I have to admit that I’m not a huge fun of Tim Burton’s and I found Dark Shadows to be a bit forgettable but I am looking forward to seeing Frankenweenie. To be honest, I suspect that Burton’s vision is better translated in animated form and, if nothing else, it looks like this film might inspire me to shed more than a few tears.
Here’s the 2nd trailer for Tim Burton’s Frankenweenie.
I’m not exactly sure what the advertising tagline is for this film — as a matter of fact, near as I can tell it doesn’t seem to actually have one — but I know what it ought to be : “Silver — It’s Not Just For Werewolves Anymore.”
Look, I don’t consider myself to be a scholar of the vampiric arts (or whatever they’re called) by any means — I’ve never seen True Blood or any of the Twilight films, for instance — but I know what kills these guys : wooden stakes through the heart. Garlic. Holy water. Sunlight.
Silver? That’s for lycanthropes. But apparently not anymore. Or, rather, not in the 1800s. Don’t get me wrong — director Timur Bekmambetov’s Abraham Lincoln : Vampire Hunter (based on the novel of the same name by Seth Grahame-Smith, who also wrote the screenplay, and produced by Tim Burton, whatever that’s worth) is a clever enough little piece of throwaway historical revisionism : vampires were responsible for the death of Honest Abe (Benjamin Walker)’s parents and so, concurrent with his rise in politics, he also undertakes a crusade, under the watchful eye of his mysterious mentor, Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper) to kill as many of them as he can in his off-hours with this kick-ass silver-bladed trick axe that he’s got. To make matters even worse, these dastardly vampires also control the slave trade (guess it’s too controversial these days to point out that it was other human beings who were responsible for shackling, buying, selling, and ultimately working to death their brethren for generations), and we know how the man in the stove pipe hat felt about that whole dastardly business.
Okay, fair enough — while I’m sure our fellow countrymen and women south of the Mason-Dixon line might take some offense at the idea that their side in the war is depicted here as being controlled by vampires, my honest response to that is one of “tough shit, you’re getting off easy — your real ancestors (not that it’s in any way rational to hold people responsible for the actions of their forefathers) were fighting to keep people enslaved not because they were manipulated by supernatural forces but because they were just plain greedy and racist. Feel better now?,” in point of fact it’s actually a pretty clever pretense. Even clever enough to (almost) sustain an entire film.
But then we come back to this whole goddamn silver thing. Seriously, it’s like vampire Kryptonite in this flick. There’s just no getting around how easy it makes to kill ’em off. And that undermines what otherwise would be a pretty entertaining enough little thrill ride. The performances are perfectly decent on the whole. The costumes, sets, and effects, are all top-notch. The historicity, while complete bullshit, holds together coherently enough. And the whole thing doesn’t take itself too terribly seriously, always something this reviewer in particular appreciates. But the sheer amount of suspension of disbelief required to actually thoroughly (as opposed to in a rather half-hearted and detached “oh, that’s kinda clever” sort of way) enjoy this film becomes a bridge just a tad too far when we throw this annoying new mega- wrinkle into the vampire mythos. I get why they did it, but it grates just the same, and Grahame-Smith’s story relies on it so heavily that it takes what would otherwise be an acceptable enough deus ex machina and turns it into a thick, heavy, lumbering, unyielding crutch. Think of it as the silver straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
First off, a qualification : if you’re a lifelong (or thereabouts) fan of Dan Curtis’ classic Dark Shadows TV series, I can understand why you would hate Tim Burton’s new film of the same name. It’s many things, but old-school Dark Shadows isn’t one of them. Feel free, with my full blessing (whatever that’s worth), to absolutely despise this flick right down to a molecular level if you fit into this category of viewer. But if you don’t —
— then seriously, where is all this vitriol coming from? I’m not saying it’s a tremendous or important movie by any means, but it’s brainless, entertaining, heavy-on-the-camp fun that’s pretty solidly constructed Burton-by-the-numbers.
And maybe that’s the problem. Tim Burton’s work has, indeed, become almost relentlessly formulaic by this point : de-fang horror/gothic/50s-era sci-fi concepts to make them palatable to mainstream family audiences, concentrate heavily on the visuals, strenuously avoid even the hint of any political subtext, add in a dash of blatantly-obvious-but-ultimately-respectful-to-its-source self-satire, have your admittedly talented cast skew their performances toward the knowingly pantomime, and voila! You’ve got yourself morbidity for the masses.
Apparently this is now some sort of crime. Granted, Dark Shadows is no Ed Wood or Big Fish, but it doesn’t wallow in Burtonian excess the way that the more successful (as far as the box office goes) Charlie And The Chocolate Factory or the mega-successful Alice In Wonderland did. But judging by the reaction out there on Twitter and other “social media” sites, you’d think this was somehow the nadir or Burton’s career (how quickly we seem to forget Mars Attacks!) — in fact, it seems to be generating as much overly-malignant hatred as The Avengers is generating overly-effusive praise. But hell, at least this movie is recognizably the work of a singular creative vision (albeit not one operating at its peak) rather than pure CGI assembly-line product that could have been directed by any of dozens of different self-styled “action auteurs” (I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — if The Avengers had been helmed by Jon Favreau, it would essentially be no different) who are ultimately as interchangeable as the material they produce.
The cast is the usual mix of Burton way-more-than-regulars (Johnny Depp in the title role of Barnabas Collins, Helena Bonham Carter as family doctor/lush Julia Hoffman, Christopher Lee in a terrific cameo — as opposed to his pointless quick turn in The Wicker Tree — as an “old man of the sea”-type), talented, well-cast veterans (Michelle Pfeiffer as tired family matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, Jackie Earle Haley as the hapless Willie Loomis) and up-and-coming talents (Eva Green as Barnabas’ principal object of love/hate, Angelique Bouchard, Bella Heathcote as his principal object of love only, Victoria Winters, Jonny Lee Miller as weak-willed family weasel Roger Collins, Chloe Grace Moretz doing her teen-with-a-‘tude thing as Carolyn Soddard), and while none are giving what could in any way be called inspired turns, all are solid and dependable.
As is the story, an uncomplicated affair about Barnabas emerging from the grave, vamped to the hilt, in the early 70s to help his fallen-on-hard-times clan rebuild their fishing and canning empire in the face of rival competition that’s equally supernatural in origin, with a little bit of reincarnation-themed romance thrown in for good measure. It’s hardly demanding stuff, of course, but it’s perfectly suited to function as precisely what it is — a distracted afternoon’s or evening’s summer lightweight entertainment. Joss Whedon does this with a team of super-heroes and we call him a genius. Tim Burton does it with harmless comic vampires and we say he’s jumped the shark. Go figure.
All of which goes to show nothing so much as the herd mentality so prevalent amongst today’s film-buff “community.” In truth, both Dark Shadows and The Avengers are cut from remarkably similar cloth — throwaway big-budget diversionary fare that demands nothing of its audience and gives you pretty much exactly what you figure to be in for when you buy your ticket. One is being praised for it because, hey, other people immediately started talking about how good it is, and one is reviled because, hey, other people immediately started talking about how stupid it was. But you know what? At least Dark Shadows has no pretense of being anything other than precisely what it is, and no army of zombies (or vampires) doing its studios’ dirty work for it and publicizing it like mad for free.
I freely admit that might be a big reason why I actually enjoyed this a little more than Marvel’s billion-dollar-bonanza, and I also freely admit that actions taking place off-screen should , by all rights, play absolutely no part in how I react to what’s taking place on-screen. But it’s not a perfect world. And Dark Shadows is far from a perfect film. But I ended up liking it it a lot more than I was honestly expecting to — and if you go into it with an open mind, who knows? Maybe you will, too.
Here’s the trailer for Tim Burton’s upcoming vampire film, Dark Shadows. A lot of people are excited about this one but the reaction to the trailer on my twitter timeline has been mixed, to say the least.
Personally, I love Johnny Depp but I think this all looks way too silly.
Happy October 31st! In honor of one of the greatest months ever, here’s part three of my special Halloween edition of Lisa Marie’s Favorite Grindhouse and Exploitation Trailers. Enjoy!
1) House of Dark Shadows (1970)
Apparently, this film is being remade by Johnny Depp and Tim Burton.
2) Night of Dark Shadows (1971)
And then, of course, there was a sequel.
3) Children Shouldn’t Pay With Dead Things (1972)
I agree!
4) Don’t Look In The Basement (1972)
In the best grindhouse tradition, the first part of this trailer is made up of scenes from Last House On The Left. On another note, one of the benefits of living in north Texas is that we don’t have to deal with basements and all the icky little things that tend to live in basements.
5) The Crater Lake Monster (1977)
Wow, this looks bad. But I just love the way the guy narrating the trailer tries to convince us otherwise.
Everyone always seems to freak out when I admit that I haven’t seen this movie yet. I do own it on DVD, however and someday, I will watch it. Promise!
Happy Halloween!
Now that Guillermo Del Toro has made it official that he’s leaving The Hobbit as director there’s now a scramble to find who will be replacing him on the project. Del Toro was universally hailed as the best choice the first time around when Peter Jackson made it known that he would only produce the two-part film and not get back to directing them. The many delays due to MGM’s financial troubles, script still not completed and casting still not done forced GDT to back away and could shelve the project for good.
The only thing keeping the project afloat is the fact that this project has a major fan-base already clamoring to see it made. With the huge success both critically and commercially of Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings Trilogy this two-part film adaptation of The Hobbit is pretty much a lock to do the same in the hands of the right filmmaker.
Jackson and studio heads holding the rights to the project will not want just any director. While Peter Jackson was still a little-known director and an outsider from the Hollywood scene when he began work on the original trilogy, this time around studio people will want a marketable name or, at the very least, a filmmaker who has the skills to follow Jackson’s work. Guillermo Del Toro was the perfect choice now someone else has to take up the baton.
Some have mentioned Peter Jackson as the only choice if he’d back off comments that he won’t direct but only produce. There’s a camp that say now’s the time to sign Sam Raimi who recently has left another mega-franchise and now available. Raimi is an interesting choice in that knows how to handle huge blockbuster projects and he definitely needs a home-run to follow-up a bad end as helmer of the Spider-Man franchise.
Another name to come up which I would welcome if Jackson doesn’t return as director is Guillermo Del Toro’s fellow countryman and one of his best friends: Alfonso Cuaron. Cuaron has shown himself to be one of his generation’s best. He’s done fantasy as helmer of the third Harry Potter film (universally seen as the best in the franchise) and may see tackling this blockbuster project as a major artistic challenge. I, for one, would hope Cuaron takes the job if offered.
The one dark horse name which has begun making the rumor mill about who may replace GDT is Jackson’s own protege, wunderkind filmmaker Neill Blomkamp. He’s worked with Jackson already and his first feature-length film, District 9, shows he has the storytelling and directing chops. The only drawback to him accepting the job if offered is that this will be a major-budgeted studio film which means it could turn into another Halo-clusterfuck where he commits and the project dies due to problems within the studio.
Other filmmakers have been mentioned like Brad Bird, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Andrew Adamson, Tim Burton and Peter Weir just to name a few. In the end, my money is on either Jackson just taking the reins on the film if he thinks no one else would give the necessary commitment to the project it deserves, Cuaron takes on the job as a way to challenge himself or Jackson protege Blomkamp tackling something bigger as a way to add more cred to his growing reputation as one of the best young filmmaker of his generation.
Who do you think should take charge of The Hobbit now that Guillermo Del Toro has left?
