welles, another man who was actor, director and scriptwriter. Wood keeps a poster of his hero in his room, next to one of Bela Lugosi. In one of the film's most hilarious moments (sadly with no basis in fact), Ed Wood storms away from his film set discouraged, and goes into a bar. Who should be sitting in that bar but Orson Welles (Vincent D'Onofrio) himself!
Burton's approach to Ed Wood is both mocking and sympathetic. Wood's many struggles are portrayed in a comical manner that does not admit any deeper poignancy. Nonetheless there is a sneaking admiration for Wood's tenacity and his misguided but serious intentions. In that respect I cannot help but approve.
Watching Tim Burton's film gives the viewer an insight into how such dreadful movies manage to get made at all, and also why they are so bad. It is impossible not to laugh at Ed Wood's crude amateurism. Still Wood did not have the time to make a better production, and was forced to deceive himself that what he had filmed was brilliant. No matter how badly the scene goes, Wood is always convinced that he has achieved the perfect take.
When Tor blunders into the set and the wall wobbles, Wood does not shoot the scene again, arguing, "You know, in actuality, Lobo would have to struggle with that problem every day". Of course this is silly, and so is Wood's remark when he attempts to rein in his unruly lead actor: "Bela, I have 25 scenes to shoot tonight".
Yet in a way Wood is being realistic about what he could achieve. A major film studio could spend several days making just one scene. Wood has to make 25 in a night because he cannot afford to spend any more time or money making the film.
While Burton called his film Ed Wood, he could have called it Ed and Bela, as the story is essentially about the relationship that formed between the two men. Their touching tragicomic relationship forms the heart of the movie. What on earth would induce a respectable actor to appear in an Ed Wood movie? At the end of his life, Lugosi's career had stalled. The actor was broke, depressed, and addicted to morphine and methadone.
What Wood gets is not the confident and theatrical Lugosi of Dracula and White Zombie, but a bitter man, still living in the shadow of Boris Karloff, and spouting profanities. "But now, no-one gives to fucks for Bela," he complains. Indeed most people think he is already dead. I should mention that Lugosi's representation in the film has been challenged by his children. He did not sleep in a coffin. He did not own little dogs. He was a gentlemanly figure who did not swear. So I suppose he did not stride onto the set for Bride of the Monster and shout, "Let's shoot this fucker!"
Nonetheless Wood feels a sincere love for his idol. He is supportive towards the only famous actor who ever appears in his films. When Lugosi goes into rehab, Wood fends off reporters and gets Lugosi back on his feet after the actor is thrown out because he has no money. Wood encourages Lugosi, saying that he looks much better, when the poor man looks half-dead.
There are also the nights when Wood receives a phone call from Lugosi and needs to go round to reassure his star. This can involve trying to prevent Lugosi from killing himself, and possibly taking Wood with him. Wood hopes that he can restore Lugosi's former dignity by making a hit movie, but sadly the director's good intentions are not matched by his ability.
Of course Wood was terrible, and some amateur moviemakers have made better films on the same amount of money. Good moviemaking is often a matter of judgement. Still, perhaps Wood's films are no worse than the most disastrous mainstream movies that had millions of dollars thrown at them, and still turned out bad.
Wood did at least put his own personal signature on his works, and dared to make a move when all the odds were against him. Given the choice I would rather watch an Ed Wood movie than any dreary and predictable Hollywood production that has no surprises or art.
I wrote a longer appreciation of Ed Wood on my blog page if you would like to read more: https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2021/03/26/ed-wood-1994/
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
08/24/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
