The charm and appeal of this film eludes me.

Rating: 3/10 (11 March 2000)

I just don't get it. Why make a film which celebrates and nearly canonizes a bad filmmaker? I've heard some say that it captures his buoyant enthusiasm and never-say-die spirit. Commendable qualities, to be certain. But it doesn't change the fact that HE WAS A BAD FILMMAKER! And he wasn't bad because he was reaching for something greater than he could achieve, or because he deliberately reveled in camp and bad taste for its own sake (like, say, John Waters). Nor was it true that he was unfairly labeled and vilified by the Hollywood establishment because he flew in the face of their conventions (as such, the association that's made with Orsen Welles late in the movie is particularly laughable). No, the reason Ed Wood was bad was because he was just naturally inept. He had no idea how to appropriately construct a scene, how to direct actors, how to light a film set, how to. .. well, the list goes on and on. Basically, everything a director needs to know how to do - he didn't have the first clue about.
What's odd is that the film makes this abundantly clear. There's no attempt to portray him as a closet genius or an ahead-of-his-time visionary. Indeed, the scenes of him directing on a movie set have a kind of 'Saturday Night Live' sketch quality about them, as we watch disaster breaking out all around, and Ed blissfully sitting in the center of it, thinking it's all great. If the movie was constructed as an elaborate joke - a parody of a "serious" biography by the use of a laughably inappropriate subject - it might have worked (although even then, it would be a cheap joke - making fun of Ed Wood is about as bold as making fun of Pia Zadora).
That certainly seems to be the movie Johnny Depp thought they were making - his portrayal of Ed is so cartoonish and one-dimensional, with exaggerated snappy line deliveries straight out of a '40s B-flick, that it's a role Jon Lovitz - in full "Yeh, That's the ticket!" mode - could have done just as well. Director Tim Burton, though, as well as writers Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, want to find more here than just Ed's ludicrousness. I know this is their intention not because they've found it, but because the film is a leaden bore - so that tells me that it wants to be "important." First of all, it's filmed in black and white and we all know that represents high "artistic" aspirations. Personally, I think a movie glaring with bright and tacky colors would be the more appropriate way to commemorate Ed Wood's life. But then, I'm thinking of it as a comedy, and this film is serious, very very serious.
What it's serious ABOUT, I have no idea. The cruel and unfortunate fate of the talentless? But shouldn't those lacking ability fall to the bottom of their respective fields? Certainly Burton is not bemoaning the fact that Ed was not more successful in Hollywood: that it is precisely Wood's enthusiasm and determination which are the qualities most in need to counteract the jadedness of the industry? My god, maybe that IS his point! But certainly there exist - and have existed - directors and creators of actual skill and talent who have possessed the exuberance attributed to Ed here. Why commend him on his personal qualities when he was such a washout in the field where he chose to employ them?
I don't know. Lots of people like this film. More power to them. Maybe someday someone will be able to explain to me its appeal in a way I can comprehend. All I know is that, at some point, I became impatient and frankly offended at having to sit through the exploits of a no-talent hack. Zeal and enthusiasm - yes, this movie convinced me that Ed Wood had them. But so, I'm told, does Charles Manson. And no one's suggesting we should make a celebratory biopic of HIM.