SPIDER-MAN 2002 vs. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2012

After seeing the new Spider-man movie starring Andrew Garfield I decided to wait to review it, much as I did with the new Dark Shadows film. I felt I needed to take a little time to reflect on what I'd seen to ensure that I wasn't simply writing a knee jerk reaction. You see, I feel close to this subject matter - I grew up reading comics, mostly Marvel comics, and Spidey was always my favorite super hero. I think I identified with his loner and outcast status, certainly with his nerd status. For a long while I felt like Peter Parker was the only friend I had. I named my first dog after him. I mowed yards in the summers and used all the money I made to buy comic books, including as many Amazing Spider-man’s as I could afford. I still have my collection, outside of a few of my most valuable ones which were stolen (I suspect my ex-wife). The ones that were taken were pretty sweet - Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-man #1, Amazing Spiderman death of Gwen Stacy, Amazing Spider-man first appearance of the Punisher (mint condition). Yeah, sucks.


Anyway, this film hits theaters just 5 years after the last Spider-Man film, Spider-Man 3, directed by Sam Raimi. As a franchise Raimi’s Spider-Man films were hugely popular, even though #3 was a bit of a disappointment. Sam Raimi (and star Tobey Maguire) both refused to return for another sequel so the studio was left with two options. Continue the story with a new director or totally reboot the series and start from scratch. Sony chose the latter.


Since these two versions were made so close together time-wise it is near impossible not to compare them. I decided the best way to do this review was as a face-off, a contest, a fight to the finish to determine which is the better big screen adaptation of Spider-Man.


WARNING – SPOILERS AHEAD. Proceed at your own risk.



Ladies and Gentlemen, Webheads and Web Geeks! Step right up for tonight’s main attraction. Spider-Man 2002 vs. The Amazing Spider-Man 2012!!

Round 1 – Main Actor

The first question that has to run through anyone’s mind when told that a new film version of Spider-Man is being made is, “Who is playing the part of Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man?” In the new version British actor Andrew Garfield was cast as the webslinger, and of course in the 2002 version the role was played by Tobey Maguire.

Here is a comparison of the two, with a classic Steve Ditko image from Spidey’s origin issue in the middle. Steve drew spidey lanky and thin, like Garfield, so I chose his version as that seemed to me to be what the new film is shooting for. The main thing about Peter Parker is that he is a nerd, a shy loner who is picked on by other kids. This came across loud and clear in Raimi’s version, but just barely in the 2012 version, directed by Marc Webb. Garfield is too “cool” as Parker – he rides a skateboard, wears cool clothes, has a hipster cool vibe that undermines any nerdiness he might otherwise exude. Maguire, on the other hand, was undoubtedly the school outcast, dressed nerdy, rode the school bus, and was picked on by other kids.

The other main complaint I have about Garfield is his hair. The way they styled it sticking up off the top of his head made him look like such a douchebag. Every time they did THIS…

… all I could think of was hair stylists taking handfuls of goop and mousse and running it through his hair to make it stand up off his head. Don’t get me wrong, man has great hair. Wrong for Petey though. I’ve heard some folks say that Maguire looked too old, and Garfield looks like a kid. Well, Garfield is almost 30 – 29 when this was shot. Maguire was 27 when the first film was made – two years younger than Andrew! But since only a small part of the movie takes place in high school, and the majority of Spider-Man comics take place when he’s in college working freelance to support himself, that isn’t really an issue. He is Spider-MAN, after all, not Spider-boy.

Winner – Spider-Man 2002

Round 2 – Costume

 Below we have Maguire in the 2002 version on the left, a comic book rendition in the middle and Garfield on the right.

As you can see, the design of the 2002 version was based strictly on the comics. The colors were darkened up a bit, but the basic design is very faithful to the comic. On the new version there are arbitrary changes made to the costume that really bug me. The stripes on the legs, the change in the spider logo on the chest, the elimination of the belt, the cut-out area on the back of the costume, the mirror sunglasses eyes, the shape of the middle stripe now extended to lead to his crotch - all artsy changes made only for the sake of change. They aren’t improvements; they’re simply bad art choices. And worst of all is the texture of the new costume…

Anyone up for a game of hoops? At least villains can get a good grip as they palm parker’s head. Terrible.

Winner – Spider-Man 2002

 Round 3 – Directors

Sam Raimi vs. Marc Webb. This one almost isn’t even fair. Sam Raimi is a seasoned director with years of experience. Marc Webb has made a total of one film before this, and it was a quirky romance. He’s done some TV work but never been tasked with action of this magnitude. Raimi’s film is leaps and bounds above Webb’s in terms of style, movement, cuts and creativity. I wonder why Webb won the job, honestly. Maybe it was the name, some studio head somewhere thought having a director named Webb on a Spiderman film was cool.

Winner – Spider-Man 2002

Round 4 – Webslingin’ 

The main change that the 2002 version made away from the comics was to make Peter Parker spin webs organically. His body naturally produced webs that shot from his wrist. The 2012 version returns to the mechanical webshooters from the comics. I personally feel the change in the 2002 version made sense. I always wondered where a struggling kid came up with resources not only to build webshooters but to sew the costume – BUT I’m going to give this round to the new version, because they stuck to Spidey’s roots.

Winner – The Amazing Spider-Man 2012

Round 5 – Storyline

Ok, here’s the biggie, the story. Both films tell the origin of Spider-Man, and there are similarities between them. In both versions Peter is bitten by a radioactive spider in a laboratory and gains powers. He is still in high school in each, and has a run in with Flash Thompson, school bully, in each, too. BUT despite their similarities there are many differences, too.

In the 2002 version Raimi sticks close to the Spider-Man comics. Peter is raised by his Aunt May and Uncle Ben after his parents died. Uncle Ben is killed by a burglar who Spidey let escape. Spidey tracks down and catches this burglar, and learns that it was his own inaction that cost the life of his parent, the man who was his father figure and raised him after his parents died. The last words Ben spoke to him ring in his ears – with “Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.” It is a harsh life lesson learned and is the impetus for the creation of the hero he becomes. The villain is the Green Goblin, Spider-Man’s arch enemy, and the goblin dies in the very same way he did in the comics, impaled on his own jet flyer as he attempts to back stab parker. This sets up an interesting dynamic between Peter and his best friend, Harry Osborne, whose father was the Green Goblin.

In the 2012 version Peter is again raised by his uncle and aunt but we quickly learn there is a mysterious past to his parents. They dropped Peter off with Ben and May to raise in safety. They disappeared into the night and may still be alive. Peter again refuses to stop a burglar who in turn shoots and kills his uncle. But in this version Ben never utters the phrase “With great power comes great responsibility.” They dance around it and sort of come close, but the phrase is never mentioned. Without a narrator, as in the panel below, we never hear these words. When Ben is killed Peter goes on a quest to capture the person responsible, but halfway through the film he just forgets about it.

This tosses away the entire motive for Peter becoming Spider-Man. Peter doesn’t find out that it is his own arrogant inaction that cost his uncle his life. He never learns the lesson about using great power responsibly. And the killer isn’t brought to justice. It is sloppily handled and poorly written. Uncle Ben’s importance in Peter’s life is completely undermined by the addition of his parents. There is an extra scene at the end of the movie where a mysterious shadowy figure asks if Parker has learned the truth about his parents, hinting that this revelation will come to light in future sequels. Ugh. What a terrible storyline, a needless addition to a timeless story.

The super villain in the 2012 movie is the lizard. This is handled pretty well, and the lizard certainly is a classic Spidey villain. However, he lacks the epic super villain aura of a Doc Ock or a Green Goblin, and there certainly is nothing approaching the intimate entanglements between Pete and Harry. In fact, Harry Osborne isn’t even in this film.

Police Captain Stacy is added to the cast of the 2012 version, and played by Dennis Leary. Peter is dating Capt. Stacy’s daughter Gwen in this version. In the original comics Capt. Stacy is accidently killed while Spider-Man is fighting Doc Ock. A chimney is smashed and the bricks are falling toward the street, where a small child is standing. Stacy dives toward the kid, pushing him out of the way, and he is crushed by the debris. Spidey pulls Cap free of the wreckage and starts carrying him toward a nearby hospital when Cap tells him to stop, there isn’t time. In what is one of the greatest stories in Spider-man history, Stacy calls him by name, Peter, then says…

Stacy knew the identity of the man wanted by the police and accused of murder and worse by J. Jonah Jameson, publisher of the Daily Bugle - yet he never let on, never told anyone, and only wanted Peter to take care of his daughter, because he recognized Peter for the man he was.

In the new film Stacy has Spider-Man at gunpoint and forces him to remove his mask. After learning his true identity Stacy is mortally wounded by the lizard. Before he dies, he tells Peter to stay the hell away from Gwen. This is once again a change for the worse. It takes out all the drama, downplays the character of Peter, and removes the kind, understanding, and loving characteristic of Stacy. Instead of sacrificing his life to save another human he is just arbitrarily killed. Waste of a great dramatic moment.

In the new movie Pete tells Gwen his true identity, something he never did in the comics. In the 2002 Raimi film he hides his identity, and doesn’t reveal it to Mary Jane for fear it will put her in danger. He walks away from the woman he loves, sacrificing true happiness, making a heroic sacrifice. It is a great moment in the film.

But unfortunately Gwen isn’t the only one that learns Parker’s identity. He is unmasked or exposed time and again in this film. The Lizard learns who he is, Gwen learns who he is, Capt. Stacy learns who he is, removes his mask in public at one point, if I remember correctly. It is a plot point that really bugged me – guess they just had to show that movie star’s face off every opportunity they had.

J. Jonah Jameson is absent from the new film, and Peter doesn’t work at the Daily Bugle. The actor that played Jonah in the first film, J.K. Simmons, does such an amazing job nailing the character that perhaps Webb intentionally shied away from Peter’s freelance job at the Bugle. However, that is such a big part of the character of Spider-Man – like Clark Kent working at the Daily Planet – that it is really noticeable, and it was a mistake to leave it out.

And then there’s Osborne Industries. In this new version Gwen Stacy works at Osborne Industries, the lizard works there, Peter takes an internship there, and apparently Pete’s parents worked there or collaborated with the scientists that work there. Osborne Industries engineered the mutant spiders that bite Peter, and apparently this is based on research his parents, who were also scientists, started. Or something like that. It is all far too convenient and silly, with Osborne Industries functioning as a big plot catch all for anything scienc-y that needs to be done in this universe. We don’t see Norman Osborne at all, unless that is who the shadowy figure at the end is. Who knows? Who cares?

Ultimately, the Raimi 2002 story is a faithful adaptation of classic Spider-Man comics, whereas the 2012 Webb version is a jumbled mess of unresolved and clumsy storylines. The Raimi version has drama and an epic feel to it that is sorely lacking in this new version.

Winner – Spider-Man 2002

Round 6 – Love Interest

Another big difference between these films is Parker’s love interest. In the 2002 Raimi version it’s Mary Jane Watson, played by Kirsten Dunst. In the 2012 Webb version, it’s Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone.

Gwen Stacy was Spider-Man’s first true love and I give kudos to the new film for bringing her into the mix. Emma Stone is great in the role, and in fact was my favorite thing about this movie. She looks the part and is a good actress. She is tragically killed by the Green Goblin in the comic books, which is doubly hard on Peter, since his being a superhero also cost the life of her father. In his rage he almost kills the Goblin, beating him to near death with his bare hands. But he stops himself, showing his true heroic nature. It will be interesting to see if they kill her in this new series of films.

Mary Jane Watson is the girl best known by most comic book fans, as she was the girl Pete fell in love with after Gwen and eventually married in the comics. I never thought Kirsten really looked right for Mary Jane but she did a great job in the role. Raimi made a nod toward the death of Gwen Stacy storyline in this film by having Mary Jane dropped off a bridge by the Green Goblin (similar to how Gwen died).

But ultimately, Gwen came first and Emma Stone is a better fit, cast-wise.

Winner – The Amazing Spider-Man 2012

Round 7 – Villain

What is a Spider-Man movie without a good villain to fight? In the 2002 film the villain is The Green Goblin, aka Norman Osborne, father of Peter’s best friend Harry (played by Willem Defoe). In the 2012 film the villain is The Lizard, aka Dr. Curt Conners, played by Rhys Ifans. The character of Norman Osborne is handled great in the 2002 film, but they made changes to the Goblin’s costume, giving him armor instead of a cloth costume and mask. I really feel they should have played off Dafoe’s naturally creepy features – that guy has a face that already looks like a goblin! They missed an opportunity there.

Dr. Curt Conners is likewise handled pretty well in the 2012 film with the exception that he now works at Osborne Industries. His attempts at making a regenerative growth formula to grow a new arm turn him into a rampaging lizard. There are some changes here, too – he has a flat face instead of a snout, and doesn’t wear the lab coat except in one scene. These are minor things. I would give the nod to the Lizard except he just isn’t as good of a character as the Goblin. Gobbie is Spider-Man’s arch foe, along with Doc Ock – he’s devious and conniving whereas the lizard is more of a hulking brute. The Goblin character and plot are handled so much better (and Defoe is so good) in that movie that I’m declaring this one a tie.

Winner – TIE

Round 8 – Special Effects

The new version still has a little fight in it, because it clearly takes this round. The 02 version did the best it could but technology is an ever evolving art form. Computers get better and more sophisticated with time and this is evident when comparing these films back to back.

Winner - The Amazing Spider-Man 2012

Round 9 – Aunt May and Uncle Ben

While both Cliff Robertson and Martin Sheen make perfectly fine uncle Bens, Sally Fields as Aunt May in the new version is completely unacceptable. Too young looking, 100% bad casting, a terrible choice for elderly aunt May. People may argue with “but it’s based on the Ultimates Spider-Man line.” If so, the Ultimates suck.

Winner – Spider-Man 2002

And with that the Amazing Spider-Man 2012 is dealt a crushing right hook. It stumbles, falls to the mat, and is counted out. Winner by knock out, after 9 rounds…

SPIDER-MAN 2002

With a score of 5-3-1

In a word the new film is lacking. There is no real sense of grand adventure, the changes that have been made seem to be only for the sake of differentiating it from the Raimi franchise, and the addition of the storyline of Parker’s parents is irritatingly stupid. Tying everything into Oscorp is ludicrous and the unresolved and forgotten storyline of Ben’s killer is unforgivable. Most egregious of all is the change in Parker’s origin, removing the Great Power comes Great Responsibility line completely changes his motivation. He is far less heroic in this version, and that is a shame.

Horror Hootenanny 9

We finally got a date and location nailed down for the 9th Annual Horror Hootenanny. More details tba over the next few weeks!!

Beautiful Bride of Frankenstein poster that turned up at auction recently. It's a Belgian poster from 1935.

Fright Night Film Festival Roundup

The 2012 Fright Night Film Festival was held this past weekend in Louisville, KY. This was my first time attending Fright Night - Ken Daniels, evil genius/organizer behind the show had tried for years to get me to come to a show, but I was just unable for whatever reason. But this time around things worked out in my favor and I was able to attend, and was really glad I did as I had a terrific time.

My son Luke went with me and we headed out early Friday morning. It is only a 2 1/2 to 3 hr drive to Louisville and is a really pleasant trip. Along the way we passed the cave city exit in KY and my favorite sight, a large fiberglass dinosaur advertising Dinosaur World Amusement park. It's a walk through attraction with fiberglass dinos, pretty cool place. I just love that they have one on the side of the interstate. Very Pee Wee's Big Adventure-ish.

 Giant lizard invades Kentucky!

We got into town early afternoon and got set up before the show opened. Our table was in a hallway just outside the main dealer's room, which meant we got great floor traffic all weekend long. We were right next to a couple of other horror hosts, the Horror Dungeon crew (Cpt. Crypt AND Fenriz Fatal) and my good friends from Midnite Mausoleum, Blake, Marlena, and Robyn. I spent a good part of the show chatting with Blake, and got to do a little brainstorming with him for some possible future projects. More on that as they develop...

Warning, dorks, I mean, evil geniuses at work!

The tables were a little narrow, and I had a little trouble getting all my goodies on the table. I really need to find a more efficient way to organize my merchandise. I made a standup of the cartoon of my character that was drawn by artist extraordinaire Brian Maze, which got lots of comments and compliments.

Posters for my DREADFUL HALLOWGREEN SPECIAL DVD

This shot was taken by another horror host who
was at the show, Dr. Mel Praxis. Thanks Mel!

 Robyn Graves and Marlena Midnite of Midnight Mausoleum,
the cutest horror hosts in the business. Their table was busy
all weekend, naturally!

The crowds for Fright Night were huge. It was packed all weekend and everyone seemed to be having a great time. The majority of people at the show seemed to be there for autographs. There was a HUGE guest list, with some big name stars like Bruce Campbell, John Rhys-Davies, Sean Astin, etc. Lines were HUGE for autographs. Now, I am not an autograph guy, never have been, so it was a little surprising to see how many people were willing to stand in line for hours and pay upwards of 30 bucks a signature (or more). But hey, that's the market now and if people will pay it, more power to them.

 I finally got to meet Kristy Jet of Fright Rags and was pleased to find
she was as friendly in person as she is online!

 Friday night we packed up early and headed to the Georgetown Drive-in in neighboring Georgetown KY. This has got to be the coolest part of the Fright Night show for me, but then I'm a drive-in theater nut! Every year the festival works in conjunction with the drive-in to show a classic film that features stars appearing at the show.  This year they showed Evil Dead Friday and The Devil's Rejects on Saturday. There was no way I was going to miss seeing Evil Dead on the big screen!!

 My buddy Jay's car at the drive-in entrance.
Notice those cheap prices for a double feature!!

 The Georgetown drive-in has two screens, and each one was showing a double feature. They also have something that I've never experienced at a drive-in - working speakers. That's right, the speakers on the poles that are missing from most existing drive-ins were in place and fully functional for screen one. For screen two you tune in the sound on your car radio.

Moon over Georgetown! - Screen one.

Luke in front of screen two at dusk.

 Before the show we of course hit the snack bar. It was packed with goodies that were cheap - burgers, hot dogs, corn dogs, nachos, pretzels, popcorn, etc. My friend Jen and her son Will went with us, as well as several of J's friends who met us there. We had a nice little group.

 This fella guarded the drink station - a left over from the Halloween shows. Turns out every Halloween season they have a special series of screenings featuring classic horror films and they decorate the place and even have a little haunted house. This year they're doing an extra  special event that promises to be even bigger than previous years. More on that later, but suffice it to say I'll be heading back to Louisville this October!!

 You WILL buy a soda! The skull commands it!

 They even had some working arcade games including this badass Tron game! SWEET! I had to pose in front of it!

The movies on our screen were Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter and Evil Dead. Lincoln was first and it was completely ridiculous. I don't know what I expected but it was something better than this. Big, stupid action movie with lots and lots of flashy axe twirling. I was glad to see it, but even happier when it was over and they dove right into some CLASSIC DRIVE-IN INTERMISSION COMMERCIALS! Amazing! I have several tapes with these commercials on them, but never seen them played at an actual theater. SWEET!

 It's intermission time, folks!

 Tasty burgers!

 Then it was finally time for the main event, EVIL DEAD. I've seen it in a hard top theater but never at a drive-in, and it was even better outside. The print was gorgeous. Really amazing and I highly recommend the Georgetown Drive-in, it's a terrific theater.

Let the evil begin...

 Back at the hotel day two and crowds were even more insane than day one. REALLY big lines and thousands of fans. Met lots of new people, sold some stuff and had a good weekend.

 Hello Nurse(s)

 Mutant virus run amuk!

OK, this was one of the more humorous points of the weekend. I was walking around with my son taking pics of various booths and such, and I remembered that my friend Brandon had mentioned that he was a big fan of an actress that was appearing there. I thought it was Caroline Williams, but later found out it was Deborah Foreman he was talking about, who also had a table there but I never saw. Anyway, I saw Caroline's booth and she was standing there. I thought I'd snap a shot just to show him what she looked like nowadays and she saw me and actually ducked out of the picture - even threw up a hand to cover her face! Hilarious! haha! She totally big timed me, like "You're not going to snap a picture of me without paying first."

Look, I get that you are there to make money, but cmon - It's not like I was taking a picture to resell or anything. Ridiculous and not a way to win fans.

 

 Exterminate!

I just had to take a picture of this costume as it was super cute! Unlike Caroline, this girl had no problem posing for me.

Finally, Glenn Hetrick, makeup artist and judge of the TVshow Face-Off was walking by my booth and we talked a bit about the upcoming season. He was a nice guy very willing to take a photo with me (take note, Caroline). They just wrapped season 3 of Face Off so look for that soon on the SyFy channel!

Overall it was a fun weekend and I really enjoyed it. Met some new friends, got to hang out with some old ones, and discovered a kick ass new drive-in. I will try and make it back next year if possible. To find out more about Fright Night, visit: http://frightnightfilmfest.com/

To find out more about the Georgetown drive-in visit: http://www.georgetowndrivein.com/

Alice Cooper - It's the Little Things

Thought I'd post a quick music video from Alice Cooper expressing some similar sentiments to yesterday's post on critics... IT"S THE LITTLE THINGS - Give em hell, Alice!

Blogs and Loathing: Movie Critics

I have to admit a bit of a struggle I go through here on the blog from time to time. It is a struggle within my own brain when it comes to reviewing movies. You see, I have real mixed emotions when it comes to critics. For years I thought that most critics are jerks – and with good reason. A lot of them are pretty obnoxious, for a number of reasons. Granted this isn't true of all critics, and there are many out there who are thoughtful, considerate and fair with their criticism. However, many others aren't, and I’ve identified a few of the frequent offenders here…



The Loudmouth

The most prevalent type of negative critic nowadays is the over bearing blow hard loudmouths who like to hear themselves talk and espouse personal opinions that are, of course, 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with them are idiots. I’ve known people like this and read and heard reviews from critics of this mindset. Try to bring up a contrary position and you’re not only wrong you’re a moron, because any opinion outside their own narrow way of thinking is obviously ridiculous. They know it all and feel it's their job to let the world know it as well.

The Narcissist

Then there are the critics who are determined to prove how much smarter they are than the rest of the public. They go out of their way to reference extremely obscure films to prove how intellectually superior they are. Their reviews must be hell to write, because they have to run every one through a personal filter before writing it, balancing how it reflects on them personally and whether it paints them in the proper light, intellectually speaking. They are the narcissists of the field, and their arrogance is amazing and instantly off-putting.

The Coward

And worst of all are the smart ass “I’m cooler than everyone else” types who praise to high heaven the things they love but jump right to insult mode with anything they don’t like. These are the ones who make it personal and are downright mean-spirited, hurling personal cut downs and insults because, if truth be told, they are distanced by the great wall of the internet. They’re cowards, saying nasty things online they’d never say to a person’s face.

When I started my website back in 1999 (when I started my TV show) I didn’t do reviews at all for the first couple of years. I didn’t want to be one of “those guys,” so I just avoided it altogether. Eventually I started doing little capsule reviews, basically just writing the bare facts and rating it on a scale of 1 to 5 skulls, mostly consisting of films I had talked about on Chiller Cinema. Later on I enlisted a couple of folks to write reviews for me, including my director Cameron McCasland, who at that time was just a friend of mine. But I still wasn’t doing much reviewing myself.

When I started my Youtube channel I started a series called the Recommended Movie of the Week. Again, I was avoiding reviewing, instead sticking to recommending movies I liked. The idea was simply to say, hey, this is a movie I like and I think you will too, so give it a try if it sounds interesting.

BUT all that said, once I started my blog reviews did naturally creep into it, and that is where my inner struggle comes into play. Balancing an honest opinion without coming off like the types mentioned above is sometimes difficult, and I’m not sure I’ve always succeeded. I am naturally going to like some movies and not like others, and if I’m going to talk about them I have to present both sides of the film canister, both pro and con.

Bottom line here, I watch a lot of movies, and if I had to approach every one as a reviewer I’d probably learn to hate the whole experience - it would take all the fun out of it. I try to watch movies and simply enjoy them for what they are, good or bad, and if I feel moved to review it later on then I do. I won’t like every one but I’ll at least try to be fair with my praise and condemnation. And I promise to try not to be an arrogant, loudmouthed, narcissist coward.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gangrene



PS – One more thing. For any reviewers who happen to read this – or anyone reading this, actually - if you ruin the ending of a movie or TV show then you’re an asshole, plain and simple. I don’t care if it is 3 days old or 30 years old, it isn’t difficult to say SPOILER ALERT before discussing endings or critical plot points. Yeah, I’m talking from personal experience here, and it’s a real pet peeve of mine. It’s a dick move, plain and simple. You’re not cool and everyone who has a show or movie spoiled hates you. You’re the equivalent of the guy who talks loudly throughout the movie, or gets his cell phone out during the picture. In fact you’re probably that same guy. But then you probably won’t “get” what I’m saying so I’m wasting my breath anyway. After all, your opinion is 100% correct, so I’m an idiot for disagreeing with you.

And yes, I'd say this to your face.

Dark Shadows Not Too Bright for Me

I went to see the remake of Dark Shadows in the theater opening weekend and then caught it a second time as part of a double feature at a drive-in last weekend. I held off on writing a review initially, and sort of thought seeing it a second time might change my opinion of it - but it really didn’t. This film is a remake of the gothic soap opera (created by Dan Curtis) that ran on television from 1966 – 1971. It centers around a vampire named Barnabas Collins who is released from a coffin where he has been trapped for centuries by a witch named Angelique. He is reawakened in the year 1972 and must deal with Angelique, who is still making life miserable for the Collins family, and attempt to restore the family name in the town of Collinsport.

Tim Burton directed this film and it stars Johnny Depp as Barnabas Collins, Helena Bonham Carter as Dr. Julia Hoffman, Michelle Pheiffer as Elizabeth Collins and Eva Green as Angelique. It was written by Seth Grahame-Smith.

My biggest complaint with Dark Shadows is the tone of the film, turning a gothic drama into a light hearted black comedy. In this version Barnabas Collins is reduced to a two-dimensional character that too often serves only as a punch line to lame jokes. There is a trend in cartoons and films nowadays to make father figures idiots, and Dark Shadows follows suit, with Barnabas at one point stalking a lava lamp, slowly sneaking up on this inanimate object like a cat stalking prey. At another point (that was shown in the trailer) he sees someone singing on a television screen and rips the back off the set, shouting, “Tiny songstress reveal yourself!” Barnabas is a dimwit, much like Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin. He solves every problem with brute force, and is easily manipulated. The devious mastermind of Curtis’ series is reduced to a dumb brute - It is embarrassing, especially for anyone who has watched the original series. There are moments where Barnabas is truly scary, attacking and feeding on various townsfolk. But these scenes are offset with ridiculous moments of light hearted humor, and I’m not sure whether to blame Burton or screenwriter Grahame-Smith.

The film is obsessed with the fact that it is set in 1972, and repeatedly beats viewers over the head with this fact. It is so heavy handed here that it becomes tiresome very quickly. Ok, Knights in White Satin is playing, it is the seventies. Got it. Oh, hippies in a VW bus, ok, got it, seventies. Season of the Witch, right, seventies. The Carpenters – sigh, seventies. Lava lamp. Check. Bell bottoms. Check. Paisley. Check. No 70’s cliché is missed. The film is much more interested in presenting a parade of 70’s pop culture rather than telling a gothic horror story, which should be the focus.

Depp’s makeup matches the script of this film in its heavy handed approach. He wears an effeminate white face makeup with obviously-airbrushed shadows spray painted on his cheekbones and dark circles painted around his eyes. A little subtlety would have gone a long way here – it looks like amateurish halloween makeup, more suited for a stage play than a film. Just comparing the two above tells it all - one serious, scary approach and one campy cartoonish one. Depp does a decent job as Barnabas Collins but resembles, in this makeup especially, a boy, whereas Jonathan Frid looks like a man. It just doesn’t work, and I blame Burton’s design.

SPOILER ALERT

The best thing going for Dark Shadows is the house itself, Collinwood Mansion. It is a giant, gothic, atmospheric house, full of secrets of its own. The set designers did a fantastic job with this mansion. But once again this version of DS shows no respect to the original, and flips a giant middle finger to the fans of the original by destroying Collinwood, burning it to the ground in a ridiculous finale which features a laughable CGI werewolf. We are talking BAD here, a laugh out loud werewolf design and cliché dialogue. “I’m a werewolf mother. Get over it.”

END SPOILER ALERT

Overall Dark Shadows is an uneven film, with some good things going for it, especially the opening sequence (set 200 years in the past), where Barnabas is originally cursed to become a vampire by Angelique. Honestly, this would have been a much more interesting film had it focused on THAT story. Michelle Pheiffer is terrific as the matriarch of the family, Elizabeth Collins, and Helena Bonham Carter is great as Dr. Julia Hoffman, too. In fact she was one of my favorite characters in this film. There is a cameo by Christopher Lee, who is terrific as always, and a brief appearance (very brief walk by, blink and you’ll miss it) of several original cast members including Jonathan Frid in a party scene.

Alice Cooper also appears in the party scene, performing live. This was, honestly, distracting to me. Don’t get me wrong, I am a big Alice Cooper fan, and it’s always great to see him in a movie - but as soon as he came onscreen I thought “He’s too old.” Cooper is 64 years old, and this was set in 1972 (as we are reminded CONSTANTLY). He would have been 24 at that time. I was immediately taken out of the picture at this point. It would have been much truer to the storyline if they had had an actor play a young Alice here, but Burton chose to ignore his own rules here and it just doesn’t work.

For me, the number one thing to remember with a remake is to stay true to the source material. It is okay to bring your own flair or sense of storytelling style to the film, that is natural and to be expected. In fact the best remakes often bring in new elements and ideas. But you must still stay true to the heart of the original source material, and Dark Shadows fails in this regard. The comedic elements are not only unfaithful but downright insulting to the original series, and for that reason I can only give it mixed marks. It is, honestly, more of a parody than a remake, which is disappointing. I have read repeatedly that Burton and Depp are big fans of the original series and this is their homage to it. But I find that Burton is more about Burton than anything else, and can't get over himself long enough to do this story justice. There is a good movie in here somewhere, but Burton and Grahame-Smith got so sidetracked with silly clichés and pop-culture references that they missed the mark.