Crimson Peak - A Gothic Horror/Romance from a Visual Master
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
I can't decide what to make of this guy. I feel like he should be great, and I keep waiting on him to deliver that masterpiece, but so far the only thing he's really delivered is Pans Labrynth. Most of hi projects get cancelled, and all of his other movies are pretty shallow, albeit slightly above average, block busters... That fail to bust the block. I'll definitely see this, but the review hasn't really sold me.
On another note, I've only seen one trailer for the whole film, and that was after it was released. It was enough to get me interested, but it doesn't bode well.
On another note, I've only seen one trailer for the whole film, and that was after it was released. It was enough to get me interested, but it doesn't bode well.
I honestly didn't care for Crimson Peak much. It's definitely a big disappointment. It's not necessarily an awful or even all that bad film, it is pretty and it is wonderfully acted, but there's nothing to it and I couldn't find myself invested in it. It also felt inconsistent, unsure whether it wanted to be a creepy ghost story, a Gothic romance, or a melodrama and it didn't find a way to do all 3 (Which is easily possible) nor did it do any individual piece particularly well.
Have you seen The Devil's Backbone? It's an excellent movie and while not as good as Pan's Labyrinth I see it as something of a spiritual predecessor and the two have a lot in common. Truly I like most of Del Toro's films, in fact the Hellboy movies are two of my favourite super-hero movies, but to each their own of course.Fox12 said:
Hmm nope, I am honestly not a huge fan of Del Toro, I didn't like Pan's labyrinth at all, but by any standards this was a very predictable cliché with some lovely art direction. Zero subtlety, totally incapable of building up mystery and all too depending on the visual flair. I was left waiting for an interesting or unexpected perspective that simply never happened.
I don't know, I find that with every Del Toro movie, critics and people alike go out of their way to defend it's shortcomings, when he's doing good it's a masterpiece, and when he's bad it's an intentional contrast ( or something ).
Way more than with any other filmmaker, he cant seem to do wrong. Even in this review, half of it feels like a plead to go watch his movie, even though its not actually that good.
I don't know, I find that with every Del Toro movie, critics and people alike go out of their way to defend it's shortcomings, when he's doing good it's a masterpiece, and when he's bad it's an intentional contrast ( or something ).
Way more than with any other filmmaker, he cant seem to do wrong. Even in this review, half of it feels like a plead to go watch his movie, even though its not actually that good.
I haven't seen the devils backbone, but i'll definitely check it out. It just seems weird to me that everyone talks about Del Toro like he's an art house director, when the only art house type film he's made (that I've seen) is Pans Labyrinth. Most of his films seem to be big action movies. Not that there's anything wrong with that, they're some of the best action movies in the last few years. Especially hellboy.KayeFaye said:
I just got back from watching it with a friend, and I gotta say, this is exactly how I felt about it too.KayeFaye said:
Except for the wonderful acting part. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the actors were bad. I think the main problem I had was that the characters they played were so...dull. Especially Edith, who we're supposed to root for.[footnote]It's like, she's an aspiring author and...that's it.[/footnote] And if a character has no character, it doesn't matter how good an actor acts it out if there's nothing to act out.
That's the other problem I had with the acting. I felt no chemistry between the actors. I could see that they acted, but...I couldn't feel it. Even if it was genuine, because the characters were so flat and uninteresting, the effort was lost on me.
The ghosts get a total of, like, 6 minutes of screentime between them, if even that, in the 119 minute long movie and almost all of them appear in the form of jump startles. Fuck you, film makers, a horror movie is supposed to scare me, not just make me jump a little and then forget about it in five seconds. The only two scenes where I felt the urge to look away was not because of "I'm scared" discomfort, but because of "Eeew, gross!" discomfort, which I don't want to feel unless I'm watching a splatter movie or something similar.
I wish the film makers had spent more time on the atmosphere they had; The mansion had such potential to make my skin crawl. But it didn't. It was pretty to look at and somewhat creepy, sure, but I feel they could've done more with it. And done more with the ghosts, maybe. There's a part where they talk about ghosts appearing in certain kinds of photos...and then it's never mentioned again. I think they were talking about ghosts being bound to a certain place while watching the photos, but I still think more could've been done with the photos.
Overall, I felt like something was missing. Note sure what, but something.
I'm not a movie person, granted. But I went into this movie with, albeit no high expectations, at least with a somewhat open mind and I still left the theatre feeling disappointed. I felt no chills, I felt no connection to the characters...Actually, I felt almost nothing throughout the movie, and for a supposed horror movie, or any movie for that matter, that is not good.
Would I say the movie is awful? Nah, I've seen worse. But I've also seen much, much better. 3½ stars? Sorry, Marter, but I disagree. 2 stars at most from me. I'm sorry, but this movie didn't work for me; It just made me react afterwards with a resounding "Meh.".