Despite an excellent performance by Depp, like his character, the film is just a little lifeless.

Rating: 7/10 (12 May 2012)

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have a long, quirky history spanning over twenty years now, from the brilliant ("Edward Scissorhands") to the disappointing ("Alice in Wonderland"). And although both have a resume with more positives than negatives, Burton still directed "Planet of the Apes" while Depp should desperately want to take "The Tourist" off his list (and while he's at it, every single Caribbean movie).
So, when "Dark Shadows" was announced some time ago, I was sceptically excited, as I assumed it would probably be great, but hey, both names have stumbled. Then Michelle Pfeiffer got added to the mix, and anticipation grew (because, c'mon, MICHELLE PFEIFFER!) and then Chloe Grace Moretz! Suddenly, May 11th, 2012 was steaming with excitement for me! So, now that the day has come and gone, how do I feel? Well, to be honest, slight disappointment.
"Dark Shadows," based on the uber-cheesy series which aired from 1966 to 1971, has all the right ingredients, but instead of cooking it on high, it was brought to a boil on medium, and thus watching it sadly became tedious at times. A few bubbles would pop up, but then you go back to watching a film that slowly heats up as you look at the clock.
Barnabas Collins, as played by Depp, returns to Collinsport in 1972 after having spent two centuries underground, having been put there by a witch, Angelique. After being dug up by an excavation crew (who suffer the consequences dearly), Collins returns to the house he built to find his descendant s still live there, although not nearly as lavishly as when he was "alive." Head of the household Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, played beautifully in a more-than-welcome return of the magnificent Michelle Pfeiffer, is struggling to keep the family above water. When Collins arrives and persuades her that he is who he says he is, she opens the doors to the family home to him on his promise that he will revive the family fortune.
A fortune taken away by the very witch that entombed him.
I have felt over the last few years that Depp had pretty much exhausted every quirky character he could. The biggest disappointment of "Alice in Wonderland" was that, for the first time, he brought nothing original to a role. It was merely an amalgamation of characters we had already seen him do. Such is not the case with Barnabas Collins. As a vampire waking up in 1972, I cannot think of a more perfect actor to play the fish-out-of-water scenario than Depp, and his execution was exquisite.
To see Pfeiffer back on the big screen (her last starring role in a major film was 2007's brilliant "Stardust") is nothing short of a dream, and her role as the family matriarch is nothing short of perfect. And the woman still looks phenomenal.
Chloe Grace Moretz ("Kick-Ass," "Hugo") never ceases to amaze me, and I cannot help but think this young lady could fill the gap left by Lindsay Lohan....that of a young actress with so much incredible acting talent, you cannot help but see Oscars in her future. As rebellious daughter Carolyn, Moretz absolutely controls every single scene she appears in.
Of course, for comic relief, the always pitch-perfect Jackie Earle Haley as Willi Loomis, not to mention Eva Green's just-fine performance as witch Angelique and an impressive major-motion picture debut by "Neighbour"'s alum, Bella Heathcote.
So, with all this star power and direction by Tim Burton, why is my reaction not complete exasperation? As I said, the film just moves far too slowly. Despite excellent performances all around, a great story, a script that is clever and crisp and refreshingly funny while staying absolutely true to the concept of the original series in every way, it may have tried a little too hard to be as quirky and cheesy as the TV series, thus lending to a film that seems like an episode that was stretched just a wee bit too long. The whole knock at 1972 never becomes tiresome or less amusing, even though the film itself does as time drags on.
So, that is the one critique I have. A film filled with excellence in acting, writing and, with incredible special effects and outstanding cinematography, an absolute visual pleasure! But, despite all this, it just sadly took too slow a pace to get to the point. So, the film is good. Not great, but good, simply because Burton focused on the ingredients, and while doing a superb job, simply forgot to turn up the heat.