[Ray Danger]

Originally Posted by Shloggs

Also, nothing could possibly inspire me to take an opinion on a film seriously as much as cynically proclaiming that you will never see it because an enthusiastic fan posted on a message board that he loved it.

Well, as my original post pointed out, there is more to me avoiding this flick than JaMals post. The trailer. JaMal pointed out in his next post (after he had time to calm himself down ), the film has a totally different feel than the trailer led us to believe (it had even him in doubts).

[Shloggs]

@Ray_Afraid

I have a hard and fast rule for myself when conversing on message boards and that is to pause before I post my reply and consider whether I would say what I had written to someone's face. I would have done that with my sarcastic comments, although, I'm certain my tone is completely lost in translation

I just am getting a sense that Burton and this film are being bullied by critics and the online nerderatti (of which I consider myself a member), so I feel compelled to stand up a bit for it and him. I will freely admit the films shortcomings and Burton's various missteps of late, so I don't buy into the idea that ALL Burton's fans will give everything he does a pass. My strident tone was merely a reflection of your hyperbolic dismissal of Jamal's admittedly bombastic initial impression.

In any case, no offense meant, and I look forward to many a spirited debate on this excellent forum!

[Shloggs]

Originally Posted by JaMaL

The movie had me almost in tears right around the title sequence. Immediately we're brought into the amazing artificial world of Tim Burton. The opening of this reminds me of the beautiful art direction and production design of Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd, very dark, very grimm and heavy dark score by Danny Elfman. The title sequence is really great because of the excellent use of music. I don't know the name of the song in the title sequence, but it makes for something awesome.
Great music, beautiful cinematography, production design and editing carry on throughout the film. And great fucking costume design. Props to Colleen Atwood!!!
The performances are awesome too. People complain about how Tim hires Johnny Depp too much... I find that ironic because so many directors use the same actors multiple times (especially genre filmmakers) and no one seems to make a fuss. The fact is that Johnny Depp is only in Tim Burton movies provided that he's right for the role. If it makes you feel any better this will likely be the last Burton/Depp thing for a while since the next couple of Tim Burton movies do not have Johnny Depp.

All in all, I had fun watching it and I'll enjoy owning a copy of it later on!!!

I am with you on these points. By the time Victoria was dropped off at the Collins manor gates by the hippies, I was absolutely enthralled. Elfman's score was fascinating and I loved how dark it was. The song over the credits is Knights in White Satin by The Moody Blues. It's about as cinematic as pop music can get and was also used to great effect in Rob Zombie's H2.

I never have a problem with directors using actors again and again and I'm a huge fan of directors who do that a lot. Zombie, Coen Brothers, Scorsese, Nolan etc... I love Depp in this and think it's a return to form after Alice and Charlie. It's akin to Sweeney meets Sleepy Hollow.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Shloggs

I have a hard and fast rule for myself when conversing on message boards and that is to pause before I post my reply and consider whether I would say what I had written to someone's face.

What an interesting concept!

But yes, playful facetiousness does not always translate. That's why the icon is so vital!

[Ray Danger]

Originally Posted by Shloggs

@Ray_Afraid

I have a hard and fast rule for myself when conversing on message boards and that is to pause before I post my reply and consider whether I would say what I had written to someone's face. I would have done that with my sarcastic comments, although, I'm certain my tone is completely lost in translation
In any case, no offense meant, and I look forward to many a spirited debate on this excellent forum!

Tone is a tricky thing. Especially when reading comments from strangers! And no offense taken at all.

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

playful facetiousness does not always translate. That's why the icon is so vital!

Hey I put em there, you took em away!

Now back to discussion!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the trailer makes this thing out to be a wacky romp featuring an old vampire who has been awakened after a very very long time to find himself in a world he doesn't understand. Hilarious mishaps and misunderstandings ensue. Har-dee-har-har. But now that some reviews are coming in (well, here at least. Haven't looked into it anywhere else.) it seems that this is a much different film than advertised. So I have a few questions for those who have seen it:

How does the comedy shown in the trailer fit into the film? Does it stand out like a sore thumb or does it end up blending with the rest of the film?

Why the decision to market the movie in this way? I have a hard time believing that the film is much like the original series (from any era) when I look at the trailer. And if it's not much like the original series, why call it Dark Shadows? Surely anyone who is a fan of the series would be put off by a trailer made to make this look like a goofball comedy for gothy teens, yeah? And those who aren't fans or even unaware of the original series, why would they care that is some kind of remake? I guess my big question is this-

Why is this movie connected to Dark Shadows?

Surely there are filmmakers who would really love to start a series of films based of that world and those characters and there is a sizable fan base who would want just that. So why did Burton decide to tie this (seemingly goofy) film in to that world? Would the film not have worked just as well if the character names were changed and it was given a different title?

Again, I haven't seen this. But I find myself intrigued. Not in the way that makes you go see a film, but in the way that makes you question everything about it.

p.s. sorry for the wall of text!

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Shloggs

I love Depp in this and think it's a return to form after Alice and Charlie. It's akin to Sweeney meets Sleepy Hollow.

Alright - now I'm really sold.

[LaMort]

I can't believe that many here think Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd are good films. They may look great but the narratives, scripts and editing skills are severely lacking when i'm watching a story i already know, yet i've found these Burton films hard to follow.

[jaysaw]

Originally Posted by LaMort

I can't believe that many here think Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd are good films. They may look great but the narratives, scripts and editing skills are severely lacking when i'm watching a story i already know, yet i've found these Burton films hard to follow.

You must be shrooming LaMort. sleepy hollow was awesome. It's the closest the world has had to another PROPER hammer film since the originals. it has everything and is almost flawless. Sweeney is good after afew viewings but there is still pieces of it i would have like to see revised and made better.

Dark shadows is FAR from a great film and to be honest, most people put too much stock into wanting burton to 'get back' to his best. It won't happen. Too much time has past. But for me, Dark Shadows is a tiny step in the right direction to 'classic' burton. Atleast he's still trying and making films. some director's take so long to make another film (i'm looking at carpenter, landis, argento, craven and maybe dante) that when they do make another one it's never going to live up everyone's expectations.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by LaMort

I can't believe that many here think Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd are good films.

I can. Because they are.

They may look great but the narratives, scripts and editing skills are severely lacking when i'm watching a story i already know, yet i've found these Burton films hard to follow.

Hard to follow? I didn't get that sense from them at all.

I thought SLEEPY HOLLOW perfectly conjured up the world it tried to present. I loved the film and saw it twice in the theatre. And I wish I'd have seen SWEENEY TODD twice. Regrettably, I only saw it the one time.

But in no instance did I call into question the 'editing' skills. I'm not even sure what you mean by pointing to that area as an issue. What about the 'editing' perturbed you? Are you putting it in general terms as one of the elements that contributed to these stories being 'hard to follow?'

[JaMaL]

Edited by Chris Lebenzon, another frequent Tim Burton collaborator (on every film from Batman Returns onward!!). Now he's also credited as executive producer on Dark Shadows as he was on Alice In Wonderland.

[Shloggs]

Originally Posted by ray_afraid

How does the comedy shown in the trailer fit into the film? Does it stand out like a sore thumb or does it end up blending with the rest of the film?

The comedy works itself in organically more often than not. There is one musical montage, fixin' the old manor up sequence that felt forced and a little too Revenge of the Nerds to me, but primarily it wasn't that much of an issue. The tone fluctuates wildly, but it's a real kitchen sink kind of film, so it never felt schizophrenic to me. For what its worth, I loved Depp's fish out of water stuff. It would have been lazy cheese from a less committed actor, but Depp's Collins is a passionate, extremely dark character, so it worked well from my perspective.

Originally Posted by ray_afraid

Why the decision to market the movie in this way? I have a hard time believing that the film is much like the original series (from any era) when I look at the trailer. And if it's not much like the original series, why call it Dark Shadows? Surely anyone who is a fan of the series would be put off by a trailer made to make this look like a goofball comedy for gothy teens, yeah? And those who aren't fans or even unaware of the original series, why would they care that is some kind of remake? I guess my big question is this-

Why is this movie connected to Dark Shadows?

That, I can not answer. My only thought is that Depp and Burton have an abiding love for all things gothic, melodramatic and horror tinged. They must have felt this property would be ideal to use as a springboard to indulge their more non commercial tendencies and utilized the box office cache they shored up from their execrable Alice in Wonderland to make it a reality. I give them credit, they're playing in a huge sandbox here and going totally nuts with it. The film is a narrative mess, but it is fucking crazy and totally inspired. It flopping commercially does not surprise me in the least considering what a truly bizarre film it is.

[Dark Mark]

I just realised that when I have seen The Woman in Black (2012) next week I will have earned enough loyalty points to see a movie for nothing so it might as well be this.

[Mike Tank]

I saw this yesterday, and pretty much agree with Shloggs, so all I can really add is how refreshing it was to see a recent Burton/Depp collaboration that was not a complete travesty.

Narratively, it is definitely a bit of a mess, with characters and subplots prominently introduced only to be sidelined or (in one particular case) just plain discarded.

But I had a feeling that this was more a function of them paying lip service to the material's soap opera origins than any lapse on the screenwriters' part. Still, that aspect was the only real thing that marred what was an otherwise highly entertaining experience, much to my delighted surprise.

The sumptuous production design of the Collinwood mansion alone was worth the price of admission.

And the humor didn't bother me one bit. I didn't think it distracted from the film at all. In fact, I think it was neccesary to this particular type of story, which can veer dangerously into self-important Goth-lite posturing if left unchecked (ala the bloated Underworld series). It was just the right balance of cheeky-ness to keep the proceedings from sinking under its own weight, without ever tipping the boat too far into camp.

Besides, the people who have complained about the often quirky tone of this film seem to be forgetting that this is Burton's classic style. Even
Sweeney Todd and Batman Returns, two of his darkest, dankest films, had his offbeat sense of humor bubbling underneath.

This IS the man who gave us Pee-Wee's Big Adventure and Mars Attacks!, after all.

And what do we get when Burton puts on a poker face and plays it entirely straight?

Planet Of The Apes.

So I was happy to see him having some fun again.

But I have to say a few things about Depp here, as well. Barnabus Collins, with his mannered Old World stodginess and incredibly articulate, romanticized way of speaking strikingly offset by creature makeup that could best be described as an emo-meets-Vidal Sassoon version of Nosferatu, was a marvelous creation. The film takes Barnabus VERY seriously, even when Burton and Depp are having some fun at his expense exploring the comic aspects of an 18th century Aristocrat being thrust into the groovy, female empowered, relaxed morals atmosphere of the 1970s.

Depp gives this character a very palpable sense of individuality, someone who is defiantly an outsider, and who refuses to conform to any "modern" notions of etiquette or social politics. He is a gentleman first and foremost, and a reluctant monster second. It's a real kick to watch him apologize to his victims before viciously slaughtering them.

I was delighted with Depp here because he and Burton could have very easily gone the "oddball" route with this character and made Barnabus more of a sideshow performer, relying on outrageous costumes, freakish make-up and loopy vocal tics, ala Depp's woefully misconceived Willy Wonka and Mad Hatter characterizations.

Instead he imbued Barnabus with a real sense of purpose, a singular entity that feels like a natural fit to this bizarre tale, as opposed to distractingly standing apart from the shenanigans as in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory and Alice In Wonderland.

In short, this was a real treat. I knew very little about the TV show going in (though I did spot the Jonathan Frid cameo, so....street cred!), so that aspect had no real bearing on my enjoyment of the film.

And though I would in no way put this on the Burton pedestal of classics like Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, or
Batman Returns, I was still incredibly pleased to see a Tim Burton film that harkened back in many ways to what I once loved about his films and the dark wonder that they inspired in moviegoers everywhere.

It's just too bad that, with the disappointing showing at the box office last weekend, we probably won't ever see that sequel that they so obviously set us up for.

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by JaMaL

The title sequence is really great because of the excellent use of music. I don't know the name of the song in the title sequence, but it makes for something awesome.

"Knights In White Satin" by The Moody Blues.

Which was also effectively put to chilling use in Rob Zombie's Halloween II.

Yep, I said it.

[JaMaL]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

And what do we get when Burton puts on a poker face and plays it entirely straight?

Planet Of The Apes.

I love that film, it reminds me of 2001: A Space Oyssey.
TIM BURTON RULES THE PLANET!!!! (of JaMaL)

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by JaMaL

I love that film, it reminds me of 2001: A Space Oyssey.

Well, they do both have scenes set in outer space. I'll give you that.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

"Knights In White Satin" by The Moody Blues.

Which was also effectively put to chilling use in Rob Zombie's Halloween II.

Yep, I said it.

I agree actually. One of the few times his music selections actually worked for me was in H2.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Well, I saw this the other day. I don't think I have much more to add than what's already been thoughtfully scribbled here.

Count Von Gangrene perfectly summed up the film's narrative flaws, Shloggs nailed what's ultimately so mesmerizing about the movie and Tank put Depp's amazing performance into perspective.

From my point of view, I'm a little less forgiving of the film's narrative shortcomings though.

Like many here, I went in with almost no knowledge of the original soap opera (or the various movies) so the array of characters meant little to me.

Obviously, Burton and his squad felt they had to incorporate as many of these characters as possible but it was to little or no effect. In fact, it only detracted from what should have been the film's dramatic focus - the love triangle between Collins, Angelique and Victoria.

And like Von Gangrene pointed out, we don't care or believe in Collins's obsessive love for Victoria. The film doesn't sufficiently set up this relationship nor does it explore it properly.

This oversight is the film's most drastic, fatal flaw and it left me genuinely puzzled. It's so blindingly obvious what the problem is that one has to wonder how such a blunder transpired. Were there too many cooks in the kitchen?

What made them think that anyone would prefer to see a messy tangle of half-developed narrative threads featuring characters that only fans of the original soap opera would understand or even care about as opposed to a more focused, dramatic story line?

It's a head scratcher to me. Whatever the reasoning, it was faulty reasoning. Burton conjours up a terrific world that looks great. The cast (especially Depp and Green) are fantastic. It has some great moments (especially those opening scenes which hooked me as intensely as they did with Shloggs) but ultimately, the whole thing devolves into a semi-disaster and the heightened climax of the movie (as is the case with many Hollywood films) wreaks of desperation.

A willful story editor able to stand up to Burton, the writers and producers could have saved this one.

It's like the old saying goes...

All dressed up and no place to go.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

p.s. One thing I loved about the film's climax....

Spoiler Alert!

....the cracked porcelain face of Angelique. That idea was used to fantastic effect.

And perhaps my favourite shot of the whole film (from a purely pervy perspective)...

[JaMaL]

I disagree with my bro, Feedback. The film works. I think people made the mistake of thinking that the film is about a love "triangle" when it's actually mostly just about Barnabas and Angelique and their relationships with the other characters not just the stuff with Victoria. I believe that sub plot is given enough attention because it opens and closes with it, but the film is really about Barnabas and his quarel with Angelique while having to adapt to a new world and family. We're dealing with a soap opera squeezed into one movie, so to just make the whole movie completely about that love triangle would have been the real disservice because soap operas aren't like that, they go back and forth between stuff and then it all comes back around in the end... like in this movie.
It's a shame so many people just don't get this movie.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by JaMaL

We're dealing with a soap opera squeezed into one movie, so to just make the whole movie completely about that love triangle would have been the real disservice because soap operas aren't like that, they go back and forth between stuff and then it all comes back around in the end...

Well, that's fine and dandy but it definitely doesn't come together. The thing is, with a serialized soap opera, you have time to develop the various narrative threads. In a 2 hour movie, you have to be more judicious and concise.

Maybe it was possible to construct the narrative based on the idea that it was a pseudo-soap but Burton and company fall far short from pulling this off.

Example...

Spoiler Alert!

How shoe-horned in did the Chloe Moretz werewolf character seem?

Maybe that was a huge part of the original soap opera but it seemed woefully out of place here.

No, for this movie to work as a sort of meta-Soap, we needed some compelling subplots economically woven into the film's larger narrative structure.

Not an easy thing to do at all but it's certainly nothing that Burton successful executes here.

Burton is a designer, a visual storyteller and in a very real way, he's only as good as his scripts (and screenwriting is not his forte.) Unfortunately, with Dark Shadows, the screenplay lets him down.

[JaMaL]

It's funny you mention the screenplay because this is the first time Tim works with Seth Grahame Smith. The film is credited also with John August on writing (works with Tim Burton often), but it's mostly Seth's thing I think.

Everything you mentioned about the film as a negative is there, but I still feel like it works... I was able to go with, and follow along and be captivated and all that.

I'm wondering though, Feedback.. Did you like the movie?

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by JaMaL

I'm wondering though, Feedback.. Did you like the movie?

Like? What is this, Facebook?

Did I enjoy it? Well, yes to a point, but with the qualifiers I already mentioned.

My feelings on it are too varied to reduce to a simple, straightforward 'like.'

On a very, very superficial level, I enjoyed it and I definitely had fun with it and I think Burton and the cast did too.

But to be honest, my higher brain functions dismiss it as a flailing effort, an irrelevant exercise in populist entertainment soaked in Burton's gothic horror-influenced, pop-art signature flourishes and accompanied by many of the dramatic shortcomings that tend to undermine his lesser works. This will fade from memory almost as quickly as THE CORPSE BRIDE.

I will say this in its defense. I think after some of his recent duds, a lot of folks have grown tired of the Burton/Depp collaboration. This film proves, at the very least, that their partnership still has plenty of vitality left. It's one of the better Johnny Depp performances actually.

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

p.s. One thing I loved about the film's climax....

Spoiler Alert!

....the cracked porcelain face of Angelique. That idea was used to fantastic effect.

And perhaps my favourite shot of the whole film (from a purely pervy perspective)...

Eva Green can throw me around the room any time she wants to.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by JaMaL

Everything you mentioned about the film as a negative is there, but I still feel like it works... I was able to go with, and follow along and be captivated and all that.

If it worked for you, then great. I'm not going to tell someone not to enjoy something they enjoyed. Obviously, it didn't work for me.

But you're an admitted devotee of Burton so I wonder if your love of the films borders on blind devotion? This can happen to the best of us. Sometimes we love a particular artist and their work so much that we're compelled to see them in the best light possible and even make excuses for their shortcomings.

I'm guilty of this as much as anyone but I would definitely position this tendency as a 'critical flaw.'

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

Eva Green can throw me around the room any time she wants to.

Especially in that outfit. I could've easily gone all PEE WEE HERMAN on that situation....

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

Especially in that outfit. I could've easily gone all PEE WEE HERMAN on that situation....

I saw the film with my brother Scott and afterwards, when I asked him what he thought, the first thing he said was, "I don't know. I was too busy trying not to shoot my goo the whole time."

You can always rely on my brother for articulate, in-depth film analysis.

[JaMaL]

I told you guys it's a hot movie, despite not having any nudity!!!

[Dark Mark]

I have to discount the review of someone who can profess love for Burton's infamous Planet Of The Apes but there would appear to be enough to like about this film to merit a trip to the cinema this week. My review will be brutally honest.

[JaMaL]

Originally Posted by Dark Mark

I have to discount the review of someone who can profess love for Buton's infamous Planet Of The Apes

And I do LOVE Planet Of The Apes... But there's too much hate for it for me to start a thread on it here....

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by Dark Mark

I have to discount the review of someone who can profess love for Buton's infamous Planet Of The Apes but there would appear to be enough to like about this film to merit a trip to the cinema this week. My review will be brutally honest.

Well, in defense of Jamal, Stuart is correct. We all have our particular cinematic heroes whom we forgive any transgrssions they might make.

I mean, if I had a dime for everytime I found myself vehemently defending Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, I could afford to make my own (yes, better) Indiana Jones picture.

It's like having a best friend whom you love dearly, even when they royally screw up and you know they've screwed up and everyone else hates them for it, but they're your best friend so not only can you not bring yourself to get totally mad at them like you probably should, but you find yourself apologizing for them and even passionately defending them whenever someone starts laying in on them.

You can't help it. Love is blind.

But still, Jamal...your "best friend" Timmy really did fuck up with Planet Of The Apes.

This whole conversation reminds me of one of my favorite little moments from an early episode of "The Sopranos", when Christopher briefly sees his hero Martin Scorsese in public and all he can manage to yell out in his excitement is, "Marty! Kundun! I liked it!"

[The Gore-met]

Lucio Fulci is my favourite filmmaker of them all, and I'll be the first to point out the incongruities in his most highly-regarded work and deride the stinkers, of which he has more than a couple in his filmography.

I once remarked on Usenet that watching a Fulci film is like pulling on your favourite pair of old jeans, which to my delight, earned an appreciative response from his daughter, Antonella. That hasn't kept me from excoriating some of his lesser work in print, though. That's the difference between being a fan and being a fanboy - critical perspective.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

This whole conversation reminds me of one of my favorite little moments from an early episode of "The Sopranos", when Christopher briefly sees his hero Martin Scorsese in public and all he can manage to yell out in his excitement is, "Marty! Kundun! I liked it!"

Ha ha! I love that moment! Too bad it wasn't the REAL Scorsese though, eh? He missed out on a classic cameo.

But you've elegantly put the whole 'fan-apology' dynamic into its proper perspective, Tank.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

That hasn't kept me from excoriating some of his lesser work in print, though. That's the difference between being a fan and being a fanboy - critical perspective.

Yeah, but I find with a lot of the lesser celebrated Fulci films, even if at first viewing they seem a bit dodgy, they tend to improve with repeat viewings.

But he has so many undisputed classics in so many genres that he's earned the right to have a few clunkers here and there.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by JaMaL

And I do LOVE Planet Of The Apes... But there's too much hate for it for me to start a thread on it here....

It's still the only Burton movie I've never seen. I'll get around to it soon and I'll fire up a thread and we'll let the feeding frenzy begin. You better bring your A GAME, JaMal!

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

Lucio Fulci is my favourite filmmaker of them all, and I'll be the first to point out the incongruities in his most highly-regarded work and deride the stinkers, of which he has more than a couple in his filmography.

I once remarked on Usenet that watching a Fulci film is like pulling on your favourite pair of old jeans, which to my delight, earned an appreciative response from his daughter, Antonella. That hasn't kept me from excoriating some of his lesser work in print, though. That's the difference between being a fan and being a fanboy - critical perspective.

I understand your point and even agree with you quite a bit. The "fanboy" culture that has propagated over the past decade or so can get incredibly tiresome with their unqualified, insecure total adoration of whatever the object is of their respective obsessions.

But I think, and I'm strictly speaking for myself here, that there can be a very high level of admiration and enthusiasm that someone can have for something that just inherently lends itself to being incredibly forgiving of any shortcomings that the object of affection may have, if only because of the intensely personal relationship one has with the artistic works in question.

The trick is to be real about it and know that there needs to be a healthy balance between having intense love for your favorite film or filmmaker (or band or comic book or whatever) and maintaining a sense of objectified critical perspective.

Which is where most "fanboys' irritatingly go wrong. It has to be all or nothing with them, and they take it very personally if any dissent is shown amongst the ranks of the faithful.

But films and filmmakers touch each and every one of us in unique and highly personal ways, sometimes in such a profound manner that we can see and understand things about these works of art that no one else seems to be able to pick up on.

I mean, who knows? Jamal, you probably really do see something in Planet Of The Apes that the rest of us just plain cannot. And that something may be so wonderful as to completely change our negative perspective of the film, if we could only see it the way you do. But we're just not tuned into it the way you are, so you get this incredibly cathartic and transforming experience out of it while the rest of us just blindly shrug and dismiss it.

And you know what? If that's the case, then that is AWESOME. I'm genuinely envious.

I mean, I seem to be the only person on the planet that thought that the 1991 Bruce Willis fiasco Hudson Hawk was a work of misunderstood subversive comic genius. And whenever I bring that up, I get looks from people like I just said I enjoy molesting puppies.

But that's cool. I saw something there that apparently I, and I alone, was ever going to see. This quality may not even actually be there. The filmmakers may not have actually intended in any way to have instilled their creation with such genius. But, for me, it was there and it worked on me in such a unique way that I formed a relationship with the film that is mine and mine alone. And that's a beautiful thing.

But back to keeping it real. I love and adore both the Indiana Jones series and the James Bond series, and to a bit of a lesser extent, the Star Trek series. For me, the characters and the environments envisioned in each of these series touched me at a very young age (save your jokes, Feedback) and sparked something in my imagination that no other film/TV series has, and I carry that with me everytime I re-enter these worlds that they're opening up to me. Whenever a new installment of each series hits, it's tantamount to having a happy reunion with my very best friends, and enthusiastically agreeing to go along with them on whatever fantastic adventure they've cooked up for me this time.

But I can still admit that each of these franchises has stumbled at one point or another, sometimes more than once, and sometimes very badly. As much as I love 007 and as much as I think that Daniel Craig is the most dynamic thing to happen to that series in decades, I can still admit that Quantum Of Solace was a real letdown. Or that Star Trek V was a Shatner-ized muddle. Or that...yes, okay....Crystal Skull was more than a bit dopey. You do have to maintain some semblance of reality and not just blindly accept and defend whatever it is they throw at you because you have some sort of incredible insecurity that you have buried deep within that you refuse to face, the way that many in the "fanboy" community did with Nolan's The Dark Knight, resorting to explicitly threatening anyone who would dare to say something critical about it, even before it was released and they had even actually seen it themselves.

And yet...I would still rather have a flawed, not entirely successful offering from these series than I would nothing new from them at all. I still find things in these misfired entries to admire and recognize as something worthwhile, even if its only just for a moment (like Kirk's great "I need my pain!" speech in STV).

But I still get it that they don't quite work. So it's a definite give and take that we have to have with our cinematic obsessions.

So maybe that's where Jamal is coming from. Flaws and all, even the lesser Tim Burton films still carry, for him anyway, that spark of magic that he holds deep within his heart of film-loving hearts, which means that there'll always be a diamond in there somewhere for him, no matter that the rest of us just see a huge, ugly lump of coal.

Now then...let the extreme ridicule that I know is coming about my love for Hudson Hawk begin!

[JaMaL]

Nicely said Mike Tank...

Hudson Hawk was written by Daniel Waters (Batman Returns), so I have a place in my heart for anything he does!!!!

[The Gore-met]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

Yeah, but I find with a lot of the lesser celebrated Fulci films, even if at first viewing they seem a bit dodgy, they tend to improve with repeat viewings.

But he has so many undisputed classics in so many genres that he's earned the right to have a few clunkers here and there.

Well, I don't know how many people outside of hardcore horror fans are going to consider a Fulci flick an 'undisputed classic', but I get what you're saying. I see what could have been in lesser works like Aenigma or Voices from Beyond and get a little sad for the man because of what he had to work with.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

Well, I don't know how many people outside of hardcore horror fans are going to consider a Fulci flick an 'undisputed classic', but I get what you're saying.

Well, he's made monumentally important horror films and some of the best giallo films of the period. (I find Fulci's gialli to have the most intriguing plots of any of the giallo films I've seen, an aspect of the sub-genre I'm not usually worried about).

And he has a bunch of decent efforts in a ton of other genres like the Italian political sex comedy, the spaghetti western, the gangster movie and even the fantasy genre.

I think Fulci is more highly regarded than you think. Or at the very least, he should be as highly regarded as I think he is!

[The Gore-met]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

But back to keeping it real. I love and adore both the Indiana Jones series and the James Bond series, and to a bit of a lesser extent, the Star Trek series. For me, the characters and the environments envisioned in each of these series touched me at a very young age (save your jokes, Feedback) and sparked something in my imagination that no other film/TV series has, and I carry that with me everytime I re-enter these worlds that they're opening up to me. Whenever a new installment of each series hits, it's tantamount to having a happy reunion with my very best friends, and enthusiastically agreeing to go along with them on whatever fantastic adventure they've cooked up for me this time.

The Indiana Jones movies never appealed to me (nor the Die Hard or Lethal Weapon series, for that matter). But I love Bond and Star Trek (except for the reboot)! It's funny, I like Star Trek V because of it's problems. Shatner vs. God, whoo hoo! And those anti-gravity boots are the bee's knees! But now you make me want to revisit Quantum of Solace. It was the first Blu Ray I ever watched and I was pretty dazzled by it. For me, Die Another Day is easily the most disappointing Bond film of them all. The whole ice-racer scene just made me groan, particularly Bond skipping across the wave-tops in his hastily improvised windsurfer. Cripes!

The fanboy in me suffocated under a pile of no-budget Dawn of the Dead and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 'homages' a long time ago and I'm probably 'on the job' too much, so maybe I'm just a little jealous...

[JaMaL]

I love a film series. They're fun, even if you have ones you like less, I think it makes for fun movie watching...
Anyway. Back to Tim Burton and Dark Shadows. I will always defend Tim and his work. I believe Tim is just as important to horror as guys like Wes Craven, John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, etc and should get the legendary horror filmmaker label and special treatment that they get.
I'll always stand by Tim and his films because I believe in him and understand his point of view as a filmmaker and artist. I hope Dark Shadows shows people that Tim is still a great filmmaker, and I hope it's a film that people will revisit from time to time because it's a really fun movie!!!

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

But I love Bond and Star Trek (except for the reboot)! It's funny, I like Star Trek V because of it's problems. Shatner vs. God, whoo hoo! And those anti-gravity boots are the bee's knees! But now you make me want to revisit Quantum of Solace. It was the first Blu Ray I ever watched and I was pretty dazzled by it. For me, Die Another Day is easily the most disappointing Bond film of them all. The whole ice-racer scene just made me groan, particularly Bond skipping across the wave-tops in his hastily improvised windsurfer. Cripes!

Don't get me wrong. Star Trek V has its charms. Kirk doubting that the deity (or whatever the fuck its supposed to be) that they meet could actually be God because it has never heard of James T. Kirk is PRICELESS.

So as I stated before, I find individual things to like, regardless of the failure of the whole enterprise. Pun intended.

My thing with Quantum Of Solace is basically that, with its slight, low stakes plot and an over emphasis on dour brooding and confused, hyper-edited action sequences, it just felt epically anti-climactic after the extremely euphoric high that was Casino Royale.

And I can offer no legit defense in favor of Die Another Day, other than to say that I felt that the first act was incredibly strong (I adored that opening title sequence, with Bond being tortured in a Korean prison to the cutting, loopy beats of Madonna's ice cold title song), but it quickly went off the rails in no time. It's too bad that Brosnan, who made for a solid 007 despite the formulaic films he was saddled with, didn't get at least one more shot at a more grounded Bond adventure, ala the excellent GoldenEye, because he definitely went out on a low note with this one.

But I have to ask...what's your beef with the J.J. Abrams Trek reboot? I had some quibbles with it, but mostly I found it to be a fresh and exciting return for Kirk and Co.

[The Gore-met]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

My thing with Quantum Of Solace is basically that, with its slight, low stakes plot and an over emphasis on dour brooding and confused, hyper-edited action sequences, it just felt epically anti-climactic after the extremely euphoric high that was Casino Royale.

OK, yeah, it's more of a placeholder than a typical Bond film. But still, the high construction fight near the beginning is pretty harrowing, at least to a guy that was never comfortable on his 10th story apartment balcony.

And I can offer no legit defense in favor of Die Another Day, other than to say that I felt that the first act was incredibly strong (I adored that opening title sequence, with Bond being tortured in a Korean prison to the cutting, loopy beats of Madonna's ice cold title song), but it quickly went off the rails in no time.

Ugh, I think that song is the worst Bond theme ever, and not because it was Madonna. For as metal as I make myself out to be be, I love the soundtracks to Bond films as much as I love the films themselves. They make me all squishy inside. My absolute favourite Bond themes are Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, and For Your Eyes Only. The theme songs are an integral component of the films, and Madonna's never worked for me. I wouldn't be angry about that if Eon hadn't fucked over k.d. lang for her contribution to Tomorrow Never Dies. That was the classic Bond theme that wasn't.

But I have to ask...what's your beef with the J.J. Abrams Trek reboot?

Star Trek died with The Next Generation, which was a show I initially scorned but came to rather love. I grew up with up with the original series, which was the only area the pop cultural leanings of my Dad and I ever intersected. We were down with Next Generation, but he wasn't around to see Deep Space Nine, which I thought was ass, as well the subsequent series. The reboot wasn't made for me or him. I turned the reboot off when Kirk was clinging to the cliff by his fingertips while the cop chasing him was pulling up. This was not the Star Trek we knew.

[Dark Mark]

Unfortunately much like one of its key protagonists this incoherent film resembles nothing more than a fabulously decorated egg. Wondrous to behold but ultimately hollow and lacking any real substance or soul. The only compelling thing about this experience was the need I felt to look at my watch.
It was a better performance from Depp than I have seen for a while but that alone doesn't save it.

[Flesheater]

I went and viewed this film this past weekend (the wife is a huge Depp fan) and was rather relieved this was chosen over her desire to also see the Snow White film.

I have no past experience with Dark Shadows and have honestly never seen a single episode of the show ever in my entire life. My only knowledge of the show is that Basil Gogos did an amazing painting of Barnabas Collins for FM ha-ha! With that being said I had only one expectation of this film...a parody style knock off of a 70's show with terrible jokes. I was a bit more pleased with the film than I imagined I would be. It wasn't amazing by any means but I have seen much worse.

I really enjoyed the atmosphere as it reminded me of Sleepy Hollow (as others stated) and Depps performace was much better than his more recent films. Beautifully shot and beautiful women kept my attention well enough...probably would not ever purchase this and would never take the time to see again but it's probably worth at least one viewing if you're even slightly interested.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Not sure if it was mentioned in this thread anywhere but I just read that Depp was obsessed with Dark Shadows and when he was a kid, he wanted to 'be' Barnabas Collins.

So I guess his dream came true in the end, didn't it?

That perhaps explains his amazing performance in this otherwise middling effort by Burton.

[JaMaL]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

That perhaps explains his amazing performance in this otherwise middling effort by Burton.

Yeah, Johnny Depp is so cool in this. I'm disappointed that I'm not seeing any action figures or other merch for this movie. This movie is so cool, THANKS TIM BURTON!!!!

[Dark Mark]

Why can't Depp perform now without smothering himself in makeup? Bad surgery?

[Nallix]

Originally Posted by Dark Mark

Why can't Depp perform now without smothering himself in makeup? Bad surgery?

Because when he does the movie bombs. Exhibit A: THE RUM DIARY.

[JaMaL]

Check out this little video about Tim Burton incorporating his signature style to Dark Shadows!!!