Tusk (2014)

"I became acquainted with a walrus when I was lost at sea."

From Kevin Smith, director of 'Clerks', 'Chasing Amy' and 'Mallrats', comes a film that isn't anything like the aforementioned films...

After a podcaster goes missing in the Canadian woods, his best friend and girlfriend team up with an ex-cop to look for him. 

'Tusk' came out last year and was a film that I had every intention of seeing but somehow managed to forget about until now. After a handful of recommendations I finally got my hands on a copy, not knowing much about the film itself, I was curious to see what was in store. 

What followed is bizarre... Just bizarre. 

'Tusk' is a strange, bizarre, crazy and confusing film. 

For me, when I break it down, it is a film of three distinct parts. The first of which is an interesting, tension filled opening. We have a creepy old house in the middle of the Canadian woods that's inhabited by the mysterious Howard Howe. An eccentric old man who boasts some incredible stories and is, ultimately, a little unsettling. I was admittedly enjoying the opening of this film and quickly settled into the pace and atmosphere that it was going for. It was dark, it was engaging and it had a lot of potential. Kevin Smith is known for his dialogue and I was loving the blend of that interesting dialogue with the unsettling vibe that he was going for. It worked really nicely and felt quite fresh for a horror film. It had funny undertones to it which added a black comedy element to what was already a disturbing set up.

Unfortunately, the second act of this film pushes the boat out without much warning or build up. It falls into a ridiculous realm where we aren't quite sure if we are laughing because it is meant to be funny or just because it's a terrible film. The pace that was so carefully constructed at the beginning goes out the window and it feels erratic.

By the last act of this film, it has ran into the distance and lost us. It's ridiculous and went totally over my head. The film itself is confused, it doesn't quite know if it wants to be a full blown black comedy or a piece of shock cinema. Like a flailing fish trying to escape a Walrus' tusk, it flops haphazardly somewhere in-between. A lot of the actual scripted comedy falls flat on it's face and the horror itself becomes so laughable that you do just that. There's a large cameo from a very well known actor who is just awful. He's such a high value actor that Kevin Smith probably didn't want to yell "cut!" on him through his tiresome and elongated monologues that aren't funny.

The performances, for the most part, were surprisingly good. Michael Parks, who is often referred to as "the world's greatest living actor" by Mr Quentin Tarantino, plays the disturbed Howard Howe. He is totally insane and will seriously spook you with his charming demeanour, elaborate stories and well spoken nature. He manages to reel you in, much like he does with Justin Long's character - Wallace, and you are genuinely interested in the stories he is telling. Like a spider spinning his web, he's grooming his prey, waiting for his opportunity. 

Justin Long plays an asshole podcaster in this film. That's pretty much all you need to know about his character. He does that part well and, for what you do see of his character before it all goes south, he's really believable. Other than the dodgy moustache he's rocking... Sorry but you're no Tom Selleck Mr. Long.

After doing a bit of post-viewing research, I found that it is pretty much just an elaborate piss-take by Kevin Smith. Apparently he heard of an ad that was posted on Gumtree by someone looking for a renter for his large home here in the UK. The house would be rented free of charge under the condition that the inhabitant would have to dress up, in his homemade costume, as a Walrus for two hours of every day. Kevin Smith spoke about this in a podcast and the conversation is a whole lot funnier than the film itself. He asked twitter if he should make a film of it and, bizarrely, he got the green light to make it. The rest is history I suppose.

There are now two sequels planned...

Overall, 'Tusk' is a crazy and ridiculous film that probably shouldn't have even been made. It will make you laugh for all the wrong reasons and is a film that you'll definitely remember. It's shocking, bizarre and totally "out there". 

If you look at this film on any serious level whatsoever then it just crumbles. You have to take it for face value and it is what it is. I think I would lose all credibility giving this film any higher than a 3 purely based on the fact that it's just a ridiculous piece of filmmaking...

Did I enjoy it?

I'm pretty sure I didn't but, don't get me wrong, I had a hell of a laugh while I was watching it but it's just a farce. 

If you're into your B-movie horrors or are just looking for something shocking, a bit weird and confusing then 'Tusk' is definitely a film you need to sink your tusks into.

You'll be a Walrus... Or not at all.

Steve Jobs (2015)

"We will know soon enough if you are Leonardo da Vinci 

or just think you are."

I wrote this review on my Mac. 
Steve jobs... You've done your job.

We are taken backstage with Steve Jobs as he launches three of his most iconic products and discover the man behind the digital revolution.

Being a massive fan of Michael Fassbender, somewhat interested in Danny Boyle's films and obviously a huge apple user, I thought this film could be interesting.

Steve Jobs is a man that has been forever shrouded in secrecy and he now gets the film he deserves as we dive into his hectic life before he died.
'Steve Jobs' is split into 3 distinct acts and it all takes place backstage during three of his career defining product launches. It covers his ambitious beginnings and how he ultimately built his apple empire. 

Casting is always a very important aspect of any biographical film. If you don't believe that the person you are watching is the person the film is about then it just becomes like a reconstruction in a documentary. Thankfully they cast well in Michael Fassbender as he does a fantastic job of portraying Steve Jobs. From the way he moves, talks and looks, he's Steve Jobs through and through. The moment he donned the black turtleneck and round rimmed glasses I was sold. Alongside Danny Boyle, he manages to convey the man as we all know him but we then get a detailed look into what his personal life was like too. He was clearly a genius but he was also a very troubled man, we see all the negatives with the positives as we discover the man behind the products.

The structure of the film is a strange one and does slightly throw you off. As it all is set backstage at his product launches, it can feel slightly repetitive at times. It is an interesting point of view and is unconventional in many ways but wasn't the most engaging way to tell his story. It clearly shows the progression of the apple products but, more importantly, shows the progression in Steve Jobs himself. We are taken through the 3 defining moments in his career and obviously see him changed by these three moments, which was intriguing and informative. 

I did want to see more of his method and his genius in a practical scenario. The film generally focuses on his products after he's done all the ingenious work, which was fine, but I found the most entertaining sections of the movie were when you saw him in action. It was more about the man behind the products so does it make me a bad person because I wanted less of that? It had some "soap opera" qualities that were a little tiresome but, on the whole, it does a solid job in giving us an insight into his life outside of Apple and how, in turn, Apple affected his life.

Some big names made appearances which meant for a good supporting cast. From Kate Winslet to Jeff Daniels and a pretty large role for Seth Rogen, they all hold up the film under Michael Fassbender's intense and gripping performance. 

'Steve Jobs' does a good job in conveying Steve Jobs' thought process, his attention to detail and his philosophy for the company. You can see how the man was hard to work with but also how brilliant he really was. It explores some very interesting themes and ideas alongside opening up who Steve Jobs really was. Apple has taken over the world and it's easy to see why with Steve Jobs at the helm.

So, overall, did I enjoy 'Steve Jobs'?

In all honesty, I don't think I did.

However, is it a good movie?

Yes, it definitely is.

This is a strange and confusing way to feel about a film. I didn't enjoy it and I don't think I'd watch it again but it's a film that I'd recommend you see.
It's not without its faults but, on the whole, it's a very informative film about one of the great modern minds of our time.

Thanks Mr. Jobs for all the cool apple stuff!

Kill Your Friends (2015)

"At some point in the coming year, one of us will be fired. 

I have no intention of it being me."

Someone's clearly seen 'American Psycho'...

An A&R man working at the height of the Britpop music craze goes to extreme lengths to find the next hit record.  

I'm all up for a bit of dark humour, bleak philosophy and shocking visuals, all of which 'Kill Your Friends' doesn't really have. 

Imagine a really bad rip off of 'American Psycho' and 'The Wolf of Wall Street' set in London and you'll have 'Kill Your Friends'.

Based on the critically acclaimed novel by Scottish writer John Niven, the film centres around Stelfox, played by Nicholas Hoult (AKA the boy from 'About a boy', which is a role I don't think he'll ever shake), and is set in late 90's London. The Britpop scene is massive and record labels are stumbling over one another to try and secure the next UK, or International, hit record. This alone sounds like an extremely compelling film that could definitely go somewhere. There's an attempt at bleak and satirical humour with a dark outlook on the music industry which, ultimately, should have been more interesting than it was. 

For me, the film's main issue is that it is totally unoriginal. Whiffs of other films are ever-present in this badly executed rip off of 'American Psycho' with Nicholas Hoult giving his best Leonardo Di Caprio impression from 'The Wolf of Wall Street'. Talking to the camera with "shocking" statements and dark humour has been so over done that it really takes a special performance alongside some fantastic writing to pull it off. Unfortunately, Nicholas Hoult doesn't have the acting chops to deliver the lines and the rest falls into the pitfalls of cringe worthy clichés with a director that is trying to shock and be different. 

The film is way too long. The first half is the better half of the film, there's more of the subtle advances and plays that Stelfox makes as he tries to work his way to the top of the label but the second half falls into obscurity and pantomime. It becomes so unbelievable and so ridiculous even for a film that is based so far outside the boundaries of realism. 

It explores the allure of power and the corruption that money can bring but we are battered over the head with the message of the film. Ideas and concepts that have been explored more eloquently in other films are ushered down our throats as if being fed to an infant and we do end up gagging on them.

I thought a lot of what was being said about the music industry was true but it tries to push it to the extremes and then goes too far. It makes some valid points but, in the end, feels a little too much like someone trying to be clever and "against the grain" for the sake of it. It's bleak and depressing outlook on life and art becomes tiresome and the film turns into a rant. Relatively new director Owen Harris goes for it but doesn't pull it off. He clearly has some potential but just not with this film unfortunately.

Films that feature generally despicable characters as their lead walk on a very thin line with the audience. If a lead character isn't relatable or likeable it's hard for the audience to get on board with that lead, so the character must be extremely interesting to make us want to watch on. 'American Psycho' hits the nail on the head with Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman, he's not the type of character that you should like but, somehow, you can't stop watching him. He's fascinating and his philosophies enthral the viewer and we want to see more. Jordan Belford in 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is both fascinating and funny which keeps us on the right side of that line. Unfortunately 'Kill Your Friends' can't keep us on that line and we drift further and further away from Stelfox. He's amoral, violent, cynical and unlikeable so is he interesting? 

No, he's pretty dull to watch.

Is he funny? 

He tries to be... About 90% of his little rants and quips to the camera don't land the way they should.

Towards the end, we're tired of him and the film itself. It becomes more and more excessive but it just feels desperate and immature. It lacks the sophistication of the films that it is ripping off and fails to engage us. It attempts to make us agree with it's bleak outlook but we're long gone by that point. 

Overall, 'Kill Your Friends' is unoriginal, tiresome, terribly executed and, in all honesty, badly acted.

Like an unwanted gift at Christmas, this film is simply a combination of different films that have been repackaged in an attempt to make us forget that we have already seen it. It poorly imitates them and fails to come up with something original. 

Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015)

"All right, scouts. 

Let's kick some zombie ass!"

Scouts Guide to tits, gore and fart jokes.

After the zombie apocalypse arrives, three young scouts discover the true meaning of friendship as they fight to save their town from the impending doom.

'Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse' promises a lot with the wild and entertaining premise but doesn't quite deliver on all the levels that you'd expect.

I went in to this film with a relatively open mind. I hadn't seen the trailer and, admittedly, judged a book by it's cover and went in on a whim based on the old grindhouse style poster. 

It kicks off with three stereotypically misfitted friends who are still in the scouts, despite being in high school. You've got the relatable one, the foul mouthed one and the goofy one and that's just about all you really need to know. The zombie apocalypse breaks out and the young scouts must use all of their training to save themselves and those they care about. 

It sounds like it should be a lot of fun right? 

You'd sort of be right. 

I wasn't expecting a lot from this film and, with that state of mind, I wasn't particularly disappointed. There's gore and ridiculous zombie kills and that is exactly what you'd expect in a zombie horror/comedy, which was fun, but in terms of the actual story and the film itself? It's relatively bland.

The film had a lot of potential but squanders it. I was hoping for a lot more of the scouts and how their training comes in to play with how they cope with the apocalypse. That side of the film would have been a lot more interesting but that doesn't really come in to play until literally the very end scenes. There's so much build up to the actual show down that the rest of the film lags behind and we begin to lose interest. 

Granted, the zombie apocalypse that they depict in the film would be a blast but they just don't capitalise on all the possibilities. You've got all that scout training at your disposal with a lot of breathing room for some great zombie moments but most of the time is spent around  the "puppy love" storyline and too much build up. I wanted to see more badass zombie survival skills with some more action to balance out the pretty mediocre plot but, unfortunately, you're left a little cold at the end. I'd have loved it to have been more of a 'Home Alone' with zombies scenario but that's not the world we live in... But hey, what about that for a movie premise?

I did like the message and what it was aiming for with the three best friends. It concentrates on their friendship and the fear of growing up, while still managing to have a little fun with it too. The characters are your run-of-the-mill teens but the heart of the film was in the right place. 

When the humour wasn't overly immature there were some really funny moments that had me laughing out loud. The scenes with David Kouchner from 'Anchorman' as Scout Leader Rogers were particularly funny but that's expected with his comedy background.

It's definitely a film for young teenage boys to enjoy. Plenty of girls, gore and swearing, which is fine when you're 14, but it gets a little tiresome without much else going for it. I was hoping for a horror/comedy along the lines of 'Shaun of the Dead' but it was just your pretty bog standard toilet humour. I love a good fart joke as much as the next guy but it's a very immature film so, if that's not your thing, then I wouldn't recommend 'Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse'.

Overall, 'Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse' had a lot of potential but isn't as good as you'd expect. It falls short of the expectations of the genre with a lot of pre-pubescent humour and mild zombie gore. It has some laughs but, on a whole, leaves you with a forgettable horror/comedy. 

It feels like a student short film that's been stretched to a feature when it should have been left alone.

Such a wasted opportunity for what could have been a really funny zombie comedy.

A good film to switch your brain off to but not one that you'll remember.

"What are you, the Taliban?"

Yeah, that's a joke from the film... *Sighs*.

Spectre (2015)

"You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond."

What year is it?

Are we back in the 60's?

I think it's time to send James Bond... Back to the future! 

A cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a mission to uncover the mysterious organisation known as SPECTRE.

As I sit and write this review, I find myself at a loss for words. I can't help but reminisce about the glorious 'Casino Royale', I try to forget about 'Quantum of Solace' and I now laugh at my eager assumption that 'Spectre' was going to be better than the passable and somewhat overrated 'Skyfall'.

We are now lumped with 'Spectre', a film that can only be described as grey. I think it's finally time to admit defeat old chum and hang up the Daniel Craig bond films that unfortunately peaked with the first entry - 'Casino Royale'.

We begin the farcical journey into Bond 24 with Sam Smith's 'Writing's on the Wall' which can only be described as a winners single from the X factor. The traditional opening sequences are meant to be short, unique and artistic precursors to give us the style and the feel of the movie ahead. Unfortunately, the opening credit sequence does exactly that and gives us the precise style and feel of the movie ahead... It's pretty dull.

The film has a hopeful opening featuring the impressive "Day of the Dead" festival in Mexico and had all the makings of a classic Bond set up. Unfortunately, things went south too quick for me to even give it the benefit of the doubt. Terrible CGI mixed with a horrendous fight sequence set me on the back foot for the rest of the opening. 

What follows is a boring, generic and unoriginal bond rip off that feels lazy. From Daniel Craig's half hearted performance as an old and sluggish James Bond to the story itself which was the most cliche ridden script I've had to endure in quite some time.

Daniel Craig looks tired and uninterested throughout the entire film. His take on Bond in 'Casino Royale' was fresh and exciting. He had all the charm that Bond should have with a hell of a lot more power and ferocity that the other Bonds lacked. In 'Spectre' he's now a characterless bore who honestly looks like he wished he was somewhere else. I was hoping that they'd kill off Bond, not for some unexpected and controversial twist but rather because I was bored of watching him. 

Christoph Waltz plays exactly the villain that you'd expect when you think of Christoph Waltz playing a Bond villain. Complete with fluffy white cat, shoulder pads and an evil lair of course. For being one of the top actors in cinema recently, I was extremely let down that they didn't utilise his talent more than playing a cardboard cutout of a villain that belongs in the 60's. 

The film was praised for having Bond chasing an "older woman" (more a woman of Bond's age as Daniel Craig put it in an interview) which I was curious to see but she is in it for all of 5 minutes and serves little to no purpose other than to have Bond practically force himself on her. Combine this with an abysmal female character such as Léa Seydoux as Madeleine Swann, who is not much more than a piece of meat, and we have successfully taken an uncomfortable ride back in time. Although this isn't an adventure filled journey to Hill Valley, no this is a stroll back to a period where women belonged in the kitchen and men would fantasise about being a secret agent having sex with numerous interchangeable women. It's shocking that a script like this was passed with such blatant and out of date sexism. I thought Bond was modern and up to date after 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' but it appears I was mistaken. Why must tradition dictate how the Bond films progress when a lot of the traditions are out of date and, to put it simply, a bit silly. The love story between Bond and Madeleine is totally forced and over the top to the point that it almost felt like a Disney film romance where they decide to get married after half an hour of knowing each other.

If this is a film that is meant to be a return to "classic Bond" then I fear for what could possibly be next in the lingering franchise.

James Bond is meant to be fun, exhilarating, action packed and full of adventure but 'Spectre' seems to moan and groan its way through to get to the end. When we finally arrive to a grinding halt at the last stop on this rickety train ride, the ludicrous finale makes us sigh and be thankful that the lights go up in the cinema. 

In a James Bond film, it's taken as a given that you have to suspend belief to a point and that is actually part of the fun of the James Bond world. However, 'Spectre' asks too much of the audience's willingness and ability to overlook the believability of the film.

Overall, the whole film feels like a cheap rip off of James Bond. Bad writing, horrendous characters, dull performances and lazy filmmaking makes 'Spectre' unoriginal, boring and pretty tiresome. Maybe this would have passed in 1950 but we're 65 years on... I think we've progressed slightly since then.

I could honestly forgive all that I've spoken of if 'Spectre' was, at the very least, a bit of fun. 
If it was a little lighter and did the "retro" throwbacks in good humour then I could have at least had an entertaining time with it but it's the fact that it takes itself so seriously is one of the main contributing factors of its downfall.

While this is simply my own opinion on the film, I fear my 'Back to the Future' references won't be enough to pull back some light into what has been a pretty down beat stream of thoughts... 

This is heavy.

Sicario (2015)

"You're asking me how the watch is made. 

For now just keep your eye on the time."

Probably not a film that the Mexican tourist board will be screening any time soon.

An up and coming FBI agent is enlisted by a secretive government task force to combat the war on drugs at the border. 

From the director of 'Prisoners' this seemed like it had the potential to be a really interesting movie and it sort of is? 

It has its flaws but it also has some really excellent filmmaking that takes us deep into some dark places.

Straight from the start, the tone is set for this film. It's a dark and brooding film about the horrors of the war on drugs and the gang violence that is inevitably involved. Emily Blunt as Kate Macer is kicking down doors but not getting anywhere. When the opportunity arises for her to join a government task force to get her teeth sunk into the cartel, she takes it without hesitation. 

The first act of this film is exactly what I was hoping for and expecting from seeing the trailer and knowing director Dennis Villeneuve's work.

It has you on the edge of your seat with a foreboding sense of unease that unsettles and worries you. When you step across the border with Kate Macer you really feel like you're stepping into a foreign and dangerous land, you're experiencing the danger with her and through her. 

The performances in this film are, on the whole, pretty good. Josh Brolin, as always, gives an interesting and measured performance as the task force leader Matt Graver. He is working alongside the mysterious Alejandro, played by Benicio Del Toro, who seems to have an agenda of his own. The combination of these two characters contribute to the main mystery of the plot and compliment Emily Blunt's character very well.

Emily Blunt's character Kate starts off as an intriguing character but, unfortunately, doesn't particularly go anywhere. For being a strong female lead, she's not really that strong and I would argue that she doesnt end up being the lead. She cries a lot in this film. I would have loved to have seen her character stand up for what she believes in but we just sort of lose interest in her towards the end. Disappointing for what could have been a very unique and powerful character. Her character is a very obvious metaphor for an ideals driven government and a failing democracy, which was really interesting, yet I still felt like you needed more from her. 

As we dig a little deeper into the story, things get a little messy and a little off track. The film slows down but not necessarily in a good way. The uneasy sense of dread that was ever present in the first act gets lost in the crossfire of the slow plot. There are some interesting moments that hold the story together but you begin to check your watch around the end. 

The points that the film is trying to make are understandable and compelling but how it goes about it is heavy handed and sometimes a bit in your face. It lacks a lot of subtlety that would have balanced out some of the issues. 

There is a certain shock factor that goes with the film which was effective in some instances but was overused towards the end. It feels a little like shock for shock value's sake but it makes its point and leaves you thinking about it. 

This isn't really a spoiler but one major thing that threw me off was the fact that throughout the whole story you are following Kate Macer's story, you are invested in that character (to an extent) and you are wanting to know how it all ends. Despite this, in the last part of the film the narrative suddenly and completely switches to Benicio Del Toro's character. This throws you off completely and really disappointed me. You've spent the entire film with a relatively dull Emily Blunt and then just when you think it might actually all be worth it? You are given a different characters finale... That's like going through the entire 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy and just when you think you're going to see Frodo get to Mordor... it cuts away.

One major thing I have to point out is that the film is actually shot by the masterful Roger Deakins which is an automatic plus point for any film. The cinematography that is used in 'Sicario' is engrossing and extremely creative. You are pulled into the scenes through the slightly off kilter and unusual cinematography that suits the film to the ground. I wouldn't expect anything less from Roger Deakins. 

Overall, there's a lot that I liked about 'Sicario' but there was also a lot that I didn't like. It features some beautiful cinematography and the makings of some decent tension but, ultimately, slightly let me down in the end. 

On a side note, how about Benicio Del Toro? 'Sin City', 'Che', 'Snatch', 'The Usual Suspects' etc etc...

The guy's a badass. 

Crimson Peak (2015)

"Ghosts are real, that much I know. 
I've seen them all my life..."

A scary ghost story... That's not very scary... And doesn't feature many ghosts.

After a family tragedy, aspiring author Edith Cushing is swept off to a mysterious house by an even more mysterious English gentleman.

'Crimson Peak' features one of the vaguest trailers I've ever seen (which was one of the reasons I was excited to see it) and boasts a haunting story wrapped in a dark and creepy mystery by a visionary director. It all seemed too good to be true... And you know what they say about things that seem too good to be true?

You guessed it.

'Crimson Peak' starts off extremely well with the set up of a great mystery and some interesting(ish) characters. We are oblivious to the answer of the puzzle that the film is presenting and I couldn't wait to get deeper into this classic ghost story with a modern "Del Toro" twist. Unfortunately, 'Crimson Peak' is a classic example of style over substance. Stunning cinematography and creative art design without the story or backbone to support the lavish excesses of the film.

What bothers me most about 'Crimson Peak' is the promise that it makes to the audience which it fails to deliver on. From the trailer and the opening of the film, we are promised a fantastical mystery, haunting ghosts and eccentric drama but we only really get the grand eccentricities without much else. 

Ghosts are few and far between in this film which, for an apparent ghost story, is a let down. The ghosts that we do see are so over the top and CGI ridden that they almost become pantomime. They have no influence on the plot and, by the end, you begin to wonder why they are even really in the film. We are focused more on the love story between the charming gent that is Tom Hiddleston and a forgettable Mia Wasikowska. Despite a few jump scares and a lot of walking down dark candlelit hallways, I struggle to find the poignant significance that the film rests on the ghosts. We are pretty much told in the beginning (through Edith Cushing's writing) that this is a story with ghosts in it, not a ghost story but I was hoping for at least a little bit more purely based on what the film is sold as.

Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain definitely give the best performances in the film as the mysterious Sharpe siblings. Tom Hiddleston as Thomas Sharpe is both charming and repulsive alongside his very unstable and obviously dangerous sister - Lucille. Their sibling dynamic is interesting and holds your interest despite a flat performance by Mia Wasikowska as an equally dull character - Edith Cushing. She plays an ambitious writer who falls hopelessly in love with Mr Hiddleston and is apparently our lead in the film who we feel absolutely nothing for... 

However Jim Beaver gives a short but sweet appearance as Mia Wasikowska's father Carter Cushing. I haven't seen him in anything else before but he gives a solid performance as her nurturing father and we really come to admire his principles and his style.

What has to be said for 'Crimson Peak' is that the cinematography and art design (in true Del Toro style) is beautiful. It is unique and interesting to look at and really creates a whole new world for the viewer. The house itself comes alive and really adds to the mystery of it all, albeit that mystery is a bit of a let down but it's a gorgeous film to look at nonetheless.  The sets are real and have obviously been built which made the film feel alive. This is a principle I wish they had applied to the ghosts and, considering Guillermo Del Toro's practical effect background, I was hoping for more of that.

It is a confusing and convoluted story that boasts a unique plot twist that is a massive disappointment. For the entirety of the film we are wanting to discover what the answer to the mystery is but, at the crucial moment, we don't really care that much. It is a pretty boring and unoriginal "twist" that made my stomach sink. I kept waiting for so much more but it never comes. The violence in the film is deliberate and gratuitous which I think worked extremely well in some scenes but not so well in others. It gets more and more ridiculous by the end and I was totally out of the film by the big finale. 

Overall, 'Crimson Peak' wasn't nearly as great as I was hoping it was going to be. Despite being a beautiful film to look at, it's undeniably a let down. It had all the potential to be a great film but squanders it on a convoluted, benign and dull plot. Guillermo Del Toro gave us 'Pan's Labyrinth' and I was hoping this was going to top that masterpiece but it seems I was expecting too much.

'Crimson Peak' isn't a horror film, I'd say it was more of a gothic romance tale, despite the misleading marketing of the film. I was searching for the deeper meaning and trying to dissect it in a different way because I wanted so much to enjoy this film but, conclusively, it's not scary, it's a bit predictable and feels a little pointless.

I'll still see anything that Guillermo Del Toro releases, he's an interesting and unique director and I think that he's still got a whole lot more to offer but, in this case, definitely on the verge of a misfire with 'Crimson Peak'.