Skip to main content

I put the poison in her porridge.

Crimson Peak
(2015)

(SPOILERS) Oh, Guillermo, Guillermo, whate’er has become of you? Perhaps Pan’s Labyrinth, with its resounding critical acclaim, was del Toro’s creative (rather than crimson) peak, and he decided he didn’t need to strive so manfully any more. Or perhaps the debacle of bumping himself off The Hobbit knocked the wind out of his sails, so struggling to regain his previous form after all that lost time. Whatever the root of his malaise, del Toro’s most recent two pictures have been disappointments, ones unfortunately redolent of his early Hollywood ordeal Mimic. They’re examples of well-made emptiness rather than rich with texture and resonance. Crimson Peak is better than Pacific Rim, but that’s more down to performance than screenplay, and del Toro must take (at least half of) the blame in both instances.


He co-wrote Peak with Matthew Robbins, a contemporary of the Hollywood movie brats whose best known and most ignominious directorial credit is the sub-Spielberg slop *batteries not included. Crimson Peak couldn’t be accused of falling into schmaltz, far from it, but it continually overplays its hand in a manner del Toro might argue is merely representative of the tropes of gothic romance (a genre he was continually at pains to state it belonged to, rather than horror, putting the picture’s financial failure at the door of what he saw as misleading marketing, which conveniently skirts its more fundamental shortcomings). Really, it just highlights a certain crudity of plot and characterisation that will come as a shock to anyone only familiar with the nuance of his Spanish language outings.


The ghost is just a metaphor, for the past” announces Mia Wasikowska’s budding writer, and the subsequent movie becomes a barrage of too self-conscious displays of fictioneering, as del Toro sets out his stall of text and genre within the text and genre itself. He runs through the expected compendium of precisely devised patent del Toro gadgets, and clumsily attempts to evoke era by dropping in references to Conan Doyle, spirit photography, and assorted over-elaborate anecdotes and factoids that call this out as otherwise unanchored in time and period.


I mentioned the Peak in my Carol review, as del Toro is going for something similar to Hitchcock and Scorsese in his emphasis on touch and sensation, but he ends up nose-diving into unhinged melodrama and tonally excessive Grand Guignol (the skull-splitting in a men’s room). It’s over-studied, and unconvincing in its lavishness. You can see what he’s trying for, but there’s emptiness at Crimson Peak’s core.


One only has to compare it to the archetype of motion picture gothic romance, Rebecca, where the house is imbued with a sense of character no veneer of modern production design can muster, where there’s a genuine sense of the uncanny and a haunting atmosphere the actual spooks in Peak can’t begin to match, and where the characters betray palpable passions, fears and simmering emotions that render del Toro’s cock-riding and incestuous liaisons flagrantly attention-seeking.


And yet, del Toro has assembled three-quarters of a fine cast. In the principal roles, as the mysterious siblings who lure Edith Cushing (I know; alas, Cushing is about as understated a nod as this gets) to the unreal edifice, are Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain, as Thomas and Lucille Sharpe. Or, more accurately, Mia Wasikowska is playing Mrs de Winter, Hiddleston is Maxim, and Chastain illustrates a particularly berserk incarnation of Mrs Danvers, with Allerdale Hall substituting for Manderlay.


The secrets, over-exerted, are much less effective, and thus so are the characters. While the trio of leads are top-notch performers, they’re left inhabiting caricatures. Edith seems to do what she does purely because she’s a piece on del Toro’s chess table, while Thomas is suitably raffish but his essential unreadability never translates as intriguing. Lucille, meanwhile, is plain insane, and Chastain is clearly having absurdly camp fun, particularly when it comes to running around, stabbing and slicing willy-nilly, in the blood-spurting third act, but the overriding effect is rather pedestrian, as if del Toro has missed the wood for the pastiche.


He’s even borrowing for the miscast Charlie Hunnam, as Edith’s forlorn suitor. McMichael is essentially Arbogast from Psycho, something evident as soon as he arrives in England to set the Sharpes to rights. Except del Toro and Robbins know we know this, and know Kubrick also copied Hitch with the similarly haunted mansion and Scatman Crothers’ doomed knight in shining armour in The Shining. So instead, McMichael survives, just about. Hunnam’s face is far too contemporary for this kind of fare, which is probably why he’s also been cluelessly given lead duties in The Lost City of Z and Knights of the Round Table: King Arthur.


Talking of clueless, I’m guessing del Toro will claim it was intentional that Allderdale Hall and its environs fail to look or feel remotely like England; after all, Manderlay was achieved entirely in Hollywood and the surrounding Californian countryside. Unfortunately, the decision leaves Peak further adrift, and with ghost designs we’re assured weren’t CG rendered, but look it thanks to post-production processes, the whole tends to the mechanically undemanding. Much has been made of the bodice-ripping sex scenes, but they aren’t anything all that eyebrow raising, unless you happen to be taking tea with the vicar while watching.


If I make it sound as if I didn’t enjoy the film, that’s not exactly the case; it’s just disappointing that a director so talented should make something so middling for the second time in a row. Crimson Peak ought to have played a blinder. It can be a bad sign when a filmmaker opts to up the ante of bloodshed, no matter how much he may adore it anyway, because it may be in service of hiding a story that isn’t working. The picture’s third act is really little more than an elaborate display of dismemberment and mutilation, which is all very well, but Guillermo can do so much more. And, to an impartial observer, it does make the movie read as horror rather than gothic romance.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.