One wonders if you'd have liked the film more or less if Tim Burton hadn't been involved in it....Oh, wait - HE WASN'T. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327597/fullcredits

Your article reads as if Coraline is a Tim Burton film. Tim Burton is not involved in Coraline. On the assumption that it was just poor writing style and not an actual fundamental ignorance of the film you're reviewing, you may want to re-word things.

On the other hand, if you actually did mean to say Coraline is a Tim Burton film, allow me to get in the line that is forming at this moment with the intent in making sure the only writing you do in the future is filling out your McDonalds time card.

Ooops. Fact checking please!
Hard to say it in any other way.."twerp"

If Mr. Moreau would care to do any research on the film, or at least glance at the credits, he would discover that Tim Burton had exactly nothing to do with this movie. I must therefore consider any reviews from this author suspect - this is a bush-league mistake.

Did you even see beyond the first half hour of the film? You certainly did not stay for the credits as Tim Burton's name is absent from them.

In your review of Coraline, you frequently mention the name Time Burton, and I'm not sure why, as Burton is nothing whatsoever to do with this project. This makes it all the more galling when your review claims the movie is "brand extension" for a brand it does not and never has belonged to.

I firmly believe that a film critic's job is not to tell us what's good or bad, but to give us something with which to agree or disagree--the start to the conversation, if you will. So, though I couldn't disagree with your assessment of the film more, I cannot fault you for your opinion.

That said, I think you might have had a more solid position on which to base your argument if you didn't spend so much time going on and on about Tim Burton, who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Coraline.

An editor could probably help you out with this, but it's probably best for SundayPaper.com just to scrap the whole thing and bring in someone who doesn't mind doing a bit of research.

In the time it took to register, two people posted what I needed to point out. There WILL be more!
Tim Burton (whom I love) did NOT do "Coraline". Please fix your review. It makes you (and the other reviewers who have been lazy, and made the same assumption) look like a fool!

I don't understand why you spent the majority of the review talking about Tim Burton...He had nothing to do with the film.

The 3D is the first of its kind in the sense that it is subtle and unobtrusive. Most 3D movies throw in gimmicky scenes to justify spending the money to make it 3D whereas the 3D in Coraline was used to deepen the background and immerse the audience. It was very well done and that alone warrants the film more than a 2.5.

What an irrelevant douche-bag, why are you even writing an article when you obviously know nothing about this movie... Tim Burton was in NO WAY involved, not only should you post a correction but also an apology to Mr. Gaiman and Mr. Selick for your moronic error.

A simple check of imdb.com would've given you the relevant information (which you should'nt even need to do if you have half a brain and know what you're writing about).

This is precisely why print media is meeting it's demise, horrid writing and lack of fact checking etc. , do not put that black mark onto online journalism as well.... idiot.

On another note, it was a beautiful film and Mr. Gaiman and Mr. Selick should be proud of their accomplishment, also Tim Burton should be proud of all of his work as well.. which does not include this film.

Wow...Twitter is powerful...

Excuse me! Tim Burton is in no way involved in Coraline, which is a brilliant film by Henry Selick and Neil Gaiman. You seriously need to check your facts before you take a figurative dump on an amazing film. Maybe you should stop writing film reviews, since you obviously don't think things through.

Yeah, I agree with Mary, really fantastic fact-checking going on here. Tim Burton had absolutely nothing to do with this movie.

"director/producer Tim Burton" & "Burton’s go-to guy" - HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for such a good laugh. Do you actually get paid to be so ridiculously oblivious about the topics you write about?

Wow! Not only Kevin Moreau a poor reviewer, he's also the Editor in Chief!

From the contact page:

Kevin Moreau
Role: Editor in Chief
Dept: Editorial
Phone: 404-974-3812
Email: kevinmoreau@sundaypaper.com
Profile: ContactUsKevinMoreau

To be fair, my fellow Twitterers, he wasn't saying that the film was directed by Tim Burton. He was drawing a comparison to Tim Burton's stop action experience. The problem was that he didn't properly utilize the power of brevity and spent so much of the article referencing Burton, he failed to really review the film.

Usually you start a review by mentioning the director or writer, depending on which is the major player. In his attempt to compare Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas to Gaiman's Coraline, he began with Burton, which wasn't the most streamlined way to write a short review.

For the love of God, Kevin, reorganize and re-post the review before the other Twitterers wake up and check their twitter.

what does tim burton have to do with the movie Coraline? What a silly article .Half of it is about someone who had nothing to do with the film. Waist of space if you ask me.

I wasn't familiar with The Sunday Paper prior to seeing discussion of this review. If this review is an indication of your editorial quality, I do not expect to return. Burton had nothing to do with this movie yet half the review talks about him as it he were a principal in the production of the movie. FAIL.

Please get your facts in order before presenting them on a public forum. Journalistic inaccuracies not only embarrass this website, but misinforms your readership. Get your s**t together and rewrite your article.

You, sir, have just been Twittered.

Hey, sundaypaper.com, when you fire this clown for embarrasing you and your establishment, where can I submit my application to take over?

Oh good lord. I don't even need to say it, as so many have already done it for me. But I'm going to anyway.

Tim Burton is not the only person capable of making an eerie, well-made stop motion film. He's incredibly good at it. Good for him. He was no more involved in this film than your dumb self. That being said, I respect your opinion, but I think it's way off the mark, and probably tainted by your belief that Tim Burton, whom you apparently believe to be some commercial demon (???), was somehow involved in this movie. So, while I respect your opinion, I also think you're full of crap. The movie was a gem.

Lovely review.

I'm off to watch Paul Verhoevans "Gladiator" or maybe the Francis For Coppola classic "Alien"

Kevin Forest Moreau. You are a bad man. More than that, you are a bad movie critic. I would suggest to your editor that you review and rewrite your piece, but as EIC, you probably wouldn't care whatsoever.

Your review sounds as if you just read a description of the film online, and just went and rehashed whatever you read. Unfortunately, whatever you read must have failed to mention that Tim Burton didn't work on this film. Maybe not every stop motion film is a Burton masterpiece in commercialism. Perhaps Henry Selick is just a talented director. His work on Seepage (1981) and James and the Giant Peach (1996) are proof of that, or maybe you think Tim Burton was responsible for those as well.

My word you're a hypocritical bunch.

It is an unfortunately worded and decidedly Burton obsessed review, that much is true. But how about you re-read it and realise that you're jumping on an imaginary bandwagon..? I think you could do with taking some of your own advice intead of mindlessly following the unstoppable Twitter crowd of pitchfork waving witch-burners...

Squeak, while the reviewer never says 'this is a Burton film' the reader can be left in no doubt that this was his impression. I think your level of forced interpretation is in adverse propotion to the ammount of research done but by the writer.

Incidentally I'm a reader of this paper and not part of some mob. This is not a film I'd choose to see, but I'd like to know a paid reviewer has grasped at least the basics.

It does not speak well for the paper as a whole.

Oh I don't disagree it was a poorly written review, but many of these comments have clearly skimmed the article with a predetermined interpretation. On second read the critic appears to be making an inevitable comparison (albeit decidedly and unecessarily labouring the point) rather than saying Burton has any tangible involvement. Regardless of how people choose to interpret it, it seems a shame that those who make valid points are in danger of being drowned in a Twitter based outcry.

Tim Burton was not involved in "Coraline". At all.

What is it with journalists these days and not doing any research. Aren't you supposed to find three sources or something before sending a story to print. And shame on your editor for letting this slide. Poor effort chaps, poor effort. Do better.

Well. Everyone else has already taken you to task, so I'm sure by now you know which facts were wrong in your article.

Since your initial premise was wrong, it undermines all your subsequent conclusions; that's probably quite apparent to you as well.

Fortunately, the internet has a short memory, so you'll probably be ok in a month or two; while for a year or so everyone will remember (and discuss) your mistake at certain events designed for a particular audience, few will actually remember your name.

Better research next time; go forth and, in the future, either tread lightly on cult favorites or be absolutely certain you've get every fact correct. The fans of cult movies might be few in number but they are large in ferocity.

Actually, Squeak, I didn't come to this article via twitter. It's the other way around. I was looking through google news for Coraline reviews and I found this one. Upon hearing that Twitterers were the main responders, I signed up for Twitter. True, the article doesn't say that Tim Burton is involved, but it gives the impression that the critic believes that he is. And even if he doesn't believe that, it gives readers the impression that he is.

What happened to reporters checking facts? Tim Burton isn't involved in this movie. Why is his name praised in the review over and over?

What happened to reporters checking facts? Tim Burton isn't involved in this movie. Why is his name praised in the review over and over?

Squeak, try rereading the first paragraph, particulalry this part:

"Tim Burton is best known for spinning pre-existing pop-cultural properties into idiosyncratic and macabre fantasies (“Batman,” “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Sweeney Todd,” the upcoming “Alice in Wonderland”). “Coraline” continues that trend,"

Grammatically-speaking, it says that Coraline continues *Burton's trend*. So while he might not *quite* be saying it's a Burton film, it still may be *greatly* inferred from that line, as the sentence lacks any clarification to the contrary. He could have phrased it in a way that says that Coraline is similar to Burton's films without actually implying that it *is* one or being so vague about it.

Well, watching the Twitterverse bring the spring-loaded mallet down on your head has been a thoroughly enjoyable experience, Mr. Moreau. It's a harsh and unforgiving new world out there for traditional journalists (if you do, in fact, qualify as such, which is debatable). However, for the good of the species, the weak and incompetent must be culled. No fun for the weak and incompetent, but that's the way it is. I, for one, will never forget your name of your "paper," if only to help me avoid it in the future. Thanks for the laff!

Stacey et al, as a Gaiman fan and an animator myself I am agreeing with you! Lordy. It is indeed a terribly confusing and short sighted review. However what I found more amusing was the barrage of comments that followed after an innocent Twitter post, many of which were hypocritically calling out a critic for being misinformed whilst already having made the decision he'd outright claimed Coraline was a Burton film... And when I say many, I mean many. Not all :p

Hopefully people are reading the comments and the whole of the article before posting, which I doubt. So:

HEY! LOOK HERE!!!!!!11!!!!!1!

Okay, so what Squeek and I are trying to say is that everyone is being quite harsh. He's not incompetent, nor is a douche-bag. He's entitled to his opinion, as we all are. Just remember that we represent the very thing we are trying to defend, yes? Sites likes tmz.com and various news sites have been having a field day generalizing twitter users as idiots with mob-mentality. Seeing as who the majority of us follow, we are (for the most part) well-educated and well written. So what you need to do before you comment is to take the article into perspective, remember who you represent, and read the article thoroughly at least twice. Seeing that the majority of the arguments is that he poorly researched the film, it would be hypocritical to post without thoroughly reading the article.

Also keep in mind that despite the negative feedback, they still got thousands more views than they probably normally do. So I doubt very seriously anyone is going to get "fired"; a concept some of you think is viable.

The first paragraph reads like he is saying Burton is the director, like I stated before. But then he begins the second paragraph by negating that assumption, so he CLEARLY does not think that Burton is the director. If anything, it can be gleaned that he may think he's a producer, since he billed Burton as a "director/producer". So his research isn't faulty, but rather his composition.

He's trying to draw a comparison between Nightmare and Coraline, which is a plausible and inevitable comparison but not one that can be executed in 278 words. So while he did a poor job of reviewing the film since he talked more about Burton than the actual film, I wouldn't deduce that that makes him a poor reporter.

Well, Mr. Moreau, live and learn. The good thing is your site got a huge bump. You obviously known how to write, but perhaps brevity isn't your strong suit. It would be interesting to see you write a more lengthy review of the film. Moreover, I don't know if you gave it 2.5 stars out 5, 4, 3, etc... So you might want to make that a little more clear. I'm assuming 2.5/5.0 but I hate making assumptions.

Had a great laugh going through the comments.

Is it any surprise that so many people feel the writer/editor-in-chief must be stupid when he writes a review as follows?

Graph1: Tim Burton reference. Intro Coraline.
Graph2: Tim Burton reference. Movie plot summary. Graph3: Criticism. Tim Burton reference.

Yeah, as much as I like Tim Burton...

It was sure fun to read all those comments. Better luck next time!

Dear rackfocus85,

That's very sweet of you to want to defend this person. But I have to admit, I've read the review through a number of times and it's definitely NOT meant as a comparison to Tim Burton. It's quite clear that the author feels that Tim Burton is the producer. It just wouldn't be written the way it is if he didn't. It's also nice of you to defend his writing. But if he is actually drawing a comparison, as you believe, it would actually make him look even worse as a critic since this really short piece spends so much more time laboring over Tim Burton and his movies than it does Henry Selick.

It's probably best to just let him admit the mistake, revise his review, and move on. Hopefully next time he will be much more careful about fact checking.

Editor Kevin Moreau has posted a correction here:
http://www.sundaypaper.com/Blogs/FromtheEditorsDesk/tabid/234/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3670/Coraline-clarification--.aspx

it has been said before. I won't insult everyone by saying it again. However, since you out and out say that Coraline is branding of something/one it is not even associated with I will assume that Squeak just wants to call people on something and can't think of anything better. Because, yes, he did say it was associated with Tim Burton, by calling it an attempt to brand something as Tim Burton's brand. So, we all know I read to the end, but who really didn't. Because if you are accusing other people of just skimming maybe you should pay attention to wording yourself?

Sheesh. I can't believe the hostility, not to mention the redundancy, in this comment thread. It's a movie review--name calling and outrage are completely out of place. The error has been pointed out, many times.

Hard to believe so many fans of the always civil Mr. Gaiman are responsible for this kind of abuse. Do you really think this is the response he was asking for?

Please PLEASE conduct a research prior to writing a movie review.

1) Henry Selick directed and co-screenwrote Coraline. Tim Burton was NOT ever involved in this movie.

2) Neil Gaiman is NOT just a comic-book scribe. Mr. Gaiman is a successful established author in his own right - and many of his works have been adapted to other mediums like graphic novels, comics, and movies.

Respectfully, as a fable and one filled with metaphors and allegories - plus with its HIGH and consistent production quality, CORALINE deserves no less than 4 stars at the least. It was unjustified smacking this gem of a movie with a mere 2.5 stars just because you seem to have issues with Tim Burton or that this movie is not 'adult' enough for you.

Nevertheless, to each his/her own - and I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion and concerns.

Thank you.

Xenu help anyone who points out that Coraline has a mediocre story. Neil Gaiman is a Scientologist and his flunkies patrol the web flaming any whisper about his Scientology pursuits or the lameness of this movie. Neil Gaiman was a class VIII auditor and Executive Director of the Birmingham Org. He was a Case Supervisor at the Guardian Office. In 1983 Neil Gaiman is supposedly declared "suppressive" but in 1988, FIVE YEARS AFTER THE DECLARE, Neil’s name appears in graduate lists in The Auditor Worldwide as completing three courses. The Gaiman Family USA are listed as founding "Patrons" of Scientology for 2004 & 2006 so they donate large amounts of money to "clear the planet." According to Celebrity Scientology blog-writer Grahame when asked about Neil’s scientology current status: "My answer is that I heard from a close relative of his that he (Neil Gaiman) is taking services at Flag."