Friday, May 11, 2012

You Can't Force Camp: Dark Shadows



This review originally appeared on the San Francisco Appeal.

It seems like I've always been aware of the TV series "Dark Shadows," even if I'd never seen an episode during its original run, (1966-1971), or during any of its subsequent syndication and re-airings. But the fact that it was a daily soap opera set in a supernatural world meant I always respected the show, even if I had never actually seen it.

So I can't say if Tim Burton's revamped Dark Shadows is something that will please existing fans, although I have a suspicion true fans might get a little more out of the film's story and characters, since more often than not it feels like there's a lot of "filling in the blanks" that needs to be done for both.

The film has a fabulously gothic opening, in which we learn the history of Barnabas Collins, a young boy from Liverpool, brought to the New World in the 1750s. His wealthy family establishes roots in Maine, building a fortune on shipping and fishing, and an appropriately garish manor to go with it. As Barnabas grows older, (and turns into Johnny Depp), he catches the eye of the house maid Angelique, (Eva Green, who is terrific throughout), and they have an affair. But his real affections lay with the noble-blooded and fair Josette (Bella Heathcote), and he chooses her over Angelique. Alas, he chooses the wrong woman to spurn, as Angelique turns out to be a witch, and in revenge, she turns Barnabas into a vampire, and buries him in the ground for all eternity.

Or, at least until the grave is accidentally dug up almost 200 years later, in 1972. Barnabas makes his way back to Collinwood Manor, only to find the place in dusty disrepair, and home to some broke and disillusioned distant relatives: Matriarch Elizabeth, (Michelle Pfeiffer), and her teenage daughter Carolyn, (Chloƫ Grace Moretz); Elizabeth's brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), and his "disturbed" young son David, (Gulliver McGrath); David's psychiatrist Julia, (Helena Bonham Carter); the drunken groundskeeper, Willie, (Jackie Earle Haley); and, finally, the nanny Victoria, who also happens to be the spitting image of Barnabas's long-lost love, Josette.

Barnabas strikes a deal with Elizabeth: She keeps his identity secret, (he's not a 200-year-old-vampire! He's just from the Old Country!), and Barnabas helps the family rebuild its fortune and power by taking back business that was stolen by that witch, Angelique, who is now the town's richest woman. Yep, she's still alive, and still has the hots for Barnabas, and is none-to-pleased to learn that he still has his eye on another woman.

What starts out as gothic fun turns into not-so-funny comedy once Barnabas arises in 1972. Most of the film's humor is centered on the vampire's fish-out-of-water predicament, with frequent shots of Depp doing the startled and aghast looks he seems to utilize in every single movie he's in, paired with people staring at him like he's some kind of ghastly pale vampire from another era. (Oh. Right.)

By playing up the comedic aspects of this kind of character, Depp drains him of any real menace. While Barnabas does savagely kill people in the movie, he's never actually scary.

I think some of the appeal of the original "Dark Shadows" must come from its camp factor. It was an incredibly cheap show, in a genre, (soap operas), not known for subtlety, and, when watched now, I imagine it's hard not to laugh at it.

But you can't force camp. Forced camp is invariably just bad comedy, and Dark Shadows the movie is full of forced camp.

I tend to have the same problem with all of Tim Burton's movies. The are invariably beautiful, full of amazing sets, effects, and costumes; they're a feast for the eye. But the man does not know how to tell a story well, and Dark Shadows suffers from the same problems that plague so many of his other movies.

Characters are introduced, disappear completely for long stretches, and then end up having absolutely no usefulness within the story, (if I were Jonny Lee Miller, I'd be pissed). Important family secrets are revealed with no build-up, resulting in incredulity instead of surprise. David, the "disturbed" young boy, is supposedly recovering from the death of his mother, but just who she is, and what she's been doing to him remains a mystery until a last minute reveal that doesn't make much sense.

And, as in most Tim Burton movies, the ending feels rushed and unsatisfying, as if, with 20 minutes of running time left on the clock, he suddenly realizes he'd better speed things along and finish the story.

There are a few laughs here and there, (most of which can be seen in the trailer), and I had fun looking at the groovy 1970's costumes, and listening to the 1970's soundtrack, (Alice Cooper makes an appearance as himself, performing at a Collinswood "happening). But it's not enough to recommend a movie that ultimately feels like a really expensive pilot for a series that's unlikely to get picked up.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

House of Wax (1953)



This one's a bit of a puzzler. I'm pretty sure I saw The House of Wax in a theater in 3D, but I couldn't find a listing for any local theater that was showing it on May 5th, in 1982. Perhaps it was somewhere outside of San Francisco?

Whatever the case, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the first time I had seen the movie, as I recall being really creeped out as a younger kid after seeing some of the moments featuring wax figures ablaze and melting.

Of course for me, the most memorable scene, and its most silly, is the paddle ball sequence. And to this day, I firmly believe that every 3D movie should be required to have at least one scene featuring a paddle ball. (Or, at the very least, ping pong.)



Thursday, May 3, 2012

SFIFF: Don't Stop Believin': Everyman's Journey



This review originally appeared on the San Francisco Appeal.

The San Francisco International Film Festival comes to an appropriate close on Thursday night with a film that has both local and international appeal.

The story told in Don't Stop Believin': Everyman's Journey sounds like something out of a Hollywood movie: A classic rock band, looking for a new singer to join them on a tour and new album, discovers a guy with a great voice on YouTube.

They audition him, and soon this guy who grew up dirt poor on the streets of Manila in the Philippines is singing in front of thousands in sold out stadiums around the world.

And indeed, that's what happened when Neal Schon of local legend Journey was cruising for a new singer on YouTube late one night in 2007. The film follows Filipino singer Arnel Pineda, who for years was singing Journey songs in his cover band Zoo, as he journeys to America for the first time to audition, blows the band away, and embarks on their first world tour together.

Diehard fans of Journey will find plenty to like here, although the film is really a portrait of Pineda, and not the band. Sure, there is some history of the band included, from their early, afroed-hair days as a jam band, to their success with singer Steve Perry. But people hoping to get the dirt on just why Perry left the band aren't going to get an answer here.

Personally, I don't think Journey IS Journey without Perry. But I do appreciate Pineda's talent; he's got a great voice. (Just not Steve Perry great!)

And I think it was a smart move on Journey's part to hire a singer with international appeal, and such an interesting back story, although the film does seem to focus more on the monotony of touring than it does on Pineda's past. If you ever wondered what keyboardist Jonathan Cain looked like trying on belts before a show, you'll get your answer here. Also: Lots of scenes of band members getting massages.

Still, the many musical moments are sure to fire up the closing night crowd. I can hear them singing Don't Stop Believin' already...

SFIFF: Trishna



This review originally appeared on the San Francisco Appeal.

Director Michael Winterbottom has tackled the works of British novelist Thomas Hardy twice in the past, with the 1996 film Jude, (based on Jude the Obscure), and the 2001 Western The Claim, (based on The Mayor of Casterbridge). He's adapted Hardy once more with his latest film Trishna, which reimagines Tess of the D'Urbervilles in modern-day India.

Since Tess is one of my all-time favorite books, (and Roman Polanski's 1981 adaptation one of my favorite movies), I was eager to see Trishna. And while the adaptation is loose, Winterbottom's changes add some interesting dynamics to the story.

Frieda Pinto is Trishna, a nineteen year old girl in rural India who works a series of jobs to help support her family. She catches the eye of Jay, (Riz Ahmend), a handsome hotelier's son, an Indian born and raised in England who doesn't speak any Hindi. When Trishna's father is injured in an accident and can no longer work, Jay offers her a job at one of his father's hotels.

She agrees and is soon learning the hotel trade, while working closely with Jay. His fondness for her is apparent, but she is apprehensive and inexperienced. Soon, a seduction (or is it rape?) occurs, and a confused Trishna flees back home, and Jay soon follows to get her back.

While these events are pretty close to the original source material, Winterbottom chooses an interesting route in combining the two men in the original Tess's life, so that Jay becomes both Angel (her true love), and Alec (the cause of her downfall).

Much like the original book, class plays a major part in Trishna's destiny, with the big question being: is class too big an obstacle to overcome when it come to love? And do the powerful really want those dynamics to change?

It's a little disappointing to see the character of Trishna remain so passive throughout most of the film--the original Tess had more strength and determination--but Pinto is both stunningly beautiful and heartbreaking in the role. That, combined with the lush, widescreen cinematography, and lively Bollywood score, (complete with a few dance scenes), make Trishna worth seeing, despite some of its limitations.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Escape From New York



A few weeks ago I reviewed a movie that was a complete and total ripoff of Escape From New York. I actually kind of liked the movie, but it reminded me how awesome the real thing is, and I eagerly took an opportunity to rewatch it.

Escape From New York came out in 1981, and I couldn't find any theater listings showing it was screening anywhere on May 1st, 1982, so I am assuming this was another VHS rental. Which is a shame, because like most of John Carpenter's movies, Escape is very widescreen, which means until I saw it on LaserDisc many years later, I had never actually seen the "entire" movie.

I loved everything about Escape on that first viewing: John Carpenter's self-composed synth score, (I would listen to it on my Walkman many times that summer); the cheesy but still impressive effects; Kurt Russell's Clint Eastwood impersonation; (although I don't think I completely realized that was what he was doing until I watched Eastwood's Spaghetti Westerns a few years later); and most especially, this guy:



What was probably most significant about this movie at this time was it made me realize I really, really liked John Carpenter movies, and really, really liked Kurt Russell in them. And I knew that in a few months, I would be treated to another of their collaborations in The Thing, and I. Could. Not. Wait!

Let me end this post with one more fave moment from the movie. Words to remember.