MovieChat Forums > Dark Shadows (1991) Discussion > The best charactars in this version were...

The best charactars in this version were ~

posted 12 years ago by SoapWatch
12 replies | jump to latest

These are the characters I found to be better or equal to the original 1960s versions:

Barbara Steele gives Julia Hoffman a bit of sex appeal simply from the way she dressed while maintaining to take her profession as a doctor seriously. She had a lot of chemistry in her scenes with nearly all the characters from the 1991 series especially with Barnabas & Willie. It took me a long time to like Grayson Hall since she seemed to stumble on her lines a lot and rely on the cue cards far too much.

Jim Fyfe gave Willie Loomis more of a comedic edge without even trying to. Just his bumbling about while trying to serve Barnabas as best as he could was something many actors could take lessons from. John Karlan made a more serious-toned Willie Loomis but it was sufficient for a daytime drama.

Joanna Going had the 1960s Victoria beat to a tee! I always found the 1960s Victoria seeming way out of place with too many, "What on earth is going on here?"

Jean Simmons pretty much managed to equal Joan Bennett
Same with Roy Thinnes to Roger Davis

And who would have thought the smallest of the bunch would turn out to be the series surprise talent find?

I found Joseph Gordon Levitt less whiny than David Henesy, although I attribute that whiny sound to bad audio of the 1960s.

Lastly, I can't find Ben Cross's modern version of Barnabas better than Jonathan Frid.

Frid has both Cross and Depp beat in that role.

[–] susannah-5 12 years ago

V. interesting comments!

For me, I thought Lysette Anthony as Angelique was terrific. She really understood the part, and wasn't just a carbon copy of Lara Parker.

One thing I don't care for in both the Depp picture and this revival version is the portrayal of Willie Loomis as some kind of creepy, low IQ goof. I'll take John Karlen's performance any day, but you're quite right that within the new parameters of the role Jim Fyfe was v good.

It would be hard not to improve on the portrayal of Sarah Collins from 1967, but Veronica Lauren was v good all on her own. She also benefits from the atmospheric direction, such as a scene where David comes into his room and Sarah is sitting by the window spinning a globe and doesn't say a thing. The child had presence without having to speak.

Others have mentioned Grayson Hall and the teleprompter, but I'm never aware of her eyes meeting mine when I watch. Unlike, say, Jonathan Frid, who seems to be seeking it several times in each scene. Also I loved Julia's knockoff Chanel suits. I'm not that keen on Barbara Steele's perf as Julia, but she's absolutely first rate as Natalie Du Pres.

[–] HollyHop 12 years ago

I find Fyfe's Willie Loomis terrible distracting, he doesn't only act goofy but he looks like a dirty mess. In the original Loomis was one of my top favourite characters while in the revival he pisses me off. To me Fyfe's Loomis was even worse than the Burton version and the character design in that one was a disappointment. At least Jackie Earle Haley did his best to put some dignity into a sadly butchered character.

Grayson Hall did stumble with her lines a lot but I can't remember her breaking the fourth wall as some other actors did. I miss Julia's red hair when watching the revival. I prefer Hall because Steele comes off as a bit too cold I think. Carter's version of Julia was the absolute worst and felt like an insult. >:(

I prefer the original Roger Collins, I found Louis to be more funny in a dead pan manner. I agree that David in this show is very strong. Frankly I think all the actors who played David did good performances.

I'm only early in the revival show but I like this Sarah much better, one of the reasons is that so far I've only heard London Bridge one time. ;) Yes some of her scenes were very eerie.

I haven't seen Lysette's performance yet but I'm sure it's better than the Burton version. If she can compete with Lara Parker I have yet to see.

So far I find the revival show to be superior to the mess Burton committed on screen but the original has the advantage of more episodes, storylines and characters.

Don't tell me, it's no use to me. Tell yourself if you want to but don't tell me.

[–] saraliz710 12 years ago

Surprised no one has mentioned this (unless I haven't seen it) but I absolutely could not stand Carolyn in the 91 version!! I thought she was awful. I find it of that they didn't cast the actress playing Daphne in that role. She seemed like a much more seasoned actress. I also preferred the clean cut relationships in the 91 version. The fact that Daniel, Jeremiah, Sarah and Barnabas were all siblings for example. It was much more clear. I agree with most of the other responses here about equal performances.

[–] susannah-5 12 years ago

Agree -- the 1991 Carolyn was a definite weak link, but the actress was kind of funny as Millicent Collins.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] susannah-5 12 years ago

Those snark matches between Natalie and Joshua in the original were extremely amusing! You've just reminded me of something missing in the 1991 version: Joshua doesn't come off as the stiff-backed, patriotic American Puritan that Louis Edmonds' Joshua was. That unbendingness was crucial to the character and if the show had continued would have hindered the drama of Barnabas's situation considerably (similar to how leaving out the plot points of Angelique tricking Barnabas into marriage and despite this his subsequent peculiar loyalty to her dilutes the tragedy of their relationship).

The scene that introduces Josette in 1991, when she addresses Joshua as "Citoyen" and her father explains that since the Revolution in la belle France she is eaten up with republicanism, missed some zingers. Can't you imagine the 1966 Joshua's reply? "You are in a republic now, madam. A true republic."

Is it because a totally different actor -- did he have any role in the present in the 1991 storyline? -- played him, so the character was given short shrift? Joshua was so key to 1795 in 1966 (that's fun to type), but in the new version he was just background.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] noirgirl 12 years ago

Jim Fyfe was the best thing in this show! He was funny, and touching, and sad, all at once.

[–] twcassidy 11 years ago

I thought most of the actors did a good job, although Joe and Carolyn did not seem to fit into 1790 , both seeming too modern. Stefan Gierach did a great job and even looked like someone from that era. Both he and Sarah did well especially in ep 12 where they had some moving scenes. I liked Mrs Johnson/Abigail. Ben Cross, Barbara Steel, and Joanna Going all good, too.
Thought the scenes with Roger and Maggie were creepy, he is way too old for her.
The part about David trying to kill Roger and the forbidden art room were just left hanging
The sets were great, but do they have thunderstorms every night ?

[–] airspirit77 11 years ago

Ben Cross, Ely Pouget, and Lysette Anthony. The BEST of the remake.

Come, Fly the teeth of the wind!

[–] Venus-25 11 years ago

Don't forget Adrian Paul. Loved him and he would have made a great Quentin.

The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.

[–] Briabba2 11 years ago

Hadn't thought of that....YES AP would have been an amazing Quentin!