AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

BA_Harrison Painter Quentin Collins (David Selby) and his wife Tracy (Kate Jackson) move into ancestral home Collinwood unaware that the place is haunted by several ghosts, with the malevolent spirit of Charles Collins seeking to possess his descendant.With its running time drastically reduced from well over two hours to a mere 95 minutes thanks to studio interference, it comes as no surprise that the theatrical cut of Dan Curtis' Night of Dark Shadows lacks coherence and suffers from serious pacing issues. Painfully slow and frequently unfathomable, the film limps awkwardly from one dreary scene to the next with little evidence of Curtis's usually assured hand.No doubt a fully restored director's cut of Night of Dark Shadows would be an improvement (it could hardly be any worse), but as it stands—cut to shreds and making very little sense—the film is a huge step down from the previous Dark Shadows big-screen outing, House of Dark Shadows (1970).

gavin6942 A painter (David Selby) and his wife (Kate Jackson) move into a home and find themselves plagued by ghosts and spirits of his ancestors that used to be witches.As this was written, directed and produced by the legendary Dan Curtis, there is pretty much no way it could be bad. Perhaps fans of the series were a bit disappointed that it wandered off from the core storyline, but hey, this still has the same great atmosphere that Curtis has created in other films (notably "Burnt Offerings").Allegedly, MGM forced Curtis to cut over 35 minutes from his finished film, and gave him only 24 hours to do the job. So the film went from approximately 129 minutes to about 94 minutes, which, according to some, caused the film to lose its coherence. I can definitely see that, and as a Curtis fan, I do wish there was a way to get that extended version back. Who knows? If they did it with "Nightbreed", maybe they can do it here.

ersinkdotcom "House of Dark Shadows" is an abridged version of the Barnabas Collins storyline of the popular television show. However, creator / director Dan Curtis was forced to explore different plot avenues with "Night of Dark Shadows.""Night of Dark Shadows" focuses on the arrival of artist Quentin Collins (David Selby) and his wife, Tracy (Kate Jackson), to his newly inherited home, Collinwood. He's greeted by the mysterious housekeeper, Carlotta Drake (Grayson Hall), and the caretaker, Gerard Stiles (Jim Storm). Quentin begins having visions of a past existence in which he's having an affair with his brother's wife, Angelique (Lara Parker).As he digs deeper into the family history, he discovers Angelique was hung on the property for accusations of being a witch. Are his trances truly memories of a former life? Can he keep the evil spirit of Angelique from destroying his family and friends and driving him insane?Where "House of Dark Shadows" is quickly paced, this indirect sequel plods along nicely and establishes a storyline and a sense of fear and creepiness. The problem is what it builds up to. The conclusion of the film is rather abrupt and unsatisfying. There's also a similarity to director Curtis's ending of his 1976 film "Burnt Offerings," which I find interesting in hindsight.It's obvious when viewing the movie that it suffered some final cuts in the editing room. Long-time enthusiasts of the show know the history behind the making of the film and the existence of lost footage. Director Curtis was given 24 hours to re-cut the movie from 129 minutes to 94 minutes by MGM.Fans of the film petitioned to have the chopped sequences restored and a director's cut released. The footage was found in 1999, but it was without sound. The scenes are said to give "Night of Dark Shadows" a darker mood and reinstate the original cohesion and framework of the film. It's unfortunate that what we get here is still the 94-minute version released by the studio in 1971. However, beggars can't be choosers. The movie might have some problems, but it's still an entertaining watch.

MARIO GAUCI Well, this was nowhere near as bad as the Leonard Maltin Film Guide claimed – where it's been unenviably slapped with a BOMB rating! Nonetheless, I was confused by the fact that, while the events once again take place in the Collinswood manor, there's no mention at all of vampirism – in fact, the 'villain' of the piece is a witch who, like Barnabas Collins from HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS (1970), is intent on kindling an unnatural romance with the lookalike descendant of her former lover (in this case, young painter David Selby). Even more baffling is the fact that several actors return from the first film but as totally different characters (for instance, Grayson Hall is now the enigmatic housekeeper devoted to her former mistress in the best Mrs. Danvers tradition, while Thayer David merely appears in a flashback as the witch's nemesis!) – still, we get here a similar unhinged acolyte played by a different actor who, however, serves no discernible function this time around! In any case, the hero arrives with a wife (future Charlie's Angel Kate Jackson) in tow – incidentally, his progenitor had also been married to another woman, and the witch was actually his own brother's spouse!; Selby, initially mystified by intermittent visions from the past, eventually falls under the witch's spell and retreats to the tower to paint – barring entry to his wife, whom he begins to neglect and mistreat (culminating in a murder attempt!). Though hardly original, the plot is more complex (and, in a way, intriguing) than that of the previous film – approximating, in fact, the classic Gothic/romantic melodrama in the tradition of "Jane Eyre" and, as already intimated earlier on, "Rebecca". The film, therefore, is much more of a mood-piece than its predecessor with the various nightmares, apparitions and other strange occurrences throughout giving the whole an agreeably uncanny, even surreal vibe; tying in with this, Robert Cobert's evocative score seems even better suited to the tone of this particular film than that of the more genre-specific HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS.That said, the end result (at least, judging by the 94-minute Theatrical Release Version under review – since the 'lost' Director's Cut was, reportedly, a hefty 129 minutes long!) emerges to be vaguely unsatisfactory (not helped by the less-than-stellar quality of the source, bearing fuzzy credits and a distracting echoey soundtrack): for one thing, the 'established' actors were generally better served by their roles in the first film – while the new recruits don't exactly set the screen on fire! The script does take care to provide one final twist leading to a downbeat 'curtain' (of the type we have relentlessly suffered from in recent years – note my comments to the recently-viewed HATCHET [2006])…though its coda of a newspaper report describing the mysterious road accident in which the central couple's married friends were killed (but which is then interrupted half-way through) proves a genuine "What The F***?!" moment. The film was immediately followed by two distinct theatrical trailers for it, as well as an alternate one for HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS than what was included on its own edition.