Film: "Crimson Peak"

The Witch Trial:
Guillermo Del Toro returns to the sort of dark story which he originally made his name with.  But did it live up to expectations or not?

Who:
Director: Guillermo Del Toro
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Tom Hiddleston, Jessica Chastain, Charlie Hunnam
What:
Horror/Suspense
Why:
Its an original standalone story
When:
Released 2015
Where:
Set in the early 1900's in America before moving to the dilapidated Allerdale Hall in gold old Gothic England

The Case For:
So this is Del Toro returning to his horror roots and for the most part he does a fine job of it.
We have a good old fashioned spooky manor that seems to be falling down around its inhabitants, as well as ghosts haunting our female lead and mysterious strangers who seem to have secrets to hide.
There are more than a few homages to the golden age of Hammer & Amicus films with even Mia Wasikowska's character being called Edith Cushing in a tribute to the late, great Peter Cushing the star of many films from those two venerable studio's.
Wasikowska is quite good in her role as the damsel who falls for a man who may or may not be the bad guy.  She has the right mixture of innocence about her, but also enough tenacity to put her foot down when needed.
Jessica Chastain is also in top form as Lady Lucille Sharpe, the sister of Tom Hiddleston's Sir Thomas.  She revels in playing the slightly unhinged sibling who has a somewhat controlling influence and totally comes across as the person in charge.
As the film progresses you see more and more of her sanity unraveling, building to the climactic finish which is done very well.
My favorite actor in this piece though was Tom Hiddleston.  He has the charisma about him to be equal parts charming, whilst also being able to cast a certain amount of doubt about his character as well.  You are not sure if he is being completely honest about his true nature, even after a couple of conspiratorial conversations we view him having with his sister.  You retain a level of doubt as to what his motives and feelings truly are.
I get the impression that he would not be out of place among one of Hammer's own Gothic entries himself.  He certainly has that same sort of menace that Peter Cushing was so adept at portraying.
It made me think that Hiddleston would make an excellent Baron Frankenstein given the right script.  But seeing as how Hollywood loves to keep messing up that story I doubt we will see that happening in the foreseeable future.
I don't think I have seen him give a bad performance yet in any of the films I have viewed him in.  If Hiddleston is part of a cast then I find he is generally one of the highlights of the film.
There is one more character to discuss and that is Allerdale Hall itself, for it is truly an integral character to this story.  The building is a lovingly constructed set with all the Gothic tropes that you would expect from a haunted mansion.
The house was built from scratch and completely furnished with items specifically for this set, nothing had been recycled from other productions.  Its quite an achievement and such a shame that the house was demolished soon after production finished.  I would have loved to have been able to walk through this wonderful building.  The level of detail that has gone into bringing it to life is quite remarkable.
When the ghosts do arrive throughout the dwelling you instantly have that feeling that they fully belong here and have been stalking the halls of the manor for some time.  Whilst the ghosts are all magnificently created they are certainly secondary to the dread that the house itself emits for the audience.
You can clearly see the influences at work here from "The Haunting" to "The Shining" but with Del Toro's own stamp equally displayed throughout the whole film.
This movie does want to take its time and is a slow burn, but the pay off in the end and the reveals that go with it are worth waiting for.  You definitely end up rooting for the heroine of the story during the final scenes and that is exactly how you should feel when watching something in this genre.

The Case Against:
So while this film does take its time to tell its story I did feel that it was a little bit too long.  Now this could just be a sign of the times for today's audience.  It certainly does adhere to what you would expect from something harking back to an older era haunted house film.
The movie is also a romance and certainly has that Jane Austen feel about it.  Therefore some of the pacing does have a hint of "Sense and Sensibility" in taking its time to unfold.
I think one of the reasons that Crimson Peak failed to find a wider audience is that people expect different things from Horror films these days.  Throw in the romance side of things too and it isn't a combination that we see on our screens too often.
Its a shame that something that has been so lovingly crafted, with so many nods taking place to horror, Gothic and romantic films of the past, just did not hit the right chords with the general public.
Some might find Jessica Chastain's acting a little bit too much of a predictable psycho sister act, I didn't particularly feel this way but could certainly see how some would.
There are certainly aspects of her performance which does spell out that her character is a villain but you would be hard pressed to find a film of this nature which doesn't do that with their evil protagonist.
The love triangle of Wasikowska, Hiddleston and childhood friend Alan McMichael, played by Charlie Hunnam, is probably just a little too predictable and does follow all the regular conventions for this particular type of story line.
It was Charlie Hunnam that was the weakest performance out of the whole cast.  I felt he was not the right person for the part he was playing.  He was a little too stiff and even though its a period setting where you expect stiffness and propriety, he just didn't seem to get the tone right at all.
It was definitely an under written role and just seemed to be in there to have someone else to vie for Edith Cushing's affections.  The dashing charmer that the viewer is hoping will come in towards the end to rescue our heroine and whisk her away to safety.
As a ghost story there is actually very little of the ghosts on screen.  If you go in expecting it to be big on the haunting I could see you coming away disappointed.  It wasnt a deal breaker for me as Allerdale Hall itself more than made up for the lack of spiritual bodies floating about.

Verdict:
Whilst it doesn't set the world on fire, it is definitely a cozy watch by the fireplace on a dark night if you want something just a little old school spookiness for your evenings viewing pleasure.

Evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Peak
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2554274/

Film: "Pan"

The Witch Trial:
So it was this film that prompted me to want to start this blog in the first place.  I had reservations going into the cinema as I had heard nothing but bad reports regarding this movie.  The viewing totally vindicated my fears and left me feeling angry that I had paid my money to see this dribble...

Who:
Directed by Joe Wright
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Garratt Hedlund, Rooney Mara & Levi Miller
What:
Fantasy adventure
Why:
It's a prequel or more appropriately should be considered a reboot of the Peter Pan story
When:
Released 2015
Where:
It's set during World War II in London and then of course Neverland

The Case For:
So what does this film have going for it?
Well it looks good, the sets are well designed and the costumes fit well with the settings.  You do get the impression that they did take into account Robin Williams' "Hook" when it came to the costumes as I felt they had some similarities, most notably with the Lost Boys and their on screen look.
The cast seem to be having fun with it too, which in itself is a blessing and a curse.  Lets just say that by having fun, a hell of a lot of scenery had teeth marks in it from all the chewing!  Adeel Akhtar was for me the stand out as Mr. Smee, but that is only faint praise.
That I am afraid is about all the good I can say in its favour.

The Case Against:
Where do i start with this one, i had so many issues with it.
As mentioned the scenery chewing was very OTT.  Kathy Burke took her best Mr Bumble impression from Oliver Twist and added in an extra triple dose of stereotype Cockney for good measure.
Hugh Jackman is in full pantomime mode.  I'm sure they named this character Blackbeard just so he could have a moustache to twirl.  And who calls a character Blackbeard when all he has for facial hair is said moustache and a goatee?
I'm assuming the production meeting went something like this "So we have to have pirates in here so lets look up some famous pirate names".  Nobody thought to then further investigate just why the real life Blackbeard (Edward Teach) was so named as they would have realised that it was his vast beard and intimidating image that put the fear of god into the crew members of the ships he was plundering.
Instead what we get here is a pampered dandy who looks like he hasn't spent a day at sea in his life, let alone gone a pirating.
Captain James Hook, oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
So we are supposed to believe that it is just a massive case of pure coincidence that a man named Hook would later in life lose one of his hands and replace it with his namesake to bring actual meaning to his moniker.
Why on earth was it decided that Hook should be some kind of Indiana Jones wannabe?
I seriously thought the wrong actor must have wondered onto the set and thought, "Stuff it, I'm just going to go with it and see if anyone notices".  I would love to see the Indiana Jones film which has the real Captain Hook running away from rolling boulders and coming up against Thuggee cultists and Nazi's.
It was such a huge veer away from the two previous screen portrayals of Hook that I struggled to get my head around this interpretation.
And that brings me to the crux of the problem with this film.
Everyone involved chose to ignore what had gone before it and do their own version.  Now that's fine if the previous efforts had been rubbish and ignored by the viewing public.  But the animated Peter Pan is considered a Disney classic.  Hook might have its problems and I for one am not a fan of the film, but it does have its supporters.
Hook did follow on from Disney's Peter Pan and chose to continue the narrative and have the characters stick to what had gone before it.
Dustin Hoffman's look is as close to the animated look as they could have got and with this film they chose to totally ignore that iconic costume, profile with that protruding nose and most importantly - HOOK!  Its just a bizarre decision to not give the character the actual hook that gives him his name straight from the start.
The Disney Peter Pan is set some time around 1900, roughly when the original material was written by J.M. Barrie; the first appearance of the character coming in 1902's The Little White Bird novel.  So Peter Pan roughly adheres to the time frame as set out by the author.
Hook is set in more modern times.  It cleverly gets around Peter not ageing as much by having Wendy Darling appearing as the grandmother of Peter's wife Moira.  This storyline is believable and once Wendy explains that Peter decided to stay in London but lost his memory of Neverland in the process of adapting to his new life, it gains more credibility.
Pan is supposed to be a prequel to all that has gone before it, starting as an origin story.  Therefore I would have expected it to be set sometime in the late 1800's.  But no, instead they choose to set the film during World War II.  Why do we ask, so they can have a flying pirate ship maybe for a memorable set piece?
There is no chronological sense in this move whatsoever and it was the thing that most irritated me about the whole premise of the film.  To not show any respect for what has gone before it, be it the previous films or more criminally the original source material in the books that inspired those movies is just wrong.
It might as well have just pinched elements of Peter Pan by having a boy who can fly and be its own completely original story.  There was nothing else to indicate that this was a Peter Pan story, other than the character names, so why not do it as an original story.
My feeling is that its because Hollywood wants to use recognisable products that have gone before to try and tap into the existing fan base.  They don't want to risk not gaining an audience with an original idea because there is that lack of familiarity.
Lets finish with one final criticism.
The other notable part of the film that had me cringing in my seat was the terrible misstep of having a musical number just as Peter enters Neverland.  Who on earth allowed them to bastardise Smells Like Teen Spirit in such an awful rendition, which was totally out of place in comparison with the rest of the film.  Hugh Jackman probably had it in his contract that because this film was so much of a pantomime that he be allowed to show off his vocal talents.  But boy what a complete travesty that move was!

Verdict:
This film deserves to spend a week on the rack before being taken out, hung drawn and quartered.
No Mercy!

Evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(2015_film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3332064/