The film has good in it. The hypersaturated color and goofy set and costume design is really wonderful and there are some well-shot dramatic and goofy sequences in turn, plus legitimately great jokes and visual gags. People did their homework on the show.
But what does it want to be? Lots of dialogue feels cringeworthy or written out-of-tone with the characters' expected vernacular and there are some jokes that feel like failed attempts at hipness, as well as jokes that are so out-of-date that, while like the old show, don't work. Jarring modern elements are mixed in too. The story is meandering with no climax or real resolution and rips off the already-bad Addams-film swindling plot, and the vignettes aren't charming or funny enough to make that acceptable. There's no emotional core to the film and it has no clue when it's taking place, either, leaving it without focus. Is this a prequel to the show or an origin story for a new continuity? A hokey replica or a modern twist or parody? I'm fascinated by the question of what Rob Zombie thought The Munsters show was.
Unlike The Addams Family TV cast having room for improvement that the films exceeded in, the original Munsters series already gave us the best possible versions of the characters. This means the film either has to completely reimagine the characters or exactly match the originals and it seems like it's trying to do both? With only three Munsters, they gave themselves a lighter burden, but two of them aren't good enough. The Count's performance is the highlight, bordering on wizardry. I'd fully believe they'd dug up Al Lewis' corpse to cut costs on makeup because Daniel Roebuck is uncannily similar and hilarious in the role. Herman is pretty flawed, but not movie-ruining. His voice cracks constantly and isn't that deep, but he solidly evokes the spirit and line delivery of Fred Gwynne's Herman. Nobody could have matched Gwynne, but this is fine.
Sheri Moon Zombie is not good and I don't know what she thought she was doing. Her Lily is a one-note, unemotive, twitchy patrician caricature with a clipped snooty voice sounding nothing like de Carlo's Lily and making her feel shallow and ungrounded. I don't know if it was marital nepotism letting her get away with it or genuine and misguided creative decisions, but her portrayal was always distracting. I also don't think she comes across as a younger version of the character like Herman does.
The only prominent black character's portrayal rubs me the wrong way since he's a swindling drunk criminal beast-man.
This film had effort, but it's neither innovative or a good tribute. Maybe it'd be best played on mute as a visual treat and nothing more.
Bafflingly aimless and inconsistent; frustratingly close to good.
I mean, what were we expecting?
The film has good in it. The hypersaturated color and goofy set and costume design is really wonderful and there are some well-shot dramatic and goofy sequences in turn, plus legitimately great jokes and visual gags. People did their homework on the show.
But what does it want to be? Lots of dialogue feels cringeworthy or written out-of-tone with the characters' expected vernacular and there are some jokes that feel like failed attempts at hipness, as well as jokes that are so out-of-date that, while like the old show, don't work. Jarring modern elements are mixed in too. The story is meandering with no climax or real resolution and rips off the already-bad Addams-film swindling plot, and the vignettes aren't charming or funny enough to make that acceptable. There's no emotional core to the film and it has no clue when it's taking place, either, leaving it without focus. Is this a prequel to the show or an origin story for a new continuity? A hokey replica or a modern twist or parody? I'm fascinated by the question of what Rob Zombie thought The Munsters show was.
Unlike The Addams Family TV cast having room for improvement that the films exceeded in, the original Munsters series already gave us the best possible versions of the characters. This means the film either has to completely reimagine the characters or exactly match the originals and it seems like it's trying to do both? With only three Munsters, they gave themselves a lighter burden, but two of them aren't good enough. The Count's performance is the highlight, bordering on wizardry. I'd fully believe they'd dug up Al Lewis' corpse to cut costs on makeup because Daniel Roebuck is uncannily similar and hilarious in the role. Herman is pretty flawed, but not movie-ruining. His voice cracks constantly and isn't that deep, but he solidly evokes the spirit and line delivery of Fred Gwynne's Herman. Nobody could have matched Gwynne, but this is fine.
Sheri Moon Zombie is not good and I don't know what she thought she was doing. Her Lily is a one-note, unemotive, twitchy patrician caricature with a clipped snooty voice sounding nothing like de Carlo's Lily and making her feel shallow and ungrounded. I don't know if it was marital nepotism letting her get away with it or genuine and misguided creative decisions, but her portrayal was always distracting. I also don't think she comes across as a younger version of the character like Herman does.
The only prominent black character's portrayal rubs me the wrong way since he's a swindling drunk criminal beast-man.
This film had effort, but it's neither innovative or a good tribute. Maybe it'd be best played on mute as a visual treat and nothing more.