Skip to main content

Reveal yourself, tiny songstress!

Dark Shadows 
(2012)

In eighteenth century Maine, Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) is cursed to become a vampire, then buried alive at the hands of spurned witch Angelique (Eva Green). Exhumed in 1972, he vows to restore the Collins family to its former glory, but must contend with Angelique to do so.

Put like that, Dark Shadows possesses a relatively straightforward structure. But Tim Burton’s latest is a difficult one to quantify, as at times it feels like neither fish nor foul. Ultimately this is more of a melodrama than an out-and-out comedy, but it wouldn’t be a Burton film if it weren’t presented with a self-amused flourish.

Somewhere around Sleepy Hollow Burton’s skill at handling action sequences improved significantly, and he handles the set pieces here with aplomb that was largely absent from (say) Batman. The scene setter opening promises more than it can pay off (Bella Heathcote’s dual role as his lover and her twentieth century double is underdeveloped) but the staging is exemplary. So too, you can almost hear Burton whooping with delight at the feeding frenzy of the unearthed Barnabas. In contrast, the seduction scene between Barnabas and Angelique falls flat. Unsurprising, as the director has always chosen such chaste material. It just doesn’t seem like his thing, and you can imagine him wanting to get it in the can as quickly as possible.

I wonder how much remained of John August’s script after Seth Grahame-Smith was brought in as a replacement. I suspect not a lot, as what is here feels messy and undisciplined. Which for a Burton film can be a boon, but he needs to be inspired enough to make the most of the material. Certainly, I felt the film succeeded for the most part despite, rather than because of, the writing.  The milieu is heightened in the way that most of Burton's films are, but the tone veers wildly even for him. Soap opera plotting mixes with blowjob jokes and a protagonist who makes no bones about massacring innocents. And then there's the entirely unnecessary '70s setting (which gives rise to an extended entirely unnecessary Alice Cooper cameo).

But this also meant that I was never too clear about what direction the film was going to take. Which is quite refreshing in blockbuster season, even if it was a symptom of an unfocused script. Again, maybe that just makes it a typical Burton film where script and character come second to distraction by the contents of his toy box.

There are no complaints regarding the supporting cast, with Eva Green reveling in her grade-A bitch, Michelle Pfeiffer (interesting to see her now in matriarch roles but only five years older than Depp, who's romancing someone a quarter of a century younger than him), Johnny Lee Miller wearing a syrup and Jackie Earle Haley having fun in full Renfield mode. Bella Heathcote can’t hold her own against this lot, but she neither can she be blamed for the weakness of the character (that said, one thing I did like was the ambiguity concerning her “reincarnation”). Chloe Grace Moretz does her best with the troubled teenager part, but gets a poorly-realised third act reveal.

Then there’s Depp. If you don't like Johnny in full eccentric mode you'll want to give this a wide berth. His performance is most amusing, but Barnabas Collins isn’t a comedy engine of a character in the way that Beetlejuice is. Depp has free licence to indulge himself, but Barnabas is granted his share of pathos too. The climax, in particular, is played very much for its dramatic content.

I've seen this compared to Zemeckis' Death Becomes Her and, quite aside from Eva Green's skin problems, that's not such a bad reference point. Both are curate’s eggs, and have received their fare share of brickbats. Indeed, Dark Shadows seems to have already been labelled a misfire (although it is proving more successful in the rest of the World than the US). Not unlike another perceived failure that has a lot going for it, Mars Attacks! Perhaps comparisons to the source TV show (little known outside of the States) worked against Shadows, as it fell at the twin hurdles of fan disapproval and throwing vast sums of money at reinventing a property that not enough people cared about anyway. This is not an unusual summer occurrence (Speed Racer, Land of the Lost) and there are often rewards in investigating fare that, for whatever reason, has proved too idiosyncratic for cross-over appeal.

I’d suggest this is Burton’s best since Big Fish, which some might retort wouldn’t be difficult. There’s an idea that the director has taken a prolonged tumble in the last decade (pretty much since his Planet of the Apes remake). But he’s always been an erratic filmmaker, less interested in narrative coherence than distractions and quirks of script or performance. It’s probably legitimate to bemoan settling for stamping his own stylistic template on pre-existing subject matter (rather than striking out with original material) but it’s not as if he hasn’t been doing that since his third feature. Dark Shadows may well achieve it’s own cult status in the future, distinct from that of the TV show, but it will more likely be a consequence of viewing it as an interesting failure, rather than a neglected gem. 

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

What we sell are hidden truths. Our territory is the mind. Our merchandise is fear.

The Avengers 5.1: The Fear Merchants
The colour era doesn't get off to such a great start with The Fear Merchants, an Avengers episode content to provide unstinting averageness. About the most notable opinion you’re likely to come away with is that Patrick Cargill rocks some magnificent shades.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

Do not run a job in a job.

Ocean’s 8 (2018)
(SPOILERS) There’s nothing wrong with the gender-swapped property per se, any more than a reboot, remake or standard sequel exploiting an original’s commercial potential (read: milking it dry). As with those more common instances, however, unless it ekes out its own distinctive territory, gives itself a clear reason to be, it’s only ever going to be greeted with an air of cynicism (whatever the current fashion for proclaiming it valid simply because it's gender swapped may suggest to the contrary).  The Ocean's series was pretty cynical to start with, of course – Soderbergh wanted a sure-fire hit, the rest of the collected stars wanted the kudos of working with Soderbergh on a "classy" crowd pleaser, the whole concept of remaking the '60s movie was fairly lazy, and by the third one there was little reason to be other than smug self-satisfaction – so Ocean's 8 can’t be accused of letting any side down. It also gives itself distinctively – stereo…

There’s still one man out here some place.

Sole Survivor (1970)
(SPOILERS) I’m one for whom Sole Survivor remained a half-remembered, muddled dream of ‘70s television viewing. I see (from this site) the BBC showed it both in 1979 and 1981 but, like many it seems, in my veiled memory it was a black and white picture, probably made in the 1950s and probably turning up on a Saturday afternoon on BBC2. Since no other picture readily fits that bill, and my movie apparition shares the salient plot points, I’ve had to conclude Sole Survivor is indeed the hitherto nameless picture; a TV movie first broadcast by the ABC network in 1970 (a more famous ABC Movie of the Week was Spielberg’s Duel). Survivor may turn out to be no more than a classic of the mind, but it’s nevertheless an effective little piece, one that could quite happily function on the stage and which features several strong performances and a signature last scene that accounts for its haunting reputation.

Directed by TV guy Paul Stanley and written by Guerdon Trueblood (The…

It’s all Bertie Wooster’s fault!

Jeeves and Wooster 3.4: Right Ho, Jeeves  (aka Bertie Takes Gussie's Place at Deverill Hall)
A classic set-up of crossed identities as Bertie pretends to be Gussie and Gussie pretends to be Bertie. The only failing is that the actor pretending to be Gussie isn’t a patch on the original actor pretending to be Gussie. Although, the actress pretending to be Madeline is significantly superior than her predecessor(s).

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).