Not solely was “Darkish Shadows” solely middlingly reviewed, however audiences rejected it. On a funds of $150 million (!), the movie solely grossed $79 million domestically, a substantial bomb in Hollywood. “Darkish Shadows” would additionally make an extra $165 internationally, however there wasn’t sufficient viewers goodwill to warrant a sequel. No legion of defenders has stepped ahead to rescue the repute of “Darkish Shadows” (an more and more unlikely endeavor in 2024).
Burton’s movie, nevertheless, is a hoot. Its premise is a little bit broad — the vampire-out-of-water humor wasn’t precisely recent — however its trendy execution reveals each a deep love and a mild ribbing of the unique cleaning soap opera that many audiences, maybe, did not essentially register.
The story of the movie follows the collection up to a degree. Within the 1760s, on the rich Collinwood property, Barnabas is engaged to Josette (Bella Heathcote) however is having an affair with the witch Angelique (Eva Inexperienced). When Barnabas spurns Angelique, she kills his mother and father, hypnotizes Josette into strolling off a cliff, and transforms Barnabas into an immortal vampire. She then assembles the entire city to assault Barnabas and bury him alive.
He stays buried till 1972, awakening to a world that claims “groovy” quite a bit. One can immediately see Burton’s homage to the above-mentioned hippie language that leaked its method into the unique present.
In 1972, Barnabas returns to Collinwood to search out Collins descendants dwelling there. The household is now a gaggle of decaying recluses who’ve lengthy been rejected by the city and behave … very oddly. Burton levels early conversations between Barnabas and the household matriarch Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer) with deliberate staginess, ensuring their footfalls are a little bit too loud, and their dialogue a little bit stilted. This was an homage to the cheapness of the unique present.