A Thanksgiving release has long been a tradition for animation; at least it has been as long as I’ve known.  Dating back to the mid-November release of The Little Mermaid in 1989, animation studios (most often Disney) have staked a claim on the weekend and have usually dominated it year after year.  This also became a tradition for Disney’s prized computer animation partner Pixar, who has also benefitted from a holiday release schedule dating all the way back to the Thanksgiving opening of their first feature, Toy Story.  Needless to say, this is a prime weekend for family audiences that enjoy good animation, and both Disney and Pixar have consistently delivered at this time of year.  Most of the Pixar films have followed the same release patterns over time; either opening on this weekend, or coming in the middle of the summer.  And so far, positioning themselves in a prime release pattern has provided them with near consistent success.  Sure, some Pixar films have done better than others, but we’ve gotten to a point where any time the studio releases a film, it becomes an event, and those dates carry that weight with them.  This year however, Pixar has taken the unprecedented action of releasing two films on both of their claimed time slots. While it doesn’t put the films in direct contention with one another for box office, this closer than usual release does put them in contention for people’s attention, and as a result both movies are going to be more highly scrutinized than they normally would.  This summer, we got one of Pixar’s all time best with Inside Out (which I reviewed here), and that success unfortunately raises the stakes higher for it’s follow-up, The Good Dinosaur.

The Good Dinosaur comes to theaters after a long and tumultuous development.  The movie suffered many story problems early on and it eventually led to the removal of it’s original writer/director Bob Peterson (Up), a Pixar veteran, from the project.  A move like this usually means that a film is in deep trouble, but it’s not a first for a studio like Pixar, which holds it’s movies up to a very high standard.  Pixar has long held the belief that a movie is not worth making unless the story is sound and sturdy.  Throughout their history, they have long put their story development through the highest scrutiny in order to keep the quality of their brand strong.  This has worked for them in the past; a shake-up in the directors chair for Ratatouille (2007) saw the removal of original director Jan Pinkava in favor of a complete overhaul done by Brad Bird, who then went on to win an Oscar for his work.  Even Toy Story went through an overhaul in it’s development, which reworked the character dynamic between it’s principal characters, Woody and Buzz Lightyear.  Needless to say, Pixar has shown that it can be done.  However, they’ve also shown that some projects are too troubled to be saved and their high standard can’t always ressurect a project that’s doomed from the beginning.  Case in point, Brave (2012), which saw an overhaul and removal of it’s original director Brenda Chapman, but it resulted in a film that felt unoriginal and stale.  Because of the less than successful results of Brave, those same worries are again present with a similarly troubled production like The Good Dinosaur, which also has to deal with the extra pressure of following up the near perfect Inside Out.  Thankfully, The Good Dinosaur shows very little of the scars of it’s troubled production, but at the same time, it also shows that it’s hard to follow-up perfection, even when you’re Pixar.

The Good Dinosaur takes place in a “what if” scenario that presents an alternate reality where the dinosaurs were not wiped out by an asteroid hitting the earth and have instead lived on and evolved to the present day.  This is the setting of the film, which tells the story of Arlo (voiced by Raymond Ochoa) the third born child of a pair of Apatosauruses simply named Poppa (Jeffrey Wright) and Momma (Frances McDormand).  As he gets older, Arlo tries to overcome his crippling fear of everything in life, made especially difficult by his overachieving siblings, Buck and Libby.  Poppa tries his best to instill confidence in Arlo, which includes teaching him how to trap critters.  One day, a critter finds it’s way into the family’s crops, which turns out to be a human child named Spot (Jack Bright).  Poppa leads Arlo after Spot in order to help him get over his fear, but when they venture too far from home, they get caught in a storm and Arlo loses Poppa in a flash flood.  Alone, Arlo must find his way home, but to do so, he must rely on the instincts of the little critter Spot, whom Arlo believes is responsible for getting his father killed.  Though they start off on their journey begrudgingly out of necessity, they quickly develop a shared kinship as they bond over their shared tragic pasts.  Over time, Arlo helps to civilize the wild Spot and show him the importance of family, while Spot helps to embolden the timid Arlo, and together they take a harrowing trip that has them battling a pack of bloodthirsty Pterodactyls and rustling cattle with a family of T-Rexes.  And soon, one time enemies become the closest of friends.

The Good Dinosaur overall is a very easy film to like, maybe even love.  While I did enjoy my time watching it, I can’t say that it moved me as much some of Pixar’s best films.  There are some flaws that do affect it.  But, surprisingly, the story itself is not one of them.  Yes, the thing that actually gave the Pixar story team the most amount of headaches throughout production is actually this movie’s greatest strength.  I think this is largely the result of an assured directing job from first-timer Pete Sohn.  Sohn came onto this project late in the process and I think that he deserves a great amount of credit for righting the ship.  First of all, this is a tough premise to make workable from the beginning, putting the idea across of this alternate reality.  Thankfully the movie makes it work by not dwelling too heavily in presenting it.  The movie starts with a prologue that shows the fateful asteroid heading on it’s way to Earth.  Instead of striking the planet like it’s supposed to, we see the giant rock skim the top, leaving all the dinosaurs unharmed.  It’s simple, but effective, which allows the rest of the film to flow more smoothly, without having to reinforce it’s premise over and over again.  Secondly, I love the way they put a twist on the whole “boy and his dog” scenario, by making the “dog” in this case the “boy.”  Arlo and Spot’s relationship easily carries this film in a big way and it’s a heartwarming friendship.  Pete Sohn also deftly handles the tonal changes of the movie, making the comical moments work hand-in-hand with the heavier oNed.  There’s a surprising amount of tear-jerking scenes here, whether it’s Poppa’s death early on, or the bonding moments with Arlo and Spot.  If you’re not moved by a scene towards the end that leaves the friendship at a crossroads, then you my friend are made of stone.  Naturally, this is the kind of thing Pixar excels at, so it’s not surprising that they nail the emotional stuff here too.

It’s good to see that Pixar’s high standard of story did work out in the end for this feature.  Unfortunately, while well told, is not particularly groundbreaking either.  This is where the inevitable comparison with it’s predecessor begins to hurt it.  Inside Out was such a standout for the company, both in concept and in execution.  What Pixar has done so well over time is reinforce the belief that they are capable of making things you’ve never seen before over and over again, and Inside Out was proof of that.  It’s the kind of movie that reminds you that it could only come from a place like Pixar.  The Good Dinosaur on the other hand feels like it could have come from someplace other than Pixar.  Now if that were true, it would be considered a masterpiece from that company, but the fact that Pixar made this one makes it feel a little out of place in it’s catalogue of hits.  We’ve seen stories like this before from Disney and from Don Bluth, with films like The Lion King (1994), Bambi (1942), and An American Tail (1986) all showing their characters learning life lessons in the wild after suffering a tragedy.  An even more apt comparison would be Don Bluth’s A Land Before Time (1988), which is very similar in story and tone to this movie.  The Good Dinosaur is not covering new ground here, which in turn makes it less successful as a movie than Inside Out.  That doesn’t mean it’s bad, it just could’ve been more.  My other problem with the movie is the inconsistent animation style.  The fill overall is beautiful to look at, but there was a glaring issues with the character designs here.  I felt that the overly cartoonish look of the characters clashed too heavily with the photo-realistic imagery of the environments.  Though the characters are still animated with wonderful personality, the clashed way too much with the backgrounds, and it did take me out of the film occasionally.  I wish this had been an instance where Pixar showed some restraint and made their characters feel more like they belonged as a part of this world.

But, that being said, I do want to praise the work that the animators did on the environments themselves.  There is so much detail put into even the tiniest of elements, whether it be the terrain that the characters tread across or the plants that grow around them.  Even the raindrops feel authentic.  The filmmakers took inspiration for the setting from many points in the American West, including picturesque places like the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon to the prairie lands of Nebraska, to even the jagged peaks of the Rocky Mountains.  Every environment is lovingly recreated here, and having grown up myself in the Pacific Northwest, I can tell you that much of the setting here feels absolutely authentic.  You can almost smell the pine trees as if they were right there in front of you.  And although the characters do clash with this environmental design in a distracting way, I still have to applaud the animators for giving the characters a lot of personality.  Spot, in particular, is the character that feels most in place here.  I’m sure that audiences are going to love this character the most, mainly because of his unpredictable and wild personality.  But at the same time, Spot’s animation shows a lot of signs of subtlety, which comes out perfectly in some of the film’s more dramatic moments.  Arlo’s cartoonish design may feel out of place at first, but he grows on you too, and his innocence is perfectly conveyed in the animation.  You also see the progression of the character as he becomes emboldened over time.  One of the movie’s best plot strengths is getting across the compelling arcs of Arlo and Spot’s stories, and it’s made all the more poignant with character animation that perfectly presents their growing personalities.

The film is not just limited to them alone, however.  There is a whole cast of characters help to flesh out this world as well.  While watching this movie, I was often reminded of one of Pixar’s most beloved features, Finding Nemo (2003), and in a good way.  In that film, we were presented with another journey taken for the characters that took them to many new places and helped to introduce them to a diverse group of new faces.  That sort of progression through different experiences instead of telling a traditional good vs. evil narrative is present here too and it works just as well as it did for Nemo.  Just like that movie had it’s heroes meet a band of reformed sharks, survive a school of jellyfish, and cross the ocean on the backs of sea turtles, this one has Arlo and Spot meeting many interesting friends and foes along the way.  I particularly enjoyed the encounter they have with a family of cattle rustling Tyranosauruses named Butch (Sam Elliott), Ramsey (Anna Paquin) and Nash (A. J. Buckley).  These characters were entertaining enough to support a movie of their own, and their brief presence in the film is very welcome.  I especially liked Sam Elliott’s gruff voice coming out of the ferocious looking Butch.  There’s menace in his performance, but also a lot of heart, and the character actually does serve a purpose in the movie by teaching Arlo that fear is not something to be ashamed of, but something to help motivate him.  The voice cast is universally excellent, especially the two young stars behind Arlo and Spot, and like Finding Nemo before it, the movie is made all the better by a colorful and diverse cast.

So, overall, The Good Dinosaur may not reach a level of greatness when stacked up against it’s more groundbreaking brethren, but still, it’s a very enjoyable and pleasing film that will win over audiences.  I’m sure that most people won’t know or care about the hard road that this movie had to take towards it’s release (it was actually supposed to come out last year, but had to be delayed to fix it’s problems, with Big Hero 6 taking it’s previously announced spot).  But, because I’ve been aware of the troubles that this movie faced, I would definitely call this film a minor triumph.  It doesn’t fall into the same pitfalls as Brave which is very welcome.  But, unfortunatly, because of the delay, it had to share a release year with an instant classic, and sadly that comparison reflects onto it negatively.  Had The Good Dinosaur been released any other year, say having to follow-up a lesser Pixar movie like it was origninally going to, then this might have been viewed a bit more favorably.  Unfortunately, I can’t overlook some of the flaws that this movie has, which did affect my experience watching it.  That being said, it is still a beautifully animated and touching film for the most part.  When your family has finished carving up that turkey and downing that plate of stuffing and mashed potatoes, this will be an ideal holiday film to watch for everyone.  Overall, it’s high mid-range as a Pixar movie, not quite reaching the upper-tier.  But, it does show that it’s worth the extra effort to get the story right, which will hopefully continue to be the standard of practice for the legendary animation studio.

Rating: 7.5/10

There are few if any characters that have had as much of an impact in cinematic history as 007 himself, James Bond.  From the very moment that Sean Connery ordered his first vodka martini as the secret agent in Dr. No (1962), the entire world knew they had found a new cinematic icon.  A large part of it had to do with the charisma of Connery, of course, but as we’ve seen over the years, Ian Fleming’s Bond can live far beyond just one single actor.  George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnon have all donned Bond’s neatly tailored threads over the years, sometimes in spectacular fashion and at other times in some rather mediocre ways.  For a long running series like James Bond’s, it’s sometimes difficult to keep up the high quality from film to film, which has kept the Bond franchise consistently inconsistent.  Each new actor does bring in fresh blood, but rarely do all of their movies become all time classics.  Going over every Bond film, you can pick out at least one from each star that’s a classic, and for some of the more prolific like Connery and Moore, they may have two or more classics among them.  George Lazenby lucked out with having his one and only outing as the character being the great and underrated On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969).  Basically, what I’ve seen from  the Bond franchise is a very roller coaster like flow to it’s level of quality and that the longer an actor commits to the role, the more they leave themselves open to having a shakier record as the super spy.

Which leads me to where the series is at now, as we reach the latter part and possible end of the Daniel Craig era.  Daniel Craig’s turn as Bond has been one of the most praised across the board, and it’s easy to see why.  The Bond franchise had declined heavily towards the end of Pierce Brosnan’s reign.  Brosnan started off strong with the classic Goldeneye (1995), but his three follow-ups got progressively worse, ending with the laughable Die Another Day (2002), the movie where Bond surfs on a tsunami and drives an invisible car.  When it came time to choose a new actor for the role, parent company EON Productions wanted someone who could bring the series back to it’s roots, and the perfect man for the job ended up being Daniel Craig.  Though not a household name at the time, Craig has since left his mark on the character, making Bond tougher and grittier, while at the same time not betraying the suave roots of Fleming’s original.  Craig became the Bond of the 21st century and modernized him in a way that greatly appealed to audiences.  Since being cast, Craig has appeared in four films total (contracted for five) and he holds the distinction of having one of the best batting averages of all the Bond actors.  Of his movies, you can definitely consider two of them all time classics, his debut Casino Royale (2006) and the record breaking Skyfall (2012).  Quantum of Solace (2008), while not bad by any means, does fall short of the other two, showing that even Craig is not immune to a dip in quality during his time.  And after Skyfall, which could arguably be the best Bond movie ever made, it’s put a lot of pressure on what follows it after.  So, this week, we finally see how Daniel Craig’s James Bond fares in his fourth outing; the hotly anticipated Spectre (2015).

The interesting thing about Daniel Craig’s Bond movies is that unlike all the others, they share the same story arc, each one connected to the other.  Spectre picks up right where Skyfall left off, with James following a lead left to him by his recently deceased former boss M (Judi Dench), which leads him to take on rogue missions much to the chagrin of the new M in charge (Ralph Fiennes).  With the assistance of hi-tech quartermaster Q (Ben Whishaw) and reliable desk operative Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), Bond is able to go undercover and infiltrate a shadow organization that he believes is responsible for terrorist attacks all over the world, called simply SPECTRE.  Once he makes it inside, he soon learns that one man is in charge of the whole operation going by the name Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), and that he is more aware of Bond’s presence than he realized.  After escaping in a chase through the streets of Rome, pursued by Oberhauser’s henchman Hinx (Dave Bautista), Bond seeks out an old enemy, Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), who can give him more information about SPECTRE, which the old man does with the promise from James that he will protect White’s daughter Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux).  All the while this is happening, M, Q, and Moneypenny are having to deal with the shutdown of the 00 program in favor of a computer driven surveillance system developed by a tech wizard code-named C (Andrew Scott), leaving Bond all on his own.

Spectre does something unique in the Bond franchise in that it ties up all the loose threads of each previous film, even the more standalone Skyfall.  As a result, this movie has an interesting sense of closure for Daniel Craig’s version of the character, which would be fitting if this is indeed his final outing.  But, the question is, does this movie live up to what has come before and become a third classic for the actor; or does it disappoint and only prove that it’s time for a change.  Well, truth be told, when it comes to making all time great Bond movies, it seems you only live twice.  But, that’s not a sign that this movie is bad.  Spectre really is everything a Bond movie should be.  It’s got great action set pieces, including a spectacular opening in Mexico City that I would consider one of the best in the series, and a great fight sequence between Craig and Bautista on a train.  It’s also got the series’ trademark sense of humor that helps to keep the movie from ever becoming too heavy and self-important.  Really, any other time this would be considered an all time great in the series, and as a standalone film, it’s easy to recommend to everyone.  The unfortunate thing for it is that it’s coming right off the the heels of Skyfall, which is not only a franchise best, but arguably one of the best spy thrillers ever made.  Because Skyfall is so close in my memory, it only made me think of what this film was missing, which might be a little unfair of me, but I would be lying at the same time if I said that I didn’t have a nagging couple issues with this movie either.

I’d say that my biggest fault with the film is that it suffers from a very underwhelming third act.  Much of the film’s best scenes play out early on and the movie leads up to a very satisfying confrontation with Bond and the villain, including some revelations that will please die hard fans of the franchise as well as the Fleming novels.  Unfortunately, the film goes on for another twenty minutes or so after it should’ve ended, with a pointless game of cat and mouse through the streets of London, adding nothing more to the movie other than another action sequence.  Skyfall on the other hand built up to it’s climax in a perfect way, giving it the weight and tension that it needed.  That’s what’s missing here.  Spectre also suffers from periodic lulls in pacing.  While the movie does come alive whenever there is an action sequence, it would slow down thereafter and lose my interest in some of the more dialogue heavy sequences.  Not that the’re bad scenes, but I would at times start to loose attention to what was going on.  And at 2 1/2 hours, Spectre is the longest Bond movie to date, which makes these down moments all the more problematic.  But at the same time, the movie doesn’t fully suffer for it.  There is still a great deal to enjoy about this movie.  It may be flawed, but at the same time, you can say that about 80% of all the Bond films.  Only a select handful have ever achieved masterpiece status.  I would put Spectre on the high end of the “almost masterpieces”, which would include movies like Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), Octopussy (1983), Live and Let Die (1973), and From Russia With Love (1963).

What I did love, however, was James Bond himself in this film.  Daniel Craig once again proves why he is one of the greatest actors to ever play the role.  Only Connery could be considered better, given that he originated the character, and even that might be up for debate at some point.  Craig has never been letdown in this series, even with the story faults here in Spectre and more so in Quantum of Solace.  He’s believably tough whenever he gets into a fight, but also dashing enough to be charmingly suave.  He also nails the sense of humor of the character perfectly as well.  There’s a hilarious moment when Bond is staying in a seedy hotel in Morocco and he’s awoken to a mouse crawling across the floor in front of him.  In a great bit of subtle humor, Bond quietly pulls out his gun, points it at the mouse, and jokingly starts to interrogate it.  It’s one of the best character moments in the movie and it helped to make up for some of the movie’s other shortcomings.  In addition, Christoph Waltz is ideal casting as the villain, and it makes perfect sense that he was cast once we learn more about him towards the end.  I only wish that the movie had utilized more screen time for Waltz, because he doesn’t become a factor in the story until very late.  But, once he’s present, he doesn’t waste anytime leaving an impact, which is exactly why you get an actor of his quality on board for something like this.  I also liked the fact that Team Bond is more involved in this story.  Q and Moneypenny are not wasted on the sidelines and are given much more to do in this movie than in most of the previous Bond films, which is refreshing.  Even the new M helps out more, getting in a few well deserved fight scenes of his own.  Spectre is definitely bolstered by it’s capable cast, and I’m happy to see that no role was wasted overall.

The movie also benefits from well constructed set pieces and edge of your seat action scenes.  From what I’ve read, this is the most expensive Bond movie made to date, and you can see every penny put to use on screen.  The eye-opening Mexico City prologue is indeed one of the standouts and you can tell that director Sam Mendes wanted to set the movie’s bombastic tone in a big way.   The scale is perfectly conveyed immediately, especially given the nearly five minute tracking shot they used to open the movie.  I’d say that the only thing that’s missing is the beautiful, painterly styled cinematography from Roger Deakins that we saw in Skyfall.  Here the cinematography was done instead by Interstellar (2014) photographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, who goes for a grittier, more realistic style.  But, that helps to give this movie it’s own unique visual imprint to set it apart, so it’s not a negative by any means.  I also like the fact that this movie doesn’t overdo it with the visual effects.  That’s what plagued many of the later Brosnon Bonds, which overused CGI to the point where Die Another Day felt like a cartoon at times.  Here, the CGI supports the action rather than overwhelms it, which is what all the Craig Bonds have done exceptionally well.  Though they have the capabilities now to have James Bond do anything possible on the big screen, it’s a good sign that the filmmakers are restraining themselves to keep their super spy earthbound.  And this movie does an overall great job of retaining the tried and true feel of a Bond movie.  The famous title sequences are brilliant works of pop art in their own right and this one adds yet another stunning entry, although the title song by Sam Smith does unfortunately sound like a karaoke version of a Bond theme, and doesn’t quite reach the heights of Adele’s Oscar-winning ballad from Skyfall.

Overall, it’s hard to be truly fair to a movie like Spectre.  On it’s own, it is a very acceptable and downright enjoyable action thriller.  Unfortunately, the movie must also carry the weight of the franchise that it represents, made even more complicated by the fact that it’s following in the footsteps of a masterpiece.  But, at the same time, I do have to point out the flaws that are inherent, which do affect the overall quality of the movie.  It was a smart move on EON Production’s part to retain the creative team from Skyfall, which included director Mendes and screenwriter John Logan.  Unfortunately, success is a hard thing to repeat, so I do have to give them credit for doing as well as they did.  If only they had stuck the landing in the third act.  From what I’ve heard, this was one of the more troublesome productions for the series, leading star Daniel Craig to want to call it quits afterwards.  He still has one more film on his contract, but it remains to be seen if they decide to part ways and move on despite this.  The ending of this movie opens the door for both possibilities; it brings closure to Bond’s arc throughout all the Daniel Craig films, but at the same time, it also leaves room for further adventures.  Only time will tell which avenue they choose.  Regardless, as the end credits state, Bond will return and the franchise will continue to go on.  If this is the end for Daniel Craig as 007, then it’s a fine farewell.  He’s had one of the best runs ever as the character and though Casino Royale and Skyfall rank as solid 9’s, Spectre comes in as a respectable 8, with Quantum of Solace falling down to a 7.  It’s an almost classic that will certainly be worth watching no matter what.  And that’s all you need in the end from Bond, James Bond.

Rating: 8/10

The Halloween season always has room reserved for a horror entry or two.  And usually the best kinds of horror films are given the spotlight at this time.  When you’re a bad horror movie, you usually get shipped off to the beginning of January, where all the worst films go to be forgotten.  But, when you’re a high-quality horror film, a late October release is all the more timely.  Horror fans prefer to be shocked out of their wits and have their tolerances for gore challenged, because it’s a part of the entertainment.  It’s much more of a communal audience experience watching a horror film in a theater than any other type of genre, because the entertainment comes from our shared reactions.  Now, typically, horror films are low rent productions that make due with their limitations and will oftentimes be tongue-in-cheek experiences, depending on the execution.  But, there are also movies that fall into the category of prestige horror films, where the budgets and production values are increased significantly and the end result can be seen as artful in the film community, without betraying the rules of the genre.  A prestige horror film can sometimes come from a magnificently executed and high value production of a story with horror elements, like The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and The Exorcist (1973) or from a highly artistic rendering of the genre tropes through an acclaimed director’s vision, like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980).  This Halloween season offers us a new horror film of this second type from one of Hollywood’s most unique visionaries.

Mexican born filmmaker Guillermo del Toro has been something of renaissance man in Hollywood in terms of trying different genres, but always with his own unique vision.  He has taken on Science Fiction (2013’s Pacific Rim), Superheros (2004’s Hellboy and it’s 2008 sequel), as well as Fantasy and War Drama (2006’s Pan’s Labyrinth).  But, perhaps his favorite genre to tackle above all the others is horror, and in particular, ghost stories.  This was evident in his earlier films like Cronos (1993) and The Devil’s Backbone (2001), both of which centered around themes of death and the supernatural.  In fact, all of del Toro’s movies have a little bit of the macabre to them, including something as rollicking as Pacific Rim.  It’s very clear from watching any of his films that the man loves horror and his work often reflects that same love.  At the same time, he’s also a filmmaker who knows when to have a little fun while working within the confines of a genre and his movies are often purposefully over the top, which gives them an extra level of entertainment.  While he isn’t consistently sticking with a particular genre, his movies still almost always have a sense of character to them, which has made him a highly regarded director.  This year, he returns to his roots and has crafted another ghost based horror film called Crimson Peak.  It’s another stylish production from the visually driven filmmaker, but here for the first time, he is working within a Victorian Gothic setting.  It’s a style that’s well suited for a prestigious horror movie, but through the eyes of Guillermo del Toro, it becomes something even more incredible.

The story, which was co-written by Guillermo del Toro himself, follows the supernatural journey of Edith Cushing (played by Mia Wasikowska), an aspiring writer and only child of a New York based mining tycoon (Jim Beaver).  Since she was a little girl, she has been haunted by the ghost of her departed mother who periodically returns to tell her daughter to “beware of Crimson Peak.”  As an adult, she crosses paths with an English playboy named Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston) who seeks financial assistance with a mining venture that he wants to exploit on his home estate.  Edith is charmed by the stranger, but her father disapproves of the man and Edith’s childhood friend Dr. Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam) has his suspicions of him as well.  Edith nevertheless pursues a courtship with Thomas and agrees to marry him after she tragically loses her father in a sudden “accident.”  After the wedding, Thomas and Edith return to England where they begin married life in a decrepit old mansion called Allerdale Hall, which sits atop Thomas’ mine and is slowly sinking into the red clay beneath it.  The couple try to make due with the inconveniences of the house, but Edith feels unease under the watchful eye of Thomas’ overbearing sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain), who becomes more menacing the longer Edith is there.  Not only that, but Edith is visited by ghosts who haunt the house, each appearing more grotesque than the last.  Though frightened by them at first, Edith soon discovers that the ghosts are trying to deliver her a message, one which becomes more clear once she learns that the red clay that Thomas is digging up has given the hilltop she lives on another nickname by the local village folk who live near it; Crimson Peak.

Overall, it’s a very straight forward ghost story, which serves del Toro’s film well.  Like most of his other movies, it’s not about the intricacy of the plot, but the way it’s presented.  Guillermo del Toro works within the genre confines of horror, sometimes even embracing it’s cliches, all with the purpose of giving it his own spin.  Del Toro very much likes to make his movies work as examples of the genre, and not as parodies of it.  I can honestly see Crimson Peak standing confidently alongside the classic Hammer horror movies of the 60’s and 70’s, which themselves were purposely over-the-top.  Guillermo also milks the Victorian aesthetic and tone very well here, making the atmosphere of the film feel even more genuine.  While not particularly original, I did enjoy what this movie was trying to be and I felt that it overall worked as a genre flick.  Is it the scariest movie ever made?  No, but the atmosphere that del Toro builds up is enough to satisfy die hard horror fans.  There are some especially creepy moments in the movie, particularly it goes silent for some moments.  For the most part, I felt that the movie was at it’s strongest when it just let the atmosphere of the scene speak for itself, with the moody lighting and the eerily tuned sound design taking over.  The story is not particularly deep; you already know where the plot is going long before it gets there.  But at the same time, I believe that’s del Toro’s intention.  He purposely takes story shortcuts in order to spend more time exploiting the tension and horror of each particular scene; something he also did effectively well with sci-fi in Pacific Rim. Some may find the long drawn out scenes of dark, shadowy halls tedious, but I felt that Guillermo’s style really shone in those moments.  It’s especially refreshing to see a movie get it’s best moments not from a jump scare, but from the eerie build up to the frights.  The scenes where the ghost Edith’s mother slowly reveals herself across a shadowy corridor still give me chills and has me looking over my shoulder.

But, while the ghosts are frightening in design, and the atmosphere is superb, there were some unfortunate cinematic elements that sadly took me out of the film at times.  In particular, I had a problem with the obvious use of CGI in the movie.  Now, Guillermo del Toro isn’t a novice when it comes to using CGI.  In fact, he used it to great effect in Pacific Rim.  But, he’s also been a known to use some really cool looking practical effects as well.  In particular, the amazing make-up used in Pan’s Labyrinth and Hellboy, where he brought to life some amazing creatures that become all the more terrifying because of their seemingly organic presence on screen.  What helped those movies out was a balance between the different kinds of effects needed.  In Crimson Peak, the CGI seemed to be favored a bit too heavily and it robs the movie of some of it’s effectiveness as a result.  There are CGI elements that do work, like a ghostly, pale shadow appearing out of the dust in an attic over a wheelchair, but there are others that look too artificial to be taken seriously.  I felt that the appearances of the many ghosts at Crimson Peak weren’t quite as horrifying as Guillermo had intended them to be, and that’s because the CGI used to create them looks a bit too cartoonish.  While their designs are unique (some of which del Toro illustrated himself), their animation left something to be desired and I could never fully feel scared as I was watching these ghosts chasing poor Edith through the house.  Had Guillermo del Toro used a more subtle approach with the ghosts in the movie, like old fashioned green screen and make-up effects, I might have bought the effect much better, but instead the movie suffers from unrealistic ghosts in a movie that’s dependent on them being scary.

But, the inconsistency of the film’s effects are balanced out by some incredibly effective, and sometimes scary performances from the cast.  Mia Wasikowska may have the most difficult time carrying much of this film and trying to convince us that she is seeing spirits all around her, but she does an effective job of giving Edith the depth of character needed to pull it off.  Edith, if handled poorly by another actress, could’ve turned into another boring ghost story protagonist, relegated to just reacting to the horrors around her instead of taking action.  But Mia manages to avoid portraying Edith as one note and part of the character’s charm is her curious nature, which comes out perfectly in her intelligent performance.  Tom Hiddleston also manages to perfectly embody the character of a playboy scoundrel without sinking too far into stereotype, and his character actually gets one of the more interesting arcs in the story.  But, if this movie belongs to anyone in particular, it’s Jessica Chastain as the sinister Lucille.  Chastain is relishing her role here, chewing up all kinds of scenery and managing to become even more chilling than the ghosts that haunt the mansion.  I just love the way that she goes over-the-top, but not to the point where it becomes detrimental to the story.  She’s unhinged, but grounded.  There’s an especially creepy bit with a spoon midway through the movie that is so perfectly creepy.  It’s the kind of performance that really sticks with you and it’s a testament to Jessica Chastain’s talent as an actress that she could make the insanity of this character feel so believable.  She’s by far the best thing about this movie and is probably the thing most worth watching overall, even with all the eye candy on display.

Of course, given that this is a Guillermo del Toro movie, there has to be something said about the production design.  For one thing, del Toro proves to be surprisingly adept with the Victorian period details, making the setting feel for the most part authentic to it’s time.  Likewise, del Toro also puts lavish excess into the movie when needed, particularly when it comes to the mansion itself.  The decrepit haunted house that serves as the setting of this movie feels very much like a Guillermo del Toro creation, with it’s twisted and foreboding nature.  Even simple design choices, like a patch of snow in the foyer originating from a hole in the ceiling, as well as the spiked archways in the halls, carry the del Toro signature.  Guillermo is probably only rivaled by Tim Burton for being identified by a particular aesthetic with his movies, which favors medieval Gothic inspiration along with a little Grand Guignol grotesquery thrown in.  In this movie, the designs used on the mansion help it to stand out and it almost makes the house a character in it’s own right.  I particularly like the way that the battered state of the home belies a little bit of what the mansion was like in it’s glory days, which makes it feel even more eerie once you take in the details.  There’s also a neat visual idea of the house sinking into the red clay that lies below it’s foundation.  This almost gives the audience the visual impression that the house bleeds, given the bright red hue of the clay once it liquefies and seeps through the floors and walls.  It’s a grotesque reinforcement of the mansion’s sinister nature, though it can come off to some as a little heavy handed to some.  I found it to be an interesting visual idea that stays true to the style of it’s visionary director.

Crimson Peak works as both a throwback to traditional ghost stories and as an unconventional horror movie.  Sure, it’s predictable and simplistic in many ways, but that’s part of the charm of it.  I just wouldn’t go into this movie expecting to be scared out of your mind.  This movie is much more of a triumph of production design, with some of the most beautiful imagery that you’ll see on the big screen this year.  The gore and horrifying scares are only in here to give this film it’s character as a horror flick.  And while not every idea or design hits it’s mark, like the less then effective CGI, the movie will still have enough for everyone to enjoy.  It has some effectively creepy atmosphere, some really standout performances, and also a surprisingly macabre sense of humor, which is another trademark of Guillermo del Toro’s style.  Compared to the director’s other films, I would say that this is a very solid exercise in genre film-making and not a particularly game-changing triumph.  It certainly doesn’t resonate as emotionally as Pan’s Labyrinth, but at the same time I don’t think Guillermo was trying to reach that far anyway.  This is his love letter to the ghost stories and horror films that he grew up with and he wanted to bring his own visual style into this kind of tale to see if he could do it justice, and in that regard, I believe he hit his mark.  So, I highly recommend Crimson Peak as a viewing experience, especially if you’re looking for something effectively spooky this Halloween season.  If anything, it’s just refreshing to see a horror movie that doesn’t have to rely on sudden jumps to scare it’s audience and instead relies on the dread of what may lurk around the corner in the shadows.

Rating: 8.5/10