CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › CRIMSON PEAK (2015) Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CRIMSON PEAK (2015) Discussion Thread - Page 3

post #101 of 159

Gave this a spin last night. As has been mentioned above, visually beautiful and arresting. Production design, unsurprisingly, was phenomenal. I don't doubt we saw nearly every penny onscreen. Sound design was also superb.

 

I think comparisons - yes, negative ones, - with Pacific Rim are very, very apt. Paper thin story with no weight or heft. Supporting characters that are far more interesting than the leads. Poorly cast lead role. Crimson Peak also seemed to have even more BECAUSE MOOBIE stuff going on, and as mentioned upthread, a lot of weirdly dropped balls (the house not collapsing on itself, the climactic battle taking place near the digging machines...just so the lead can find a shovel?).

 

Worse, there was zero heat/chemistry between Hiddleston and Mia W. None. I had no investment whatsoever in that relationship. Mia W was really the weak link here; we needed a lead to offer something in contrast to Chastain's strong, scenery-eating performance and we get a super bland and generic plucky young white girl. 

 

Because the "twists" were so easy to guess ahead of time (and when I can guess them, that means the movie ain't even trying because I'm horrible at this stuff), the film really needed to deliver on the character front and it failed miserably. When the best/most interesting character in your film is the villainous, murdering incestuous sister, it's time for another few passes at the script.

 

It's almost hard to believe this is from the same director as Pan's Labyrinth and The Devil's Backbone. Those were disturbing, scary films layered with theme and meaning, with compelling characters and emotional stakes. This...this was forgettable production design eye candy.

post #102 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

Worse, there was zero heat/chemistry between Hiddleston and Mia W. None. I had no investment whatsoever in that relationship. Mia W was really the weak link here; we needed a lead to offer something in contrast to Chastain's strong, scenery-eating performance and we get a super bland and generic plucky young white girl. 

Ugh a white girl. I never noticed that while I was watching but now that I know I can't even watch the blu-ray.

post #103 of 159
Well, she is pretty white. Like, quite literally, the color of ivory soap.
post #104 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Well, she is pretty white. Like, quite literally, the color of ivory soap.

I know, I KNOW......I don't know how I missed it. I can't believe they put her on screen.

post #105 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

When the best/most interesting character in your film is the villainous, murdering incestuous sister, it's time for another few passes at the script.

 

Do you usually judge scripts that way when a really interesting character turns out to be the best character?

post #106 of 159

That's not what I meant, and my post was clear. The lead character, the hero(ine), was flat, boring, and barely there. When one of the villains - a murdering, incestuous villain - is far more interesting than the person the film clearly intends for you to root for, then yes, I think there's a problem.

post #107 of 159
Every time I see this thread I feel slightly guilty for completely ignoring this movie. I wanted to buy into it when I heard that Del Toro was making a pure gothic horror romance, but the CGI ghosts were a major turn off and I just don't trust Del Toro as a screenwriter. At this point I feel that The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth are exceptions and that he simply works better when he's working in Spanish and on stories more specific to his home country. If he steps outside of that zone, the flaws in character and plot being glaring.

I know he cares, which is why I respect him more than someone like (at this point in his career) Tim Burton, but caring isn't quite enough for me.
post #108 of 159

The ghosts were actually pretty damn cool, IMNSHO. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

he simply works better when he's working in Spanish and on stories more specific to his home country.

 

I'm coming to this conclusion as well. Or at the very least he shouldn't write the scripts for English language productions.

post #109 of 159
I'm not going to say all that...YOU RACIST!!!

I'm kidding.

However, I think he's too old to reconfigure his approach to dialogue and plotting. He writes how he writes and unless he's working off of someone else's script, the drawbacks will continue to appear with relative consistency.
post #110 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post

I know, I KNOW......I don't know how I missed it. I can't believe they put her on screen.

They cast her to save money cuz her skin bounced the light on the set.
post #111 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrevellozo View Post


They cast her to save money cuz her skin bounced the light on the set.

No excuses! That bitch was white and I don't need you defending her casting.

post #112 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Every time I see this thread I feel slightly guilty for completely ignoring this movie. I wanted to buy into it when I heard that Del Toro was making a pure gothic horror romance, but the CGI ghosts were a major turn off and I just don't trust Del Toro as a screenwriter. At this point I feel that The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth are exceptions and that he simply works better when he's working in Spanish and on stories more specific to his home country.

 

You feel guilty? All this time, I had no idea Guillermo del Toro was from Spain! Like the awful ignorant racist white person I am, I kept thinking he was Mexican! (smacks forehead)
 

 

...by the way, Johnny, if you'd seen the movie, you'd know the ghosts were mostly actors in prosthetics.

post #113 of 159
Thread Starter 

.... he IS from Mexico, though.

post #114 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrevellozo View Post
 

.... he IS from Mexico, though.

Yup, his dad was kidnapped there as well.

post #115 of 159
Finally had a chance to see this. I think I may be the biggest GDT detractor on the board, but after Pacific Rim I found this pretty refreshing.

But what is the point of the Hunnam character really? I thought when he was originally planning on making this movie there were supposed to be two romances in two different time periods, at the same place. I swear I read that at one point.

I did really get a kick out of locations being used in my hometown. All the exterior shots were basically filmed within a few blocks radius of each other. Some nice architecture around there and I'm sure it kept a lot of the production cost down.

And yes like all of you I totally expected the house to cave in on itself. Maybe that was a budgetary decision. Or maybe that actually was too predictable?

The deaths that do happening aren't overly gruesome, but wow I really winced at the injuries because they seemed so realistic. Face smashed against the edge of a sink? Ouch. Knife to the face? Eeeesh. Shovel to the head? Goooo.

I will most likely give this another watch come October.
post #116 of 159

Finally got around to seeing this and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. It's not often that I mentally gasp at a movie location but the reveal of the inside of the mansion - with snowflakes trickling through the open wound in the ceiling, and the crimson clay bleeding down the ramshackle walls - had that exact effect on me. Everything about this movie just looked wonderful, and the three lead performances kept me engaged throughout the entire running time. I agree with complaints that the story was somewhat simple, and I think it was just short of a breath-taking twist in order to move the film from very good to great, but I was satisfied none-the-less. 

 

Probably my favorite English language del Toro movie.

post #117 of 159
Finally got around to seeing this. Gorgeous visuals, some nifty bits, but mostly I'm just pretty pissed off that what I thought was going to be a decent creepy ghost story (when was the last time we had one of those in a major Hollywood release?) was actually just a gross incest/murder story with ghosts as a pretty naked mostly-pointless plot mechanic (you could excise the ghosts as such from the story entirely and change absolutely nothing about how the plot unfolds.) On top of which they start as kind of effective but a bit overdone (the unseen third party joining in Edith's game of fetch with the dog is brilliant, but we get waaaay too good a look at CGI Dead Mom Ghost pretty much right off the bat, then we go and do the exact same scene with her again like five minutes later) before turning into outright cartoons (seriously, Guillermo, how many variations on the theme of "spectral Slim Goodbody" are you going to serve up?) And the plot is, as has been mentioned, just pretty goddamn aimless. On top of which, they set the action in a house built on ground that is straight-up liquefying, and then don't even have the decency to climax with a collapsing mansion.

Screw this movie. I'm gonna go watch through The Haunting and the Roger Corman Fall of the House of Usher a few times to cleanse my palate.
post #118 of 159
This is really gorgeous on Blu, as expected. The missus loves this one, and it's grown on me over repeat viewings. Knowing the story, and knowing that it's all fairly basic, works pretty well for rewatching. You can luxuriate in the visuals and kind of dip in and out a bit.

I was dicking around with special features and was surprised to discover that the ghost were almost entirely practical. Rewatching also allows you to kind of follow each each individual ghost's particular tragic story. The margins of this film are terrifically designed, which makes the central plot's simplicity even more baffling. All the same, I think this one is going to age quite well.
post #119 of 159

Once it gets down to $10 or so I'll nab it. I'm looking forward to revisiting it without any crying babies nearby (unless a ghost baby creeps up the back of the couch...)

post #120 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

This is really gorgeous on Blu, as expected. The missus loves this one, and it's grown on me over repeat viewings. Knowing the story, and knowing that it's all fairly basic, works pretty well for rewatching. You can luxuriate in the visuals and kind of dip in and out a bit.

I was dicking around with special features and was surprised to discover that the ghost were almost entirely practical. Rewatching also allows you to kind of follow each each individual ghost's particular tragic story. The margins of this film are terrifically designed, which makes the central plot's simplicity even more baffling. All the same, I think this one is going to age quite well.

 

Thanks for reminding me to pick this up. I really enjoyed this movie.

post #121 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Finally got around to seeing this. Gorgeous visuals, some nifty bits, but mostly I'm just pretty pissed off that what I thought was going to be a decent creepy ghost story (when was the last time we had one of those in a major Hollywood release?) was actually just a gross incest/murder story with ghosts as a pretty naked mostly-pointless plot mechanic (you could excise the ghosts as such from the story entirely and change absolutely nothing about how the plot unfolds.) On top of which they start as kind of effective but a bit overdone (the unseen third party joining in Edith's game of fetch with the dog is brilliant, but we get waaaay too good a look at CGI Dead Mom Ghost pretty much right off the bat, then we go and do the exact same scene with her again like five minutes later) before turning into outright cartoons (seriously, Guillermo, how many variations on the theme of "spectral Slim Goodbody" are you going to serve up?) And the plot is, as has been mentioned, just pretty goddamn aimless. On top of which, they set the action in a house built on ground that is straight-up liquefying, and then don't even have the decency to climax with a collapsing mansion.

Screw this movie. I'm gonna go watch through The Haunting and the Roger Corman Fall of the House of Usher a few times to cleanse my palate.

I think the part in bold is what ticked off most people about the movie, although del Toro has been making dramas with a horror-ish backdrop since Cronos and Devil's Backbone. I mean, the first line of the movie is "No, it's a love story with ghosts in it" or something similar.

If this movie was a 60s Mario Bava joint instead of a $200 million Hollywood film, nerds would never stop jizzing all over it.

post #122 of 159

What ticked me off was how flat the main love story was, how bland the lead character was, and how the film failed to get me to give a fuck about anything that was happening.  I have no problems with Del Toro doing something of a switcheroo, telling a love story with supernatural elements instead of a straight up ghost story. I have problems with it being done so clumsily.

post #123 of 159

It's pretty fresh in my mind right now, and I gotta say, Wasikowski is nowhere near the doorknob you all take her for in this. It's a good performance and a good character, she just gets robbed of agency for the second act and most of the third. The script has some issues, but the romance works in a girly Jane Eyre way, and Tom Hiddleston is a big reason why. Really strong casting for that role. 

 

In fact, the more I watch it, the less taken I am with Chastain. She's fun, but it's a broad performance that telegraphs a lot.

post #124 of 159

post #125 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

It's pretty fresh in my mind right now, and I gotta say, Wasikowski is nowhere near the doorknob you all take her for in this. It's a good performance and a good character, she just gets robbed of agency for the second act and most of the third. The script has some issues, but the romance works in a girly Jane Eyre way, and Tom Hiddleston is a big reason why. Really strong casting for that role. 

In fact, the more I watch it, the less taken I am with Chastain. She's fun, but it's a broad performance that telegraphs a lot.
I'll agree with this.

Most of my objections to this film could be erased with a stronger climax. This thing just ends so limply.
post #126 of 159

See, I wanted the rest of the movie to be as big as Chastain's performance.

post #127 of 159
This was beautiful, and much ado about nothing.
post #128 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

This was beautiful, and much ado about nothing.
Sounds about right.
post #129 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

See, I wanted the rest of the movie to be as big as Chastain's performance.


It's amazing how much this comment succinctly summed up my problems with the movie. Thanks Hammerhead!

post #130 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post

See, I wanted the rest of the movie to be as big as Chastain's performance.


 



Hahah. That's a really great way of putting it.

Saw this last night and I thought it was...okay. Definitely a better effort than Pacific Rim. Crimson Peak is absolutely amazing to look at and I'd recommend a rental on the visuals alone--to the point that I enjoyed looking at it than actually engaging it storywise. Some of you are pretty on point with the Pacific Rim comparisons; there's really no depth to these characters aside from them being cardboard cutouts of the usual characters that you'd find in exactly the kind of books that Del Toro is aping here.

Also felt pretty mixed about the ghosts in this. Sometimes I thought they were used pretty effectively (more creepy than scary, which fits the gothic overtones of the movie), but other times I felt they were too "fake," too much sheen to be believable.
post #131 of 159

Oh ho ho, the first Hellboy is so bad.

post #132 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

Oh ho ho, the first Hellboy is so bad.
Nah.
post #133 of 159

The worst.

post #134 of 159
Not as bad as Star Trek Into Darkness.
post #135 of 159

Nah.

post #136 of 159
for all the cool stuff in the first hellboy, I recall it feeling really bland as opposed to bad.

pretty much Pacific Rim

I really like the shagginess of Hellboy 2 though.
post #137 of 159

And now my obligatory post in any Del Toro thread:

I love Pacific Rim even with all of the shitty Hunnam going on!

post #138 of 159

Hellboy > Hellboy 2 > Crimson Peak > Pacific Rim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Into Darkness

post #139 of 159
Ehhhhhh
post #140 of 159

The opening scene, with the soldiers running up the beach with Professor Broom, and then the later scene where it's explained why Hellboy sands down his horns has to be the most awkward exposition uttered EVER in a movie.

 

Just dead, lifeless dialogue.

post #141 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

 

Just dead, lifeless dialogue.

 

Still better than MAGIC BLUD

post #142 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

 

Still better than MAGIC BLUD


You need Jesus.

post #143 of 159

Well, if we're going to invoke magic blood, might as well stay with the classics.

post #144 of 159

Wait, people don't like Hellboy now? God, no one enjoys anything anymore.

post #145 of 159

I quite like Hellboy.  I really love the demon dog.  It's got a very cool unique look. Lots of cool design, Hellboy is a fun character.  

post #146 of 159

Hellboy 1 is better than Hellboy 2.

 

Bam, that's how you post in a Del Toro thread.

 

2 has it's charms and great visuals and standout sequences, but it doesn't hang together well. 1 has a better flow.

 

Luke Goss Fairy Kingdom drama is worse than any of the dialogue scenes in Pacific Rim.

 

In Hellboy 2, Selma Blair looks like she's on more downers than Kirsten Dunst was in Spiderman 2, which is quite unsettling.

 

"Ohhhhhhh Peeete..."

"Ohhhhhhh H.B. ........ " *eyes roll into back of head*

post #147 of 159

I like her haircut in 2...  She's a fox.

post #148 of 159

I like them both quite a bit. I understand not loving them, if you're not into monsters and Lovecraft and Ron Perlman and all, but I am, so I think they're great.

 

They're kind of the films that convinced me of del Toro's greatness, in fact. I wish more PG-13 mid-budget studio fare had stuff like Rasputin and the Nazis opening portals to hell dimensions and kindly demons romancing Selma Blair. As with Crimson Peak, and pretty much all of del Toro's films, I can't really wrap my head around genre fans not embracing them. These are hardly the kind of films we see getting made all the time.

post #149 of 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese View Post
 

Hellboy 1 is better than Hellboy 2.

 

Bam, that's how you post in a Del Toro thread.

 

2 has it's charms and great visuals and standout sequences, but it doesn't hang together well. 1 has a better flow.

 

Luke Goss Fairy Kingdom drama is worse than any of the dialogue scenes in Pacific Rim.

 

In Hellboy 2, Selma Blair looks like she's on more downers than Kirsten Dunst was in Spiderman 2, which is quite unsettling.

 

"Ohhhhhhh Peeete..."

"Ohhhhhhh H.B. ........ " *eyes roll into back of head*

The first Hellboy doesn't flow at all. It's fits and starts, with fight fight fight...then agonizingly dull and clunky dialogue with actors wearing human skin like Myers and Liz. Then fight fight fight, except it's with the Samael monster over and over again. Then bizarre choices like the museum scene where the crime has already happened, but then they rewind to show it...a completely inconsequential scene except to show off the (admittedly cool) clockwork Darth Maul. 

 

One of the many egregious superhero stalks his girlfriend movies, along with Superman Returns and Amazing Spider-Man 2. Just creepy. 

 

2 is by far the better movie. 

post #150 of 159

I do like that 2 is able to dispense with setting up the world and its characters (the Hellboy/Liz relationship is at least a change of pace for superhero films) but then it gets bogged down setting up a whole different world and its characters.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › CRIMSON PEAK (2015) Discussion Thread