Crimson Peak

#StokerScore 1st Half 8/10, 2nd Half 2/10

Guillermo Del Toro

Genius film maker? Uber geek? Misunderstood auteur? Are these titles mutually exclusive?

I've never met Guillermo Del Toro but I'd like to. I've read a lot about him and his works and I've also seen him interviewed on numerous occasions. He's passionate about his work, he works in genre fim making and he responds vocally and vociferously to his fans. But, look at some of his personal film choices and ask yourself, why the hell did he choose to make that?

Imagine that you're being allowed to make a personal project. The studio have negotiated a deal where if you make a film for them then in return they'll bankroll a film for you. It's not exactly unheard of and if you look at some of your favourite stars, either actors or directors, if they've had a big hit then they may also have a pet project that may have been made too. On more than one occasion, to confuse movies and humane approaches to sick animals, that movie should also have then been taken out behind the barn and put out of its misery.

Examples of this are rather too easy to find. John Wayne's bloated Alamo, Angelina Jolie's recent directorial effort By The Sea, Steven Seagal's On Deadly Ground, Travolta's Battlefield Earth, or Shyamalan's After Earth would all apply as studio-funded vanity projects and in at least two of those cases the studios should have known better.

In contrast, and purely my own opinion, Del Toro seems to be considered to be different. The fans love him because if you believe his interviews he says he wants to make films for the fans and he drops project names like confetti; Justice League Dark, Pinocchio, and lets not forget the most deeply personal film that he talks about even more than Hellboy 3, his interpretation of Lovecraft's novella At The Mountains of Madness. This in turn makes the studios love him because he brings that Hall H fervour from San Diego's Comic Con and all the fans that go with it. This may account for why he goes and signs on to stuff like Pacific Rim and follows that with a supposedly personal project like Crimson Peak. I understand that the studios may balk at funding a particularly niche project like ATMoM, especially when the director wants a hard R certificate version, but that didn't necessarily hurt a movie like Cabin In The Woods or even Event Horizon which while not the commercial success it could have been has grown to be more loved. I know they have different source material, hell, they're completely different kinds of movies, but the premise of cost and certificate vs not making the movie at all is similar and with a bit or marketing Cthulu could become better known?

Cthulu plush doll - strange choice for your sleeping infant?

That Del Toro has an eye for the unusual isn't ever going to be in question. Look at the original films that he's made like Cronos, Mimic, and Pan's Labyrinth or his work on Hellboy and Blade 2 to see what he can come up with. My assertion, and I truly believe this, is that he's at his best when working with a small budget.

Thanks to IMDb we know that Blade 2 was made for the cost of $54,000,000 and was green-lit primarily because the first one was such an unexpected hit. Yet Cronos came in at a miserly $2,000,000 and garnered even more praise.

Crimson Peak, made thirteen years after Blade 2, was supposedly budgeted at the same amount as the 2002 vampire sequel and when you look at Crimson Peak from a purely visual and casting perspective he's done a stunning job. But what is Crimson Peak supposed to be? Is it a drama that has ghosts? A ghost story that has drama? A gothic horror with little horror to point out that that is what it is? The movie has a fun first half and, to be frank, a boring second half. Anyone waiting to be scared will no doubt still be waiting. Personally I was expecting a ghost story with touches of Edgar Allen Poe's "Fall of The House of Usher" in terms of tone. But, whilst it certainly has a ghost, it turned out to be more Legends of the Fall for me