Guillermo Del Toro has become a bit of a tradition for my October review challenge. I reviewed “Cronos” (1993) and Mimic (1997) in previous years. This year I’m checking out “Crimson Peak” from 2015. Del Toro directs this from a script penned by himself and Matthew Robbins. Long time collaborator Dan Lausten provides the cinematography and Fernando Velázquez provides the soundtrack. The movie stars Mia Wasikowska, Jessica Chastain and Tom Hiddleston. This one I’ve been sitting on for a while so I can watch it as part of the October challenge. It’s actually one of Del Toro’s personal favourites, despite the fact it lost money in the box office.
Ghosts Are A Metaphor For The Past
Our movie opens in 1887 and we are introduced to a young Edith Cushing (Wasikowska), who is visited by the ghost of her dead mother. Her mother warns her to beware “Crimson Peak”. Years later and Edith is an aspiring author struggling to get her ghost story published. Publishers are not keen on a woman writing ghost stories it seems, even though Edith insists the Ghosts are just a metaphor for the past. Edith is the daughter wealthy businessman, Carter Cushing (Jim Beaver), one day she is wooed by a dashing young man, Sir Thomas Sharpe (Hiddleston). He and his sister, Lucille (Chastaine) are visiting America from England in the hopes of finding investors for his invention, a digging machine.
Carter is firmly against the relationship, but after he dies under mysterious circumstances Edith ends up moving to the Sharpe estate in England. A foreboding mansion situated atop a red clay mine (Which it has been sinking in to for years). Things are not what they seem though. Edith is becoming ill and keeps seeing ghostly figures around the Mansion. These ghosts scare her at first, but she begins to realise they do not mean her harm and may be trying to warn her. Meanwhile, Dr. Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam), a friend of Edith and her Father from back home suspects foul play in Carter’s death and is investigating.
Red Snow At The Crimson Peak
Since this is a Guillermo Del Torro movie it is no surprise it is a beautiful film to look at and it really is end to end with this. From the snow storms, to the old mansion (Inside and Out) the use of the red clay, the machinery, the look of the ghosts, it all looks great. More impressively though it is all pretty original looking. I mean, I’ve seen a million creepy old mansions, but Del Torro makes it feel new and unique. The same for the ghosts. The plot on the other hand is as old as the gothic romance genre in general. I’ve definitely seem this plot before, or one very similar. The only difference here being the inclusion of the ghosts. However, these ghosts tend to be on the periphery of the plot. They add an extra layer to the film, sort of like the creatures of “Pan’s Labyrinth” Despite how they look, they are not malicious threats and for the most part can only been seen by Edith.
But this is what makes Del Torro special. He is like a cook that takes something like beans on toasts and throws a little twist to it that makes it a culinary delight. Without the ghostly elements and the clever visuals this would be almost the default gothic romance. Nothing to see here at all. But he adds a twist and it becomes something more. Of course this is also a film with a fairly small main cast. Predominantly three characters and so a lot of the weight of the film falls on these three. Luckily for the film these are Tom Hiddleston, Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska. All very capable actors. None of them blew me away, but they all did well.
Conclusion
Your mileage may vary with this movie. A lot really depends on how much you like gothic romance. For me, I have some affection for the gothic romance films of the 1940’s, such as “Rebecca” (1940) and “The Spiral Staircase” (1946). They aren’t my favourites, but I like them. If those are among your favourites however, this may be an all time classic for you. If not, well, you will still enjoy the visuals but probably be quite bored. Personally, I felt the plot was a little too generic and since the film is quite slow paced it did drag in places. But, even when it did, I was still able to enjoy what was on screen. For me, this is a strong 6.5/10.
For tonight October Challenge Horror Review I’m checking out Guillermo Del Toro’s second feature “Mimic”. The movie was released 3-5 years (depending on the country) after his fascinating new take on the vampire story “Cronos” (1993) and four years before his next movie “The Devil’s Backbone” (2001). This is his take on the big bug monster movie. This is a genre that would include things like “The Fly” and “Aliens”, both from 1986 along with a whole host of giant insect movies from the 1950’s and beyond.
The Unseen
The movie is loosely based on a short story of the same name by Donald A. Wollheim. The basic concept being that there are people that can live in a community that no one ever notices and that one of these people may not even be a person and it would still go unnoticed. This premise is heavily expanded on by Del Torro introducing a scientific explanation for the creatures existence and of course driving the horror and action people expect from a big bug monster movie.
Our primary leads are Jeremy Northam as “Dr. Peter Mann”, deputy director of the DCD and Mira Sorvino as “Susan Tyler” as the genius entomologist who is technically responsible for the horror they are now facing. They are joined by Josh Brolin, Charles S. Dutton, Giancarlo Giannini and F. Murray Abraham along with a future “Walking Dead” legend Norman Reedus (In a minor role). The movie was originally intended to be part of an anthology series of four hour long stories each helmed by a different director. That evolved over time to a full feature, though it wasn’t without issues with Del Torro butting heads with the studio boss and denouncing the final cut of the theatrical release. Though a directors cut did materialize, most of Del Torro’s intentions had remained unfilmed, partially filmed, or simply lost after release.
Judas Breeding
The plot is a little long winded for a monster movie, starting out with a plague effecting the children of New York. The plague is spread by cockroaches and so to deal with the roaches Dr. Tyler uses genetic engineering to create a new breed of roach, called the “Judas Breed” that will eliminate the others. These creatures were designed to only last a single generation so they could do their job and then die off. Naturally that isn’t how things worked out.
While this did save untold numbers of children, it also lead to the rapid evolution of this new breed of roach which would in just three years evolve to radically increase in size and learn to mimic human beings (Including generating a face like carapace). When signs of these creatures start to emerge and Dr. Tyler realizes they are evolved from her creation she begins an investigation that leads Dr. Mann and herself to investigate the cities mostly derelict underground system. Here they realize the scale of the problem they face and must find a way to deal with it.
Swarming Monsters.
This is probably the most generic horror Del Torro has made, but how much of that is down to him and how much down to the studio interference is probably something we will never know. The movie is very heavy on the tropes you would expect from a giant bug monster movie. There are plenty of jump scares and fake outs along with a team all determined to make heroic sacrifices no matter how necessary it actually is. Naturally of course there are plenty of gross out scenes and crawling around in dark tunnels. Actually the tunnels and the insects are very much the kind of thing that seems to fascinate Del Torro.
The design of the creatures is pretty scary and feels like it could easily have been in a Cronenberg film. The initial design concept began with a sketch by Del Torro himself and it is quite clever how they worked in the mimic aspect to it. That said at around the half way point that ability largely becomes irrelevant and it evolves into Aliens without the firepower. This is perhaps the biggest problem, the name of the film and the point of the story it is based off is largely not relevant to the movie itself. While a few insects may be able to pretend to be humans and feed off homeless people in the subway, the swarms of creatures that turn out to be down there would have been so deadly that they’d never need that ability.
Going Nowhere.
While there are quite a few characters involved in the story, most of them really serve not purpose. Probably the most notable is MTA Officer “Leonard Norton” (Dutton) who provides the everyman character of the piece as well as being the teams guide into the underground. The young boy “Chuy” (Alexander Goodwin) survives in the tunnels by his ability to imitate the creatures clicking sounds. This doesn’t really end up especially important to the plot since the team have already smeared themselves with bug insides to hide disguise their presence. The rest of the characters are mostly just there to get knocked off. Of course that is to be expected to some extent in a horror film.
This is largely a theme for the movie, lots of good ideas that basically go nowhere. It is a movie with a lot of potential that is by and large wasted. The virus that started the whole thing off is forgotten 10 minutes later, the mimic ability is redundant by the third act, the strange boy that can imitate their clicking is just there to ultimately be a stand in for “Newt” from Aliens, but is notably less useful. The heroes never really have a plan and it’s only 20 minutes from the end that Susan mentions that there would only be one male (Because she’s been so right about the creatures so far) and they just need to kill that. But then they kill all of them anyway so… Yeah didn’t really matter.
Trust The Science.
On top of this there is the simple fact that none of this really makes any sense. Now to be fair, I’ve watched plenty of those 50’s movies that also made no sense, but when the attempts by “Scientists” to explain the situation sounds so completely stupid, it does take you out of the movie. For example, the suggestion is the Judas roaches evolved to mimic it’s predator… humans. But we aren’t actually their predator, that’d be lizards, birds, hedgehogs and even frogs. So a supposed entomologist calling humans their predators is just… well, dumb. You also have to wonder why they introduced the original batch with it’s one male, I mean just assuming they can’t reproduce but leaving the male there anyway. Not really that genius.
Overall, this film is probably Del Torro’s worst, but that’s not to say it isn’t entertaining. The first half has good ideas and while the second half wastes most of them, it still manages to be a pretty reasonable Aliens knock off. So that leaves this movie where I end up placing a lot of movies with good ideas that just don’t deliver on them and that is a 5.5/10
Tonight we delve deep into past of legendary film maker Guillermo del Toro. I first came across his work with Blade II in 2002 (Which I still maintain is way better than the first film), but it was actually a decade earlier that Guillermo made his feature film debut with the movie Cronos, a mostly Spanish language film (With some English in places). The film was made for a mere $2m, small even for the day and the lowest of all of Del Toro’s films. Interestingly amongst the cast is Ron Perlman, effectively playing the movies main antagonist. Perlman would have been known from the Beauty and the Beast series of the late 80’s, but didn’t really make a name for himself on the big screen until a decade later in Del Toro’s “Hellboy” (2004).
The lead of the movie though is Federico Luppi as “Jesus Gris”, Claudio Brook supports as the rich and powerful De La Guardia though his ambitious nephew and henchman “Angel”, played by Perlman is the real antagonist. Tamara Xanath completes the main cast as Jesus’ granddaughter “Aurora”. Del Toro is sole writer as well as director.
October Review Challenge – Day 29
The movie begins with an explanation of the Cronos device, created by an ancient alchemist to give him immortality. It seems to have prolonged his life a good 400 years, but after after an old building he was in collapsed and his heart was pierced by debris he eventually died. He was described as having marble skin and his mansion was discovered to the scene of multiple murders. The device however was never found.
Our focus then changes to antique shop owner, Jesus Cris. A strange man takes a particular interest in one of his statues (one of an Archangel) and then quickly leave the shop, which leads to Jesus investigating it and discovering it has a hollow base. Inside of which is a strange device that looks a bit like an insect. He puts the statue back together and returns it to the shop, but sets the unusual device aside. Not long after the statue is purchased by a large man called “Angel”.
Age and Addiction
While investigating the device with his granddaughter Aurora, the decide opens up some sharp leg like sections that grip his hand, puncturing the skin. He tears the device off and goes to treat his wound. Later that night though, he finds himself drawn to use the device again, this time allowing the process to complete it’s cycle. He reacts to it like he is taking a hit of heroin, and is observed by Aurora who is disturbed by this. Jesus assures her he is okay. The next day he discovers he is looking younger and he feels younger too.
On his arrival at the antiques store he finds it has been broken into and a note is left telling him to go to a particular address and bring the device. He arrives to find the man that purchased the statue and is taken to his uncle, De la Guardia who questions him about the device and notices the wound on his hand. Jesus admits he accidentally used the device and De La Guardia calls him an idiot. He points out there are very specific rules for using the device. Jesus gives him a box and leaves, but the box turns out to only contain the broken locks from his store. De La Guardia warns him he may have the device but he will never share with him the instructions.
Funerals and Finales
Later at a New Years Eve party Jesus finds himself drawn to the blood of a man who suffered a nose bleed. He is busy licking some of the blood off the floor when he is kicked in the face by Angel. When he wakes up, Angel beats him and eventually sends his car off a cliff apparently killing him. However after being declared dead and having a funeral Jesus returns from the dead, narrowly escaping his own cremation. With his skin appearing to rot and him now being burned by sunlight he seeks his Granddaughter who creates a space for him in their attic so he can hide out for the moment.
Eventually Jesus determines he must confront De La Guardia and find out what is happening and seek a solution. This leads to a final confrontation with both his antagonists and the decision he must make over his future and what is of most importance to him.
Visuals and Symbolism
As his first feature and with the limited budget it’s no surprise the film doesn’t quite achieve the impressive visuals that Del Toro is known for, but that’s not to say it totally lacks any traces of it. The shots early on of the macabre mansion in which the alchemist lives, along with the visuals from inside the device itself give a hint of the visual imagination that would become one of his trademarks. Even in the rest of the film, while the visuals aren’t quite so lavish they still manage to find time for symbolism, such as a man wearing a clock outfit (part of the NYE celebration but having a additional meaning here).
One of the more subtle elements of this movie I like is the quiet but vitally important relationship between Jesus and his granddaughter Aurora. This is pure Del Toro and puts the story into a more personal level. Aurora’s love allows her to see past the monster he has become, to try and stop his addiction and to stand by him when no one else likely would. She does all this while barely saying a word and ultimately it is this love that saves Jesus. It is the heart of the story.
A New Take On An Old Myth
What does stand out here though is Del Toro’s gift for doing something original with a not so original idea. In this instance it is the story of the vampire (Which of course he would hit once again with Blade 2). Perhaps tied with the space aliens from “Lifeforce” (1985), this is the most original depiction of Vampires I have seen and it is done in such a clever way that it really doesn’t feel like a vampire film until the final act. Interestingly there is something Cronenberg like to how a lot of it is depicted, but Guillermo practices restraint and makes sure to keep focus.
This form of vampirism is something man made, not a curse from god as was depicted in 1992’s Francis Ford Coppala’s “Dracula” and I wonder if that is a deliberate move to be counter to that idea. It’s also not romanticised or even sexualised (part of what prevents it seeming overly Cronenberg) as it tends to be with Vampire stories. Vampirism here is presented as an addiction, with Jesus himself making a direct comparison to how he used to be addicted to cigarettes and the way he humiliates himself to lick drops of blood off the floor is a dark place many addicts have gone to find their hit.
Heaven and Hellboy
The religious symbolism is in full force here and is perhaps a little too obvious. While Jesus is a pretty common name amongst Spanish speaking communities, Gris is not a common surname in those communities (At least not as far as the few minutes of research I just did suggests), so when you have a character called “Jesus Cris” and he gets to return from the grave a few days after dying and is associated with a guy called “Angel” who has been collecting statues of arch-angels, it’s sort of hard to miss. Though I do have to take into account cultural differences here. The Latin countries tend to be more religious, so perhaps this isn’t as heavy handed as it seems to me.
Probably the weakest part of the film is, perhaps surprisingly, Ron Perlman. A decade later he’d be performing his career best as Hellboy under Del Toro’s directorship, but here he puts in a somewhat unconvincing performance, but to be fair a part of that is in the character design. As someone not directly involved with or understanding the vampire curse he is somewhat removed from the main story and yet he is the one that has the most direct confrontation with Jesus and the one he fights in the final act.
It’s not helped that Perlman also seems the main source of comedy relief in the movie (The only other real source being the mortuary worker), so the main antagonist is also the main comedy relief and that didn’t really work for me. I feel like it would have been better for Angel to be relegated to lacky status with his uncle finding a way to the final confrontation. Fortunately the films focus is more on Jesus than on his conflict with the La Guardia family.
Conclusion
While the movie is not perfect and in my humble opinion not Del Toro’s best (certainly not his most visually appealing), it is a movie that deserves accolades both for it’s originality in a well trod genre and for the many layers of substance to the story. From the religious aspect, to the metaphor for addiction to the strength of family bonds it makes for an interesting movie that feels like it has meaning. This is a sturdy 7/10 and possibly the new front runner of my October Horrorthon (I’ll figure that out at the end).
I’m going to do something a little different with this review and review and compare two movies. Both adaptations of the same source material, “Nightmare Alley” by William Lindsay Gresham, published in 1946. The first movie was adapted from the story one year later in 1947; Directed by Edmund Goulding and starring Tyrone Power as “Stanton Carlisle” it is considered a Film Noir classic (Hence why it seemed fitting to review both given my passion for Film Noir). The second movie is the latest from visionary filmmaker Guillermo del Toro and features an all star cast including Bradley Cooper (as “Carlisle”), Cate Blanchett (As Dr. Lilith Ritter), Willem DaFoe and Ron Perlman (the last two in minor roles).
Remake or new take on the same source?
Though Del Toro initially claimed his movie is not a remake of the Film Noir, the ending of the movie and the inclusion of a key line added for the 1947 movie suggests otherwise. It seems the truth is Del Toro’s movie falls somewhere between the source and it’s first adaptation. That said, as far as I can tell (Having not read the novel itself) the first movie was pretty close to the source material already so it is hard to tell where Del Toro is following the novel and where he is following the Noir. One notable difference though is that the 1947 movie adds some story to the end (which was not present in the book) while the 2021 film adds a little to the start. The bulk of the story is however the same.
Framing changes everything.
What makes the new versions distinct however (aside from being in colour of course) is some framing of the events and the personalities. In the 1947 version Tyrone Power’s “Carlisle” is competent and confident throughout. He is a clever man always on the lookout for angles. Ultimately he goes one scheme too far and becomes a victim to his own hubris. But he’s not totally irredeemable. In this version he sidesteps the fate laid out for him in the novel but ends up instead repeating the fate of the toxic relationship between his two Mentalist mentors in his early days at the carnival. So the ending is bitter sweet.
The Life and Times of Stanton Carlisle
Cooper’s Carlisle though has a much darker soul, while not without some positive qualities (For instance showing some empathy towards the Carnivals “Geek”) he has a bitter and violent side to him. Unlike Power’s version he is not a natural grifter swayed into darkness, instead the film lets us know he already has a taint on his soul, a dark act that follows him around and perhaps a hatred in his heart. This Carlisle learns the grift directly from the Carnies and with Cooper I always felt he was lying as much to himself as those he deceived.
The most notable difference between the two is how they act when things fall apart. Power’s character has become dislikable and yet I still felt some sympathy for him. He is ultimately destroyed by his two great strengths, his confidence and ability to read people. The former lead him to ignore the latter when it involved those closest to him. Cooper’s version while also a victim of his own hubris, reveals his true colours the moment things fell apart and at that point I knew his fate was sealed. It is difficult to decide which of those approaches I prefer.
For the majority of the film I would have to give it to Tyrone Power, whose performance was intense and believable, however I always felt the last act of the film where things fell apart seemed out of place for someone as together as Power’s Carlisle. Bradley Cooper’s version while I had difficulty buying his progress to the top, his fall felt both real and inevitable. The line taken from the earlier movie that has Carlisle acknowledge his own destiny seems all the more fitting in Del Toro’s movie because of this.
The Primordial She-Demon
As far as the supporting cast goes, the main other player in this story is the psychoanalyst Dr. Lilith Ritter, played by Helen Walker in the earlier movie and Cate Blanchett in Del Toro’s movie. She’s not actually in most of the movie, but her role is pivotal. In the battle of these actresses Blanchett easily wins. I always found the characters betrayal somewhat out of place in the earlier movie, sure she gets to profit financially but as a high paid psychoanalyst I felt like she should have had more to her motivation. But much like with Cooper’s Carlisle, Blanchett’s Ritter is as a far darker version of the character, bitter and twisted and holding a personal grudge against Carlisle for publicly showing her up when they first met (Even though she was trying to show him up).
She doesn’t even care about the money, she just wants to see Carlisle destroyed. What comes into question is did she plan for Carlisle’s scheme to fail all along or would this betrayal have happened further down the line anyway. It is hard to say, but either way Blanchett’s Dr. Ritter is a sociopath. It’s worth noting that as the character escapes punishment, the Motion Picture Production Code that was in play in 1974 would probably have prevented the character being portrayed in quite such a negative light for the earlier movie. Even as her role as a Noir Femme Fatale she is pushing those boundaries. It is clearly no coincidence that her name is “Lilith” (Which for those that don’t know is the name of the primordial she-demon and first wife to Adam, effectively the original Femme Fatale). Maybe it’s a little on the nose, but she earns the name for sure.
The Burden of a Good Woman
The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. Molly, Carlisle’s primary love interest has more of an elevated role in the Film Noir than Del Toro’s movie. She is the “Good Woman” character that was pretty common in the 1940’s and used in Film Noir to contrast with the Femme Fatale. She is loyal, dependable and good at heart. Because of this she is often the voice of conscience to Carlisle. It is ultimately her good nature and principles that leads to Stanton’s fall but also provides the opportunity for redemption. Ultimately the biggest failure of the grifter was to predict the actions of a good woman. While she plays essentially the same role in Del Toro’s movie she feels somewhat removed from the story until she is required to throw a spanner in the works. It seems in this darker world a “Good woman” would seem a bit too out of place, plus the trope isn’t a popular one with modern writers. So the end result is she is just kind of there.
Carnival of Lost Souls
Conversely however the other Carnies are a lot more fleshed out in Del Toro’s vision and rather unsurprisingly Willem DaFoe puts in a top notch performance to his role as Carnie boss Clem Hoatley. The Mentalist couple, Zena and Pete, that take Carlisle under their wing in the Carnival seem a lot more fleshed out too, but then Stanton has a lot more to learn about the trade in the 2021 version so they had to be. Not that they were ignored in the 1947 version, indeed their relationship provides the template for where Stanton and Molly’s ends up and because of this Pete is depicted as far more of a washed up hasbeen, with little indication to his past glories. Last of all Molly’s romantic partner at the start of the movie is significantly different between films with it being a Strong Man in the original (and not a great performance) and the carnivals Dwarf in the modern version. I couldn’t say which is closer to the novel though (If you know, feel free to tell me in the comments). The Dwarf however is backed up by Ron Perlman’s Bruno so Carlisle still get’s punched for his indiscretions.
Speaking of the Carnival, one of the most notable differences between versions is what the movies chose to show and what they chose to imply. The most obvious thing here being the carnivals “Geek”, which to those unfamiliar with the use of the work in this context, a carnival “Geek Show” features an apparently crazy man that chases around live chickens and eventually bites their heads off. The 1947 version shows only the audience reaction to this, but never shows it. Del Toro however directly depicts it. Of course they likely couldn’t show that in 1947, but still the implied spectacle was always pretty effective in film noir so that makes the approach a difficult comparison.
The Final Verdict
It’s not just the Geek that is given a more graphic spin, Del Toro also adds in a disturbing mutated baby in a jar (shown above) that also provides the film it’s final shot. None of this is really a surprise from Del Toro who always embraced the visually macabre. Of course Film Noir has its own visual style and Nightmare Alley is no exception, though it is not the best cinematography of the era. But then the 2021 version is not Del Toro’s best visual work either (Which is probably still “Pan’s Labyrinth”). Ultimately though I do have to give this one to the newer movie. One of the key elements of Film Noir is fatalism and it is actually the later movie that truly embodies that more than the first. The truth is the story here is a dark and twisted tale about not just human nature but about the dark side of the entertainment industry and it is fitting that the newer movie is so brutal in its approach. In my opinion however, this is not a great story in itself and so both versions surpassed the limitations of the source material to provide something truly entertaining.
You must be logged in to post a comment.