IT’S NOT SO MUCH that director Tim Burton is a fuck-up—he most certainly is. The question usually lies in how he’s going to fuck up. His days as the enfant terrible of such juicy hits as Pee-wee’s Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, and Edward Scissorhands are long past, and for the last 20 years he’s become increasingly known as the “Woody Allen of horror quirk”—a once-great auteur unable to relight his former spark.
So it comes as no surprise that Dark Shadows is another Burton disaster—though in this case, he can share the blame. Basing a movie on an oddball ’60s horror/gothic soap opera seems like an almost impossible uphill climb: The style of the original Dark Shadows was slow, creepy, and hilariously overwrought—and would’ve been cancelled years sooner had it not been for the addition of the show’s best character, vampire Barnabas Collins (played by the recently deceased Jonathan Frid). And it’s with this character that Burton’s Dark Shadows hits the mark.
Played to comic perfection by Johnny Depp, the vampiric Barnabas Collins rises from his grave after 200 years to reclaim the glory of his family name. Set in roughly the same time as the TV show (1972), much of the humor is mined from Barnabas’ attempts to understand such modern conveniences as muscle cars, lava lamps, and the Carpenters. But the film is also a revenge tragedy where Barnabas battles the witch who cursed him 200 years prior, a familial drama where Barnabas mends the fraying relationship of his descendents, and a romance in which he pursues the ghostly incarnation of his long-lost love.
Guys. There’s too much going on here.
While Burton’s cinematography and style is spot-on as usual, and the screenplay occasionally captures the creepy, drawn-out style of the original Dark Shadows… who cares? Barely anyone remembers the show, and YouTube clips prove how horribly dated it is. And if it weren’t for Depp’s fantastic line readings, the screenplay would immediately and correctly be recognized as a limping mess—which, like a vampire, should’ve never seen the light of day.
Having watched a trailer for this, i’d have to say it looks way nicer than how this review puts it. But then again, i’m probably more bias towards Tim Burton.
I plan on seeing it – i just hope it gets picked up by the cheapies.
I’m not a big fan of Tim Burton, but Alice in Wonderland took in more than a billion dollars in 2010. It’s the 10th highest-grossing movie, ever. And it won two Oscars. So even if YOU didn’t like it as much as his earlier, indie movies, it’s ridiculous to call him “a once-great auteur unable to relight his former spark.” He’s never been more successful.
Does anyone actually take this clown or his opinion on anything seriously?
@2: I’m not sure box office draw and the dubious distinction of an Academy Award are the marks of a “great auteur.” Pretty sure that remark was directed at the evident and rapid decline in the aesthetic quality of his work.
I enjoyed the trailer but I think I’m just going to pretend that was the entire movie.
@Ovidius – If you think your opinion outweighs a billion dollars and two Oscars, you don’t live in reality and need to seek help for your narcissism.
Yeah, obviously great art is defined by how much money something makes and how many major awards it’s won. Cases in point: Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, ABBA, Elton John, Backstreet Boys… some of the greatest musical auteurs of all time. Who am I to question their obvious greatness with my own puny subjective views?
@Reymont: I don’t know what my opinion has to do with anything. I was only trying to tell you what was meant by the line you were contesting. Aesthetic value and market value are two different things. The judgment of the Academy and aesthetic value are also two different things. I apologize for my narcissism and I will seek help.
@Ovidius – Haha. Let me know who you recommend, then….I should see somebody, too. 🙂