There's a term in film studies, the "auteur theory." It's to film directors what a modus operandi is to criminals: a distinct way of doing things that readily identifies a work as theirs. One of the best modern examples is Guillermo del Toro. Even in commercial fare like the "Hellboy" series and "Pacific Rim," there's a giddiness and fascination with the bizarre and grotesque you won't find from any other director. The only one who comes close is probably David Cronenberg, yet where he is more of a cold observer, del Toro is clearly having the time of his life. Which is why "Crimson Peak," a film I saw for the first time last night, was a bit of a disappointment.
To be fair, this is not a horror film. Del Toro considers it a gothic romance, and despite his usual trademarks - insect imagery, unique creatures, religious symbolism - there's very little to actually fear in "Crimson Peak." And that's fine - del Toro is so skilled a director it's exciting to see him branch out as he did with "Hellboy" and "Pacific Rim." However, he holds onto his most cherished genre just enough that I couldn't help but feel something was missing.
It is not the visuals - Dan Laustsen, filling in for regular del Toro cinematographer Guillermo Navarro, is just as consummate a stylist, and the house is arguably the most eerily beautiful set of all his creations. I do wish, though, that the editing had been a little less choppy - it threw off the pacing of several scenes and made the film, even at two hours, feel rushed at times. Not the acting, either - while Tom Hiddleston and Charlie Hunnam were a bit stiffer than I expected, Mia Wasikowska is compelling, while Jessica Chastain outshines everyone. It has all the ingredients required for a good creepy romp. So what, then?
Perhaps this - one of the greatest strengths of any given del Toro film is not just the visuals but the inventiveness. Unless you're totally in tune with his sensibilities, you can't possibly predict what insane thing will happen next. There's not much of that here. Except for one late twist, the story is surprisingly simple, and at one point I felt as if I were waiting for the characters to catch up. Again, this being a homage to a bygone era of filmmaking, it's understandable, but in terms of plot and tone I surprised myself by thinking this was del Toro going through the motions. The ghost story itself is strangely rote, the human drama melodramatic but ultimately unremarkable. Perhaps the most egregious moment was a sex scene between two relatively normal adults. I mean, come on! What is healthy, conventional sex doing in a Guillermo del Toro movie? Where are the fish men and their hidden appendages?
Okay, I kid. I don't believe it's possible for del Toro to make a truly bad film, or at least one not worth watching. He's a visual genius, and his basic concepts are almost always refreshingly original, even when riffing on old genre tropes. Here, though, seems to be an instance when his eccentricities aren't equaled by the plot they are in service of. Still, even conventional del Toro shows more ingenuity and genuine enthusiasm than the vast majority of Hollywood, and for this reason Crimson Peak is still well worth seeing. Just don't expect to be in as much awe as you're used to.
To be fair, this is not a horror film. Del Toro considers it a gothic romance, and despite his usual trademarks - insect imagery, unique creatures, religious symbolism - there's very little to actually fear in "Crimson Peak." And that's fine - del Toro is so skilled a director it's exciting to see him branch out as he did with "Hellboy" and "Pacific Rim." However, he holds onto his most cherished genre just enough that I couldn't help but feel something was missing.
It is not the visuals - Dan Laustsen, filling in for regular del Toro cinematographer Guillermo Navarro, is just as consummate a stylist, and the house is arguably the most eerily beautiful set of all his creations. I do wish, though, that the editing had been a little less choppy - it threw off the pacing of several scenes and made the film, even at two hours, feel rushed at times. Not the acting, either - while Tom Hiddleston and Charlie Hunnam were a bit stiffer than I expected, Mia Wasikowska is compelling, while Jessica Chastain outshines everyone. It has all the ingredients required for a good creepy romp. So what, then?
Perhaps this - one of the greatest strengths of any given del Toro film is not just the visuals but the inventiveness. Unless you're totally in tune with his sensibilities, you can't possibly predict what insane thing will happen next. There's not much of that here. Except for one late twist, the story is surprisingly simple, and at one point I felt as if I were waiting for the characters to catch up. Again, this being a homage to a bygone era of filmmaking, it's understandable, but in terms of plot and tone I surprised myself by thinking this was del Toro going through the motions. The ghost story itself is strangely rote, the human drama melodramatic but ultimately unremarkable. Perhaps the most egregious moment was a sex scene between two relatively normal adults. I mean, come on! What is healthy, conventional sex doing in a Guillermo del Toro movie? Where are the fish men and their hidden appendages?
Okay, I kid. I don't believe it's possible for del Toro to make a truly bad film, or at least one not worth watching. He's a visual genius, and his basic concepts are almost always refreshingly original, even when riffing on old genre tropes. Here, though, seems to be an instance when his eccentricities aren't equaled by the plot they are in service of. Still, even conventional del Toro shows more ingenuity and genuine enthusiasm than the vast majority of Hollywood, and for this reason Crimson Peak is still well worth seeing. Just don't expect to be in as much awe as you're used to.