|
|
Post by Zagreus on Jul 23, 2016 4:12:50 GMT
Just rewatched this again. It's both better and worse than I remember. Hadn't experienced much of the series on first view, but, now having a much better grasp on the series, I get a lot mroe of the stuff that went right over my head.
Michelle Pfeiffer actually does a pretty good Liz, in my opinion.
Maggie/Vicki is basically window dressing, and doesn't actually do much of anything.
Roger similarly could have just not been in the film.
The humor was a bit off beat, but otherwise I think they did a decent job of capturing some of the essence of the original series.
The premise isn't actually that bad. Girl who can see ghosts escapes mental asylum, changes her name, and comes to Collinsport where she's not even close to the list of most mysterious or supernatural thing around town. Too bad the movie doesn't really do much with that premise, and again rehashes the whole Barnabas/Angelique thing for the millionth time.
And I believe it's officially part of Big Finish canon thanks to The Flip Side's parallel time hopping shenanigans.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Jul 23, 2016 5:16:12 GMT
It does put it's own new... er, spin... on Barnabas and Angelique. Not a fan of Vicki/Maggie mash-ups, I like Vicki and I enjoy those episodes when it's her story with all of her moody voice-overs attesting to it, just as I consider Maggie as worthy a character and as Dark Shadows as anybody just for having been there since day one, not to mention an endless list of everything else. It's amazing to watch the first episode with those "kooks" up at Collinwood once you know what awaits Maggie.
I want to complain about the portrayal of Julia a bit sometimes but darned if she doesn't remain such a striking character anyway that I'm not quite sure why grumble. Also, I know this has to be especially pedantic but I struggle to reconcile everything Barnabas originally did to keep his cover with such a blatantly pasty-faced vampire that you can literally spot him a mile away. :-)
Any Dark Shadows is probably good Dark Shadows though really, and not only do I much appreciate what the movie did for awareness of the series, but it was comparing the 2012 movie to the original series that made me miss the OS enough to get more active in getting back in touch with it, instead of forever waiting on Netflix to offer a more complete selection. Eventually the search for Dark Shadows of course leads to Big Finish, so I have to be grateful for that.
|
|
Rob Morris
Big Finish Creative Team
Avoiding this place for a while as it's become somewhat toxic.
Likes: 781 
|
Post by Rob Morris on Jul 23, 2016 9:39:37 GMT
It's an odd one it really is. The decision to have Depp so pale is strange as it makes everyone look monumentally stupid for not noticing. Like the 1991 series it basically tries to do a Dark Shadows Greatest Hits, but given the runtime of a movie that means it tries to do way too much with loads of things not quite paying off - Roger could easily have not been there as previously noted. As a comedy version of Dark Shadows it's quite fun, with some reasonably funny gags, but it's a bit of a mess. Interestingly it could have been worse... www.collinsporthistoricalsociety.com/2015/07/dark-shadows-2012-it-actually-could.htmlMichelle Pfeiffer, however, is amazing. I like her Liz very much indeed and her with a gun at the end is a bit where I want to cheer. |
|
|
|
Post by omega on Jul 23, 2016 10:21:14 GMT
If this was a greatest hits, then would a potential sequel have continued the present day setting or gone back to 1795? Dark Shadows: Back to the Beginning. At least the 2012 film was a lesson in what not to do, ie comedy. Dark Shadows is a story that needs time to tell, not 120 minutes or however long the runtime was. This is what has allowed the audios to triumph.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 14:22:12 GMT
It's the strangest thing: I really wanted to like this film. The signs weren't encouraging - Depp's make-up looked ridiculous in the photographs taken of him while recording. I put this down to the fact that they weren't official pictures. But no - he looked too over-the-top, completely unable to walk into a room without people reacting to in some way. And yet Barnabas looked conservative compared to the photographs of the new Willie Loomis - an actor, it seemed, over-made-up to look like a film-maker's idea of a hillbilly. Ridiculous, be-wigged, false teeth - almost a moving prosthetic.
But I still wanted to like it, and reserved further judgement until I'd actually seen the film. It opened beautifully - the locations were exeptional. Michelle Pfeiffer and Jonny Lee Miller were fine in underwritten parts. Best of all was Helena Bonham Carter as Julia - again, sadly underwritten. The story - was there a story? Christopher Lee and Alice Cooper were superfluous, their screen-time would have been better used to develop some sense of tone or drama ... I couldn't make out what it was supposed to be. An Addams' Family tribute?
As I now watch the 1897 story on DVD, I see this is the tone the film aimed to be striving for. And yet, despite a couple of efforts, I can't watch more than about 15 minutes of the film again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trace on Jul 24, 2016 4:52:32 GMT
I will always feel there were some beautiful moments in the film. The brief pre-credit sequence in the past, and the gorgeous opening credits --the train heading to Collinsport to the strains of Moody Blues' "Nights in White Satin". I was so freaking thrilled to even GET opening credits--so few films have them anymore--so even that seemed perfect and retro!
I thought at first that they had cast Carolyn too young. Then Chloe Moretz won me over--she was brilliant! I liked Liz, Julia, Maggie/Vicki/Josette, David, Roger (they should have given him more to do!), ghostly Laura, and the beautiful Eva Green as Angelique.
So they have the makings of a hit---and here's where they went wrong. As Rob says, it became kind of a mess. Johnny Depp once again looked like an idiot. Willie was ALL KINDS OF WRONG. Mrs. Johnson too. The comedy was, for the most part, unnecessary and therefore, stupid.
But the biggest offense was that the ending descended into a CGI nightmare! Angie projectile vomiting green stuff (NEVER!!!!), stairs and banisters coming to life, Angie cracking and breaking.....and the big Carolyn reveal! SERIOUSLY???
I like the movie, really I do. I don't LOVE it. And here's why. They were on course to make an A+ film, and parts of that are evident. But instead they chose to go for cheap laughs and computer animation, basically (and intentionally I think), opting to make it a solid B-. That's what bothers me. A+ was so close, but we got B- instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 6:58:44 GMT
If Depp and Burton made it 20 years earlier, before they both became lazy parodies of themselves? Mighta had something. As it came out in 2012 it just was another in a long line of "Tim Burtons Reimagining Of..." films that were really just tonal messes starring the same hammy Depp and Bonham-Carter "kooky performances" in the lead over and over with scant regard for whether it suited the property in question. I, unlike Trace, don't care about some of the changes. I don't care about Carolyn the Werewolf or vomiting Angelique...it's a new version. Be new with your ideas and that's fine - but if you're selling it as a broad comedy horror...then you better make it funny and scary. But if the jokes don't work and it's about as scary as CGI vomit sounds? Not so fine. Looking at the film not as a "Dark Shadows" adaptation but just as a film in its own right, it's quite inept. Compare with the 2 Jump Street films. They're silly, comedy versions of the show. Nothing like it really...but they work as comedies in their own right so audiences bought it. This film didn't need to work as a version of Dark Shadows - Just as a comedy horror. And it didn't make me laugh much and the only thing that scared me was how Depp goes from being just stunning in Edward Scissorhands, Gilbert Grape and Fear & Loathing to this, the Mad Hatter and that awful Willy Wonka performance. Truly terrifying.  |
|
Rob Morris
Big Finish Creative Team
Avoiding this place for a while as it's become somewhat toxic.
Likes: 781
|
Post by Rob Morris on Jul 24, 2016 9:15:02 GMT
I haven't seen a lot of Burton but for me his crowning glory is Sleepy Hollow (a film I genuinely love). If Dark Shadows had had that tone it might be a lot better.
The attempts to make it a comedy are something of a misstep for me. Again it's like it's trying to do something on top of the "DSGH collection" when they already had enough to work with.
|
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Jul 24, 2016 10:33:54 GMT
the most un-butonesque film, Tim Burton has made in a very long time.
i didn't hate it, but didn't like it either. i thought it just fell flat for the most part.
it wasn't very funny, beautiful to look at or scary.
where the Adams Family got it right, using a decent cast giving an earnest performance and keeping the same tone throughout.
This went from panto to kitchen sink and everything inbetween with every cut and scene change.
Depp's performance was not that bad, his willy wonka & mad hatter were far more irksome.
for me the best thing was that fireplace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trace on Jul 25, 2016 0:44:49 GMT
If Depp and Burton made it 20 years earlier, before they both became lazy parodies of themselves? Mighta had something. As it came out in 2012 it just was another in a long line of "Tim Burtons Reimagining Of..." films that were really just tonal messes starring the same hammy Depp and Bonham-Carter "kooky performances" in the lead over and over with scant regard for whether it suited the property in question. I, unlike Trace, don't care about some of the changes. I don't care about Carolyn the Werewolf or vomiting Angelique...it's a new version. Be new with your ideas and that's fine - but if you're selling it as a broad comedy horror...then you better make it funny and scary. But if the jokes don't work and it's about as scary as CGI vomit sounds? Not so fine. Looking at the film not as a "Dark Shadows" adaptation but just as a film in its own right, it's quite inept. Compare with the 2 Jump Street films. They're silly, comedy versions of the show. Nothing like it really...but they work as comedies in their own right so audiences bought it. This film didn't need to work as a version of Dark Shadows - Just as a comedy horror. And it didn't make me laugh much and the only thing that scared me was how Depp goes from being just stunning in Edward Scissorhands, Gilbert Grape and Fear & Loathing to this, the Mad Hatter and that awful Willy Wonka performance. Truly terrifying. I don't mind changes at all--I like and welcome them. I wouldn't mind Carolyn as a werewolf--just not the way they did it in this movie. The CGI monster was stupid looking, as was the image of Liz carrying the transformed wolf. And I had no problem with all the plot changes, including Angelique as a businesswoman. As you said, it's a new version and should not be a re-tread. But the vomiting was cheap looking, maybe supposed to be funny? (it wasn't). Or for shock value? (it didn't). I agree with you--the comedy horror had to work, and would be perfectly fine if it did. But it failed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2016 0:39:50 GMT
the most un-butonesque film, Tim Burton has made in a very long time. I agree with everything you said except for that - it seems almost generically Burton to me. The cinematography cast, tone, score..it's Burton 101. Ask anyone to watch it then ask "Who directed it?" they'd not have to guess twice The only film he's made that isn't in his house style in a long, long time is Big Eyes which wasn't great but was at least something new. |
|
|
|
Post by Trace on Jul 26, 2016 1:04:36 GMT
It seems very Burton 101 to me too. And I'm not really a fan. Of Burton (or Depp for that matter), not DS. I still found much to like about the film. More than dislike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zagreus on Jul 26, 2016 1:56:05 GMT
I'm now imagining that rival cannery in Logansport that Burke purchased way back at the beginning of the series to be Angel Bay.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jul 26, 2016 8:08:57 GMT
I'd never seen Dark Shadows when I saw the movie. I was enjoying it but it fell apart as it went on. Would be interesting to rewatch it now than I'm 800 episodes into the TV show.
|
|
|
|
Post by muckypup on Jul 26, 2016 9:53:30 GMT
the most un-butonesque film, Tim Burton has made in a very long time. I agree with everything you said except for that - it seems almost generically Burton to me. The cinematography cast, tone, score..it's Burton 101. Ask anyone to watch it then ask "Who directed it?" they'd not have to guess twice The only film he's made that isn't in his house style in a long, long time is Big Eyes which wasn't great but was at least something new. I agree that it is a Tim burton film his marks are all over it and yes score & cast follow him around. but it has little of the burtonesque weirdness & visual beauty that makes his films memorable if not always that good. t's someone else's weirdness if you get what I mean, it feels restrained. A homage not his vision. as for Big Eyes....least said soonest mended....he should stick to what he does best....spirals, snow, outcasts, gothic & freeks........oh he is with Miss peregrine's school for peculiar children |
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jul 26, 2016 10:17:31 GMT
Wasn't it the case that really its a Johnny Depp film and he asked Tim to direct it. As opposed to being a Tim Burton film from outset.
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jul 29, 2016 8:59:17 GMT
I will always feel there were some beautiful moments in the film. The brief pre-credit sequence in the past, and the gorgeous opening credits --the train heading to Collinsport to the strains of Moody Blues' "Nights in White Satin". I watched it last night for a second time - and, as said above, for my first time since starting watching the TV show...
...I've been singing "Night of Dark Shadows" to myself every since...
|
|
bobod
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,759
|
Post by bobod on Jul 29, 2016 9:46:21 GMT
It's an odd beast. A lot of the jokes do work, but they don't fly or sing. Nothing develops a comedy rhythm. You find yourself saying "that's a good gag" rather than, you know, laughing at it. The mate I watched it with last night, described the film - about 30-40 mins in - as being very 80%, everything is fine, nothing is bad, nothing is great. And then obviously it just gets broader and broader and... less good... the more it goes on. and the sex stuff just doesn't work - neither the trashing the place scene, or Julia injecting herself with Barnabas in more than one way. And Alice Cooper, why? (Although I did laugh at Barnabas's jokes about her.)
I don't think Depp Barnabas looks as extreme as others do (not for a comedic-toned film anyway). Frid doesn't look far off that grey-skinned and black-eyed at times, I think perhaps people forget he has one make up style for pre-curse and cured-from-curse Barnabas and another for cursed Barnabas.
The lack of screen-time for Vicki and Roger only works if being seen as commentary on how uninterested in those characters the show became once Barnabas appeared... which is not how to plot a movie. Similarly the amount of times Depp appears in daylight under an umbrella or with a hat on or whatever could be a comment on the dreadful day for night filming in both the Dan Curtis DS movies and the 1991 version of the show.
|
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Aug 29, 2016 11:14:34 GMT
watched it last week
I chose to try to judge it on it's own merits (I still have not seen a single episode of the TV series)
while featuring elements of a number of genres the only one it fit was "Tim Burton fantasy"
as it failed to manage comedy, black comedy or horror, etc
while not completely without merit (which mostly comes from the talented cast), the mixture of bad ideas, under-developed ideas and conflicting visions means that it falls a long way short of the potential
|
|
