Matt Smitty 4.5 I watched this movie all the way through and just couldn't get into it. It is one of those movies that is like a 30s or 40s black and white movie but with color. The acting/writing/direction is exactly like that of a black and white movie but it is in color. These should have some kind of name to refer to them, there are a lot of them and if you like one, you like them all. For me, i have never been able to get into these kinds of movies. Most Italian horrors and gallios are like this. Maybe one day ill get into it but I've seen a lot and still don't get it.This movie is about a house that re-incarnated souls are attached to.. i don't really remember details since i couldn't get into it.This is supposed to be a seqeul? If it is then no thing or part of this movie is any ways related to house of dark shadows (1970).

Tad Pole . . . turns out to be crappier than the outhouse in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Referencing Manderley's housekeeper, "Mrs. Danvers," in its opening scene, NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS inadvertently highlights the only thing it has in common with 1940's Best Picture Oscar winner: a housekeeper. While Mrs. Danvers in truly creepy, SHADOWS' "Carlotta" is merely a creep. Since every cast member here alternates between hammy overstatement and stage-frightened minimalism, the film editor employs countless virtual freeze frames (which cuts down on the many live action snafus, while Cluelessly highlighting the fact that this cast looks like what the cat dragged in). The sappy film score is sorely inappropriate, grating like an outtake reel from a daytime TV soap opera or a Hallmark Channel romance flick. After about 10 minutes, every musical note sounds like nails on a blackboard. If the proverbial thousand blind monkeys actually could type out a Shakespeare play given an infinite amount of time, SHADOWS seems like ONE sightless chimp's lunchtime doodles. It's really hard to imagine how this film could have been any worse.

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.