REVIEW: DARK SHADOWS

Please spill it.  A lot of us are never going to see this swill.  You might as well entertain us.

Woof. I have to admit the final trailer's goofiness made me hope for a miracle. It's a pity.

Just seconding the request for that line of dialogue. I will never, ever see this (voluntarily), so you ain't spoiling nothin'.

Oh yeah, two things I forgot. First always pleasurable to read a review savaging a worthy target. Second, I have to third the request for the line.

Fourth request for that line.

Also, yup, the last trailer made me hope for a good comedy horror, but seems it wasnt meant to be.

Alright, I'm probably paraphrasing. But let me frame it up first. You find out Chloe's character is keeping a secret five minutes before (I swear to god, I think Burton wants you to believe she's running off because she's getting her period). At the end, Eva Green reveals that she sent a werewolf to Chloe's crib when she was a baby ("I sent a werewolf to your crib when you were a baby") . Chloe then leaps out, covered in awful CG hair, and says to her mom:

"I'm a werewolf, mom. DEAL WITH IT!"

Trust me when I say it's worse than it sounds. 

That whole reveal comes out of fucking nowhere; I'm convinced that Burton thought that gem up at the last minute and shoe-horned it in to add more "tension" to the entire climax. I don't even care that she ends up being a werewolf. That could have worked if Burton bothered to think about it somewhere earlier in the film. There's never a moment that hints she's hiding anything. She just acts like a teenage girl. Nothing weird here, everyone move along. Except WHOOPS SHE'S A WEREWOLF.

Everything about the climax is deus ex supernatural shit, but that doesn't really bother me so much as how fucking terribly it's executed. Ghost Mom and Werewolf Girl come out of nowhere, and meanwhile we really don't have that much attachment to these characters in the first place. So Burton is swooping in to save the day with random bullshit while a bunch of people who we don't care about get kicked around by Eva Green's immortal magic powers and stunning rack. (Seriously, Eva Green's tits are as much an essential character in Dark Shadows as Eva Green herself.) It's lifeless stuff.

For me the biggest problem is the sense that Burton just assumes we're going to be behind these people just because, you know, they're characters in a movie and so why shouldn't we? But that never works to the advantage of anything. Maybe Burton thinks only fans of the show will flock to this movie, and maybe that's true, but I really don't see why they'd want to see it either. It's bad.

I knew I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up for this thing.

Do keep in mind that I really really really hate almost everything Burton has done in the last ten years, with the exception of Big Fish. My opinion is very skewed toward one end of the spectrum. Take that as you will.

I sort of doubt that there are enough "Dark Shadows"-the-tv-show fans out there for the numbers to work for a  project this expensive.

I do think there are enough 'my-Burton-right-or-wrong' fans out there who will watch anything he does, because of not in spite of his usual tricks.

He kind of defined a subculture lifestyle for nerdy, alienated types who gravitate to the candy coated goth thing. He seems determined to coast on forever on the goodwill generated by Nightmare Before Christmas and corsets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agracru 

Do keep in mind that I really really really hate almost everything Burton has done in the last ten years, with the exception of Big Fish. My opinion is very skewed toward one end of the spectrum. Take that as you will.

Just curious: have you seen Sweeney Todd?

The love interest is introduced, and than forgotten for almost the entire movie before Burton goes 'Hey, aren't we forgetting someone?' and than solve the issue in two minutes and end the movie with Barnabas turning her into a vampire like himself, thus declaring the curse to be lifted...apart from still needing to kill herds of people to stay fed. Not that two centuries without blood weakend him in any way

This is too bad for a couple of reasons:

There are only a few dependable autuers out there who get wide distribution.

I mean the guys who are allowed to be weird

Burton has so much good about him and the potential to make great movies and he just sort of...doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bendrix 

 

Just curious: have you seen Sweeney Todd?

I have. I really, truly didn't like that one, either, but I liked it much more than this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr.cyclops 

Burton has so much good about him and the potential to make great movies and he just sort of...doesn't.

He did for a time. I think Batman Returns is a fabulous bit of weirdness. And I'm not ashamed to admit Edward Scissorhands stole a few tears. I feel like he's trolling me with Dark Shadows. If this was a movie he had a passion for getting made, it doesn't show on screen. 

I think that's because he's not doing something he's passionate about anymore. Instead, he's just making "Tim Burton movies", which aren't really movies as much as they are showcases for the Tim Burton brand and all of the expected quirks and proclivities that he's known for. His films are just checklists now; alternately gaudy and flat color palettes, with characters washed-out thanks to an abuse of white face paint? Check. Dark, gloomy sensibilities? Check. Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp? Check. Female love interest who resembles a human version of Sally in The Nightmare Before Christmas? Check. Danny Elfman score? Check. Ugly-to-be-pretty aesthetic? Check.

Everything about his modern cinema is just expected. The guy doesn't step outside of that recognizable Burton image. At all.

At worst, Burton's films feel like wonderful production and costume design doing a crazy dance in front of a trainwreck, hoping we stay too distracted to see.  What crushed me so much about Alice, one hell of an endurance test to watch, was that it felt like a Tim Burton movie created by a panel of financial types who took the main characteristics of Burton's work and very surgically and cynically applied them to a film.  All of the quirks and qualities call attention to themselves, a surface-level weirdness that lacks the sense of passion in Burton's earlier work.  There's a sense that he'd rather spend time adding another gothic touch to his production design than actually engage with a character.

The only useful thing Burton's past few films have done is keep giving Christopher Lee some work.  Speaking of which, what's his cameo in this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Senior 

The only useful thing Burton's past few films have done is keep giving Christopher Lee some work.  Speaking of which, what's his cameo in this?

Playing the King of the Fishermen...in a one minute cameo that has him hypnotized by Barnabas instead of an actual confrontation between a legendary horror icon and Johnny Depp.

That's somewhat disappointing, even considering that it's a cameo and Lee doesn't do full parts anymore.  An actual confrontation of some kind would have been a far greater use of his abilities, especially for this film.  Still, I suppose it's more than his ten seconds of voice-over work in Alice in Wonderland.

Even with the review and being spoiled on the ending, I'll still see it to make up my own mind. I figure I'll still enjoy Alice Cooper's cameo.

For a while now I've been wondering whether my intense dislike of Burton's stuff over the last few years has just been an extension of my own boredom with his visual style, mixed in with a bit of petty bias against the vocal Burton uber-fans I'd known. You know, that maybe me saying over and over that he was a visually bankrupt, artistically inert has-been coasting on Depp, his missus,  other people's stories and a bag of visual tricks the size of a coin purse was maybe just a tad unfair.

The reviews of this thing have been seeming to fall over themselves left and right to tell me that I really wasn't exaggerating all along.

Disappointing... I was really hoping for another Beetlejuice.  Great Review though.

To quote Luke Skywalker, "What a piece of junk!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by roboTimKelly 

Alright, I'm probably paraphrasing. But let me frame it up first. You find out Chloe's character is keeping a secret five minutes before (I swear to god, I think Burton wants you to believe she's running off because she's getting her period). At the end, Eva Green reveals that she sent a werewolf to Chloe's crib when she was a baby ("I sent a werewolf to your crib when you were a baby") . Chloe then leaps out, covered in awful CG hair, and says to her mom:

 

"I'm a werewolf, mom. DEAL WITH IT!"

 

Trust me when I say it's worse than it sounds. 

Agree that it's a terrible line, but wasn't it "I'm a werewolf, okay? Let's not make a big deal out of  it"?

You know it's bad when his last decent film was Sleepy Hollow, and even that was considered a disappointment at the time.

I thought I recall Sweeney Todd being mostly well-received, and Big Fish gets points for trying something outside Burton's cliched box.

I liked "Big Fish". After how disappointing "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was, I decided I'm done with Burton. The reviews of his output since lead me to believe I made the right choice. It saddens me to see what's happened to Burton, though, because for me, "Ed Wood" is one of the most important movies ever made.

I love that movie in the most personal way possible, like one of those songs that hits you so hard, you feel like it was made just for you. A guy who could make a movie that good squandering his talent for almost ten years straight is just a travesty.

I can't believe it's been almost ten years since "Big Fish". And even though I liked it, I wouldn't even call that movie "great". A lot of people probably dug it in large part because it came out right after the huge flop of "Planet of the Apes" (probably similar to why there's so much goodwill for the very flawed "X-Men: First Class", coming out on the heels of "Wolverine"). It was a reminder of classicist Burton after a very wrongheaded departure, but not exactly impressively original.

"Sleepy Hollow" and "Big Fish" were both okay and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" would be quite passable if not for Depp's horrible acting choices and the daddy issues bullshit Burton needlessly pumped into the script. I just don't think Burton has done anything really exceptional since "Ed Wood". It's always a bummer to watch someone steadily improve, then drive their career into the ground just as they seem on the verge of a renaissance.

With "Ed Wood", Burton finally realized the potential of his early movies ("Pee-Wee's Big Adventure" rules, and the way things are going, seems likely to be worthy of distinction as his second best movie when Burton's career ends). "Ed Wood" should have been the first in a long line of transcendent works. Instead, it's looking more and more like the last hurrah before Burton's career irrevocably went to shit.

When "Sweeney Todd" came out, I heard from a few sources (friends AND critics) that it was his best movie since "Ed Wood". I was briefly intrigued, but then the hype cooled down, and I haven't heard much about it since. I was still too burned by "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" to give it a shot. Is there anyone out there that still believes it's worthy of comparison to "Ed Wood"?

Nothing Burton's done before or since Ed Wood touches Ed Wood. Scissorhands comes closest. I've got a soft spot for Big Fish to overlook its pacing flaws, but nothing touches Ed Wood. Sweeny Todd is well designed, means well, and I give it credit for sticking to the play's operatic structure (the movie is probably 90% singing). I even think Depp and Carter, while not having full on Broadway voices, makes their vocals work for the characters they're playing. The problem is Burton has none--ZERO--idea on how to stage a musical number. It's stand here, don't move, and sing. The whole movie. And that is just dull. Things pick up better when Todd starts slicing throats, but that's a long wait.

Ed Wood  was, for Burton, what Punch Drunk Love was for Adam Sandler.  A way to tell the critics that he could do Oscar-bait movies if he chose,  right before he went on doing the same formula that had proven to cause truck loads of money to be delivered to his house, thankyaverymuch.

I am thoroughly amazed by the number of people complaining about this movie (not just here, but in my own life too). I'm amazed that they went to see it. I don't really get why people are still even giving Burton a chance at this point. I get why people (myself included) still give someone like Woody Allen a chance, because about one in every four movies he makes breaks the turd cycle and is excellent. But Burton at his best now is merely passable. SLEEPY HOLLOW was his last movie I found interesting, and ED WOOD was his last movie I found brilliant. He's been whiffing his swing for almost 20 years now.

I wish Depp would get drunk and accidentally boink Bonham Carter, poisoning the partnership and freeing him from the Burton cycle. Their relationship combined with where Depp's relationship with Disney is clearly heading is too much. Depp was once a sign of quality or at least something provocative. Not so much these days.

I guess Corpse Bride was okay, and Sweeney Todd was actually rather good. He'll never reach the heights of Beetlejuice>Ed Wood again, which is a shame.  For all his swagger with production design, you think someone out there would be inspired to write him a decent script.

I liked this. Call it lowered expectations, but I found a lot here to enjoy, especially if you like Burton's shtick at all. The story was a mess (you know, like most Burton films) but the look and performances carried the day for me. Some of the comedy fell flat (the sex scene really didn't work for me) but most of it landed. The only performance I actively didn't like was the little boy. I felt the meandering plot was meant to invoke a soap opera with it's tangents and weird left turns. Certainly a mixed bag but in no way a disaster like ALICE IN WONDERLAND or PLANET OF THE APES. If you enjoyed SLEEPY HOLLOW, you'll probably like this. A decent matinee and I bet it'll look great on blu ray.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

If you enjoyed SLEEPY HOLLOW, you'll probably like this. A decent matinee and I bet it'll look great on blu ray.

Huh. Considering SH is my personal favorite Burton film and my tastes line up pretty well with Sebastian, color me intrigued. Maybe once it hits home video.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deanburger 

I guess Corpse Bride was okay, and Sweeney Todd was actually rather good. He'll never reach the heights of Beetlejuice>Ed Wood again, which is a shame.  For all his swagger with production design, you think someone out there would be inspired to write him a decent script.

You know, I always forget about that one. It was indeed okay. But he only co-directed it whilst off making other dreck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

Huh. Considering SH is my personal favorite Burton film and my tastes line up pretty well with Sebastian, color me intrigued. Maybe once it hits home video.

I think a home video viewing is a good way to go. I personally might even consider owning it (at a reasonable price) just for background eye-candy purposes. The bottom line is i enjoyed the look and performances. The story is largely crap, but I think considering the soap opera source material it's kind of excusable. If you like your storytelling tight and you don't like Burton's Gothy fetishes, by all means avoid.

As a fan of the show, I was enjoying it (adjusting my expectations for Burton's usual fare) until the 3rd act went right off the rails.  So much stuff brought in out of nowhere just to give every character a moment. 
 

I enjoyed SLEEPY HOLLOW, but I thought DARK SHADOWS was awful. Burton's worst movie by far, in fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agentsands77 

I enjoyed SLEEPY HOLLOW, but I thought DARK SHADOWS was awful. Burton's worst movie by far, in fact.

Same here. Sleepy Hollow was an actual story, while Dark Shadows felt like a soap, a gothic romance, a horror movie and a comedy all mashed together in a 'Christ was a unsatisfying mess' sense instead of a clever cocktail.

Anyone else think Burton and Depp should just make an old-school silent film and get it over with?

I mean, Depp's look in this film is essentially Count Orlok + Cesare from Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Not to mention the wealth of other silent-film geekery in many other Burton films. And Depp was more or less a silent-film actor in Edward Scissorhands.

I didn't care for The Artist, but I sort of wish it had been a runaway smash hit, so that Burton could get a studio to sign off on the idea of a Burton silent film. I mean, Burton's all about the visuals anyway. Fuck story, fuck dialogue even. Just let him go nuts, do the Burtonest film he can possibly do.

I still want a Burton/Depp London After Midnight. But don't get some modern screenwriting hack to re-envision it. Work from the original script and existing stills. Make it a true reconstruction, which Rick Schmidlin's noble attempt couldn't be. If necessary, do it in 3D animation or something. In certain theaters have live organ accompaniment. Make it an event.

 I believe I wrote on this thread or another I was going to see Dark Shadows to make up my own mine. I've read so much negativity, I changed my mind. I just rent it on Red Box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

 

I think a home video viewing is a good way to go. I personally might even consider owning it (at a reasonable price) just for background eye-candy purposes. The bottom line is i enjoyed the look and performances. The story is largely crap, but I think considering the soap opera source material it's kind of excusable. If you like your storytelling tight and you don't like Burton's Gothy fetishes, by all means avoid.

I would have been fine if the messy storytelling was some sort of intentional homage to the style of messy storytelling in the show. But it was a different flavor of lazy. The actors and writers were busting their ass on the show, and the sloppiness there felt more like people putting on a live stage play at gunpoint.

I know the blu is going to have a bunch of deleted scenes but I would be more tempted to pick it up if they were edited back into the film, just to see if the movie's script ever worked at any level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

 

I would have been fine if the messy storytelling was some sort of intentional homage to the style of messy storytelling in the show. But it was a different flavor of lazy. The actors and writers were busting their ass on the show, and the sloppiness there felt more like people putting on a live stage play at gunpoint.

That's a great way to describe it.  For all the cheesiness of the old show, it never felt half-assed.  I guess that's one reason I can accept the movie going all over the place until the end.

I can accept the film's narrative being all over the place--heck, I love BATMAN RETURNS--but I can't accept the film being dull.

I think the greatest failing in the film is that the family's troubles aren't particularly compelling, as most of them are overshadowed by everything else that the film is trying to do.  Some characters feel like they're only in the cast because Burton liked them in the show, others wander in and out for long stretches of time, etc.  The idea of this ancestor coming back to straighten out his dysfunctional, haunted descendants has a lot of potential, but Burton never makes it work as the subject for a film.

Sure, the visuals are very good and sometimes quite great, but not in a way that I wouldn't have already expected from Burton.  It doesn't help Dark Shadows as a story.

EW gave Dark Shadows a B+. It reminded that this is the magazine that always gives good reviews of the Twilight movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz 

EW gave Dark Shadows a B+. It reminded that this is the magazine that always gives good reviews of the Twilight movies.

EW is years (decades?) away from being taken seriously as a source for reliable movie reviews, if it ever was. I actually still like the magazine, but I give zero weight to their reviews.