Check out this podcast review of the movie
http://thecinementals.org/2012/05/dark-shadows-podcast/
The following has some references to the podcast, so I will classify it as a possible spoiler.
[spoiler]They lost me when they started using words like "betrayed." While I certainly agree with some of these folks' concerns, I disagree with the idea sometimes inferred that the "mythology" of DS is sacrosanct (to the point of close replication, both of story and actors), and the list of deviations from the original cited by these good people as a general point of criticism seemed more an opportunity to rattle off knowledge of the original series (in addition to countless other films and TV shows unrelated to the DS film). That in itself, does not qualify as a strong argument for the asserted weaknesses of the film, though it may illustrate some people's disappointment in it, and is certainly valid in that respect.
The OS is what it is. Five years of borrowed, re-imagined mythology that already existed in another form. It was unique and wonderful in its retelling. The artists and writers who retold it were themselves unique and wonderful. So, in my opinion, are those responsible for this new work.
Why is it surprising or even offensive to some people that a 2 hour movie can't go into incredible detail about everyone's favorite storyline or character? Or serve those five years of stories and characters in the same way as the OS? Why do some think it acceptable to speak for all followers of the show (as in the actions of Dr. Hoffman at one point in the script being a big "F-You" to ALL fans - as a fan from the first run, I certainly did not feel - um - violated by the scene in question)? Does this somehow bolster an argument, or detract from it as a version of an ad populum plea?
For all its flaws, I like the new movie both for what it is and what it represents in terms of reinvigorating interest in this show. The folks on the podcast seemed to agree that in spite of their dislikes and disappointments, interest in the show would be served. That seems a good way to look at it regardless of your impression of the movie.
This film is a separate animal from the OS, just as the OS was a separate animal from its source material. And like the original, this film is not perfect, but it uses elements of the original along with the creative re-envisioning of new actors and a new director. If we must beat it up, let us beat it up on its own merits (pacing, acting, story consistency, effective humor, etc.) not on behalf of the Ghost of 433 West 53rd Street (A ghost that I will always have a special, separate place in my heart for), or - Howard the Duck.
PS: Ironically, I know some folks that feel that the two Dan Curtis DS Movies are "wretched" and serve as a "betrayal" to the series. They are by no means my favorite incarnation of DS (Sorry, Darren, but I still look forward to their release, and seeing your hard work come to fruition!), but they are film, and necessarily a somewhat different vision from a daytime soap. Also, they are proof that DC sought to CHANGE the structure and impact of the OS core mythology as far back as 1970.
I DO respect everyone's personal take on the film - we don't all have to agree to all still love DS! [/spoiler]
Respectfully,
Petofi