TheLittleSongbird 'Dark Shadows', as was said in my review of 'House of Dark Shadows' and the relatively recent Tim Burton film (which despite some good things is the most disappointing of the lot), wholly deserved its popularity back when it was aired and it also deserves the high regard it is held in now.'House of Dark Shadows', the first film based on the show, is by far the best of the films based on the show and the only one to be just as good. Sure, some of the characters are given short shrift and Joan Bennett is underused which doesn't allow her to shine as much as she deserved. It looked absolutely great though (with improved production values over the show), was fun, tense and genuinely scary and the ending was unforgettable.'Night of Dark Shadows' is not an awful film, but it is a let down compared to 'Dark Shadows' and 'House of Dark Shadows'. There is a good deal to like. The production and costume design have a colourful and hauntingly Gothic look and it's mostly beautifully photographed. Bob Cobert once again provides an eerily spooky music score that is mostly used well, though his music for 'Dark Shadows' and 'House of Dark Shadows' fitted better.Some of the script is intriguing, there are some decent scares and shocks and Dan Curtis does what he can with what material is left in the film. Acting is decent considering, with Grayson Hall, David Selby, John Karlen and Nancy Barrett being the standouts. Kate Jackson is also at her most appealing, and is really very good in her role.Most of the cast however have very little to do and struggle to do much with their limited material, which does see relatively unexplored characterisation, characters coming and going and some corny dialogue. James Storm is pretty wasted really, and while it was evident one can't help wanting more of the great chemistry between the characters. And the film does suffer from the absence of the show's most iconic and interesting character Barnabas Collins, and of Jonathan Frid who could chill the bone just by being there, am aware there is a very good reason for why they weren't there but still.The film is badly hurt by its sloppy (often horrendously so) editing, too plodding pacing and a lack of consistency in the tension, suspense and horror (what there is is quite good but not as nerve-shredding or bone-chilling as in 'House of Dark Shadows'). Unfortunately, faring worst is the story which is a badly disjointed mess as a result of the editing and a lot of material having to be cut which gives the film a jumpy, incomplete and not always easy to follow feel, the final act is especially muddled. The ending is very abrupt and has none of the staying power of 'House of Dark Shadows' ending.All in all, not bad but a let down. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Johan Louwet I probably rate this movie too low giving it 6/10 now that I know that they have cut some 40 minutes from it. This really shows in some sequences. However an over 2 hour version would probably have been too long. At 45 minutes of film the whole mystery behind the mansion and its previous inhabitants from over hundred years ago was clear by then. I think they better did cut a bit more in the second part as that was way less interesting than what happened after the whole revelation. The action scenes towards the ending were pretty awful. The solution seemed too easy and that's a sign that there is going to be some twist and indeed, a predictable one too. Enjoyable yes but the back story of the previous inhabitants was much more interesting than those of the new ones. I particularly liked how the story of the previous inhabitants was told in some kind of flashbacks.

Morbius Fitzgerald Okay, I enjoy most things Dark Shadows, I enjoyed the version starring Ben Cross, I love the original 1966 version, I love House Of Dark Shadows, I even found it in me to like the 2012 version. Now, if I were to say it, this is probably the second weakest of the Dark Shadows titles. This isn't actually the movie's problem because MGM wanted a shorter running time so they edited around 40 minutes out of it and sloppily I might add, for their big picture. Now was there a good story behind it, lets dive in.So this was originally meant to be a direct sequel to House Of Dark Shadows, however when Frid turned down the role of Barnabus Dan Curtis decided to make a film based on an alternate reality. The only cast members I recognize are John Karlen, Nancy Barrett, David Selby and Grayson Hall.Now unlike the other one this actually had a good story behind it. The problem was that MGM edited out 40 minutes of it and, for the most part, it just doesn't make f*cking sense. There is an entire sequence where Grayson Hall talks about how what Quentin sees is a past life and she tells him the death of Angelique from her past life perspective. Now, I wouldn't mind this if they actually had some explanation as to why they can see past lives where others can't. More importantly, even though she was an okay child actress, Hall's past life looked nothing like her. Quentin's was an exact copy.I also would've liked this a bit more if they spent more time developing Angelique as a character, if they spent some more time on John Karlen and Nancy Barret's characters (I genuinely forgot they were in this film at one point). I mean yeah, she wanted Charles Collins and she was a witch but, using this film alone, do you really know anything else about her? Every single problem with this film all comes round to the 40 minutes the studio cut out. If they left it as is, I do believe that we would be left with a good film. Story wise, for what it was, it was superior to House Of Dark Shadows but thanks to the execution, House was the better film.In terms of acting, this film is actually pretty good. David Selby is okay but oddly enough the best performers are John Karlen and Grayson Hall. Karlen is one of those roles on the show where I stare and say "DO SOMETHING ELSE?!" and he was able to do something else with this role besides worry. He played a Gothic writer wanting inspiration from inside Collinwood.I also liked the costume/scenery of the flashbacks to Sarah. I mean this girl is able to act while only saying one word on screen "No!" They actually also looked like their parts. The only exception is Thayer David who looks a lot more like a mutation of Highlander and the Hulk.So overall, yes this film has its problems but write down the concept on a piece of paper, does it sound that bad? Look at the acting, is it all that bad? Look at the production design, the special effects, etc. Were they all that bad? I mean besides the editing (which was so sloppy, I think even I could do a better job!). Anyway, for true fans of the show, check it out. In spite of its flaws, I still managed to like it.

nickandrew Follow up to "House of Dark Shadows" has potential, but comes off as low-budget horror trash, due to a rush `butchering' by MGM editing before the film's release. As its predecessor, the eerie ghost story is beautifully filmed (in Tarrytown, NY), but the plot revolving around newlyweds moving in the old family estate that is haunted is nothing new and makes no sense at times.