Many hoped and expected Tom Hiddleston to dominate the fall and winter. It’s not happening though. I Saw the Light got pushed back all of a sudden (following terrible reviews on the film festival circuit), and it will be released in one of the deadest movie-dumping grounds next year. High Rise isn’t even being distributed in America. And Crimson Peak has officially sh-t the bed. Poor Tom.
Crimson Peak was never going to be a huge awards-bait film, but people really expected all of Guillermo del Toro’s fanboys to come out and make the film a huge success. Not so much. Crimson Peak is being called a “bomb” and a “flop.” Variety said it “fell flat” at the box office when it debuted, last weekend, with $12.6 million, then it made $5.6 million this past weekend (and came it in #8, which is pretty bad). CP cost $55 million to make, and I would assume that the figure does not include the promotional campaign, which featured some very expensive ad buys and commercials.
Will Crimson Peak at least break even? There’s hope that it will make money internationally, and that it will have some decent word-of-mouth with adult audiences. But for now, Universal’s distribution guy Nick Carpou explains: “This is a challenging play time for adult-oriented films. The film is definitely a throwback to an old-fashioned way of creating atmosphere and layering tension. It’s visually stunning and genuinely creepy.” It also got some bad reviews and most critics, even the generous ones, believe it’s an uneven film. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 68% – not flat-out awful, but disappointing.
There is one piece of good news for Hiddleston and Hiddles’ fans. AMC has picked up the international broadcast rights for The Night Manager. AMC will air TNM in America, of course, and the BBC will air it in the UK. But now AMC is going to take The Night Manager global, which should be interesting. I haven’t heard much about what the miniseries/event is like, but I hope it’s good and I hope Tom can at least prove that he can find success at something other than “being Loki.”
Oh, and Tom is likely in Australia now. That’s where they’re going to film Kong: Skull Island.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
He’ll get more chances. The pretty boys always do (his co-star Thor’s “Blackhat” was a way worse flop and look at him headlining a Ron Howard drama now).
But Kong: Skull Island is so obviously a mistake.
This. If he were a she, his goose would be cooked. Maaaaaybe, he could score small supporting roles but would likely never helm a mid budget studio film again. But luckily he is a boy, he’ll get a few more tries before they give up on him.
^^^THIS!
Nicole Kidman? Angelina Jolie? Reece Witherspoon? Halle Berry? All of them have had l-o-n-g strings of flops at various points and yet they’re all still around because they had those one or two roles that live long enough in the memory to fall back on.
The question is less about gender than whether “Loki” is enough to build a career on.
Just ask un-notable males Taylor Kitsch, Taylor Lautner, Cuba Gooding Jr, Haydn Christensen & Micheal Cera…
So is Mia’s career over?
I would disagree with Tapioca re Nicole, Angelina, etc. They aren’t being offered the main roles in big budget movies and are basically making “indie movies” now.
> Just ask un-notable males Taylor Kitsch, Taylor Lautner, Cuba Gooding Jr, Haydn Christensen & Micheal Cera…
Good point, Hayden Christensen disproves the “pretty boy” theory, Taylor Lautner too.
You don’t get any prettier than them.
Haydn Christensen was personally blamed for ruining the Star Wars franchise (along with George Lucas of course). You don’t come back from something like that. By contrast, no one has blamed Tom for CP’s lukewarm box office; rather, the reviews have complimented his performance.
And are we really comparing Tom with Taylor Lautner? I mean…really?
I disagree about Angelina. She’s coming off the biggest hit of her career (Maleficient) in which she was pretty much the entire film and a huge part of the draw (the other part being the much loved story being retold). But the rest have enough ups and downs to still draw lead roles–Reese had a success and an Oscar nom with Wild (like Angelina she was basically the whole film) and Nicole can put in a hit now and then (Paddington) or make small films which don’t need to break the bank to be successful. She’s rarely in a big budget release where she’s the star. Halle Berry is a better example. She came off the Oscar win into one flop after the other. Has she had a hit film outside of the X Men films since then? Even the TV show failed. And despite the Oscar win (and didn’t she win an Emmy for Dorothy Dandridge?) she’s not really thought of as an Actress like Nicole or Reese. But some females can just ride it out–Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts have both had fallow years in between huge successes. But there are tons of It Girls who have fallen by the wayside.
Please stop comparing Halle Berry to all those white actresses, it’s ridiculous and unfair.
Halle is a black woman (even though she is technically biracial) and does not have the privilege of white skin to protect her or gain any favors.
She gets one shot, and that’s it. She could never bounce back like the others no matter what. Stop acting like she is on equal ground as the others. She is lucky she has made it as far as she has tbh. She’s not even a bad actress in dramatic roles.
@hmph I’m not sure what you are trying to say by bringing up Halle Berry’s race, but she has has had far from one shot. In fact, I think most people would agree that she is one of the exceptions to the hollywood it girl that disappears cliche. She has had an inordinately successful career despite quite a few flops (“Catwoman,” “Perfect Stranger,” “Cloud Atlas,” “Extant”), considering a lot of actresses simply stop booking notable gigs after one or two movies bomb (Alicia Silverstone, Amanda Seyfried?, Hillary Duff, Alexis Bledel)
No-one wanted a new Godzilla film, but that did pretty well. We hadn’t had a good Jurassic Park film for a long time until Jurassic World came along – and that film had multiple writers work on it and a release date move to give the director more time. Hell, I even remember the very sniffy responses to Ken Branagh announcing that he was pulling out of directing Jude Law’s Hamlet to direct a film based on the Thor comic book!
You really can’t judge how well a film is going to do at this stage. I mean, lots of people were convinced that ISTL was going to get awards-love before they’d seen it, based on a short description of it and the distributor.
Pretty boys always get a second chance – you are so right. It also really does show how little internet fans matter when it comes to cold hard cash; even Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper have had some big flops, with another one probably coming up this weekend for Cooper. What Hiddleston does have on his side is the quality of the projects he does, I don’t think there is anyone with such a run of highly rated films, on matacritic he has a career average of 67% which puts him at the top of the Avenengers: Renner (63%), Johansson (61%), RDJ (60%), Ruffalo (59%), Hemsworth (59%), Evans (50%). Lawrence at 65% is the closest I can find to Hiddleston.
> It also really does show how little internet fans matter when it comes to cold hard cash
That is what people keep saying, but fans refuse to listen )). The same happened the Cumberbatch and the Fifth Estate movie, it still flopped regardless of fans going to see it 5 times in a row.
Fans overestimate their own importance big time.
I rather liked the Fifth estate and it had nothing to do with cumberbatch. I must like bad movies. :/
EN
well said.
I think most of the public has no idea who Hiddleston is nor do many care to see a film just because he’s in it. Some Fans really think this guy is a big deal to the movie going public , but imo he’s not.
I put Fassy and Hiddleston in the same category as far as bringing in ticket sales. I just don’t think either has it, enough to sell a film on their own steam. JMO
Whenever I mention Tom Hiddleston to anyone, they’re like, “who?” I mean, Benedict Cumberbatch has WAY more name recognition among the (my) masses. Because whenever I mentioned to my friends (and anyone else, tbh) that I was going to see Hamlet with BC, everyone was like, “Oh, I love him in Sherlock,” or “Ooh, I’m jealous.” Seriously, no one knows who Tom Hiddleston is until I mention Loki and even then their response is sort of meh.
I quite liked the Fifth Estate too Andrea, and I am not a Bendy maniac. I enjoyed Crimson Peak and it’s very disappointing for all concerned that it hasn’t done better at the box office.
I agree about Kong sounding like a huge career mistake. I feel like he did it for a paycheck and hope it doesn’t come back to bite him. I saw Crimson Peak and it was bleh.. The initial trailers looked so spooky and good but the movie was just…..meh. Yes, I’ve said bleh and meh. Even Hiddles couldn’t save it for me. Part of it is Mia because I find her as dry as dust.
Is he going to be the main lead in Skull Island or is it Bree’s character? Because that’s important at this stage of his career. Even if it isn’t a big success, he’s still the headliner of a large scale, popcorn movie. He still needs a lot of mainstream exposure not as Loki.
I think he will get another chance the thing is he not a pretty boy though. He looks distinctly geeky. He’s a good actor but in Hollywood terms he isn’t particularly pretty or handsome in a more macho way. His looks are a throwback to a time when men weren’t expected to be so pretty. He looks like frank Sinatra and those type of movie stars from the 50s
Frank Sinatra was ugly. No amount of blue eyes could change that. He can’t hold a candle to Tom.
Hannah I agree with you. Tom is no ‘pretty boy’. At all. Geeky is definitely a good word to describe his looks (and that is putting it kindly imo).
I’ll take the Frank Sinatra comment as an observation that Tom looks good in period pieces which is very true. And yes he doesn’t look like the typical Hollywood macho leading man. Thank god! That’s Tom’s appeal. He has more refined features with his high cheek bones and piercing eyes, and he’s soo graceful. Yes, definitely not the same old, “winning” American smart-Alic or rugged, intense, jock dude.
Hiddleston a ‘pretty boy’? Not really. And he lacks universal appeal and charisma. He got lucky being cast that Loki character.
Practically every film that opened in the last two weeks is bombing at the box office. Crimson Peak has fared better than Steve Jobs. Should we worry about what’s next for Fassy too?
Anyway, we had a great time at the wedding last weekend and we’re now in Hawaii for the Monkey Movie, where Samuel L. Jackson keeps flashing his nipples at everyone for Men’s Breast Cancer awareness so don’t be surprised if the rest of the cast, including Tom, show up shirtless on Twitter in the next week or two. So, Hawaii, then Australia and other jungle locations for the Monkey Movie.
We’re all established here on the veranda with lots of snacks and beverages. Colin assures me there is plenty of mosquito netting and sun protection for all.
The difference is perception and expectation. Steve Jobs face planted but it was cheaper and with awards buzz will ultimately not be a worry. Crimson Peak was more expensive and therefore carried more box office expectation. Not good for either actor but; Fassbender has the “academy award nominee”, award winning, “talent of a generation hype” that carries him (fairly or unfairly). See also: Hardy, Tom. Hiddleston had a chance this Fall to become more than Loki…and at the end of it he’s still just Loki. He’s got some work to do to break out of that. A great TV show might do it but Kong and Thor will keep him from prestige projects for quite a while. Stock up on booze…
We have plenty of booze, no problem. Fassbender’s career took a long time to take off and has several films that cost a lot and did not fare well. The Counselor was a box office and critical bomb, deservedly so. Most every actor has films on the resume that went nowhere. This all or nothing mentality just isn’t realistic.
Actually, Crimson Peak and Steve Jobs both flopped at exactly the same rate, if you compare their budgets with their first weekend. Jobs was almost half cheaper but it’s BO was also almost half smaller.
If Jobs regains it’s strength (CP won’t) it remains to be seen.
Tom needs to bag *something* that is a.)an unqualified success, and b.) not Loki. He has had some good moments (Hal, Coriolanus), but I take the main point that he really needed at least one of these films to do well. He needs to show the industry that he can carry a film.
What makes me sad is that with ISTL and CP, the problems had nothing to do with him. ISTL especially hurts because he really did throw his guts into that.
What is happening with High Rise? No American distributor? I know reviews were mixed, but they weren’t *that* mixed.
Agree, Miss Jupitero. I don’t feel a lot of optimism for the Monkey Movie being any bigger success than Godzilla was, but perhaps I’m underestimating the interest in the subject matter. I was surprised the Gozilla actually made more than 500 mill. I personally couldn’t care less about KK, but will see it for the actors whose work I enjoy.
Those that enjoyed HR praised it up one side and down the other. I’d think that Wheatley could get someone to distribute the film in the US, even if just through a limited, art-house type release.
ISTL is the one that pains me the most too. I think it was worth it for him to take on such a difficult role and earn the praise that he did. Perhaps when the Hank fans get to see it next Spring, it’ll do better than the critics seemed to suggest that it would.
@MissJupitero, come in off the ledge, darling and have a mimosa or three. The 34 year old George Clooney would have killed to have had a Loki on his resume. Tommy just needs to keep working and he is. There’s some time this spring (March-May) for him to do something small but good before Thor starts filming in June. Marvel now takes 2-3 months for its films so he’ll be available in September for other film of theater projects. He may already have things lined up but unannounced. And I’m looking forward to TNM
@Nutty, I know people who are excited about Kong who have no idea who TH is. Classic movie monsters like Godzilla and Kong have lots of followers
Godzilla, like Pacific Rim, was quite successful in Japan and China. I watched neither PJ’s King Kong nor Godzilla, but if Skull Island is just as good as Godzilla, many people will watch it anyway, dreaming of the final battle between King Kong and Godzilla.
@Lilacflowers, any known details about EH’s wedding? (Like, did Tom stand up for the groom, and did you wear a fascinator or hat?)
Why would he stand up for the groom at his sister’s wedding?
No, I have no details except for the church.
And what a church! If you’ve seen Four Weddings and a Funeral, you know the building. It was the same church where Hugh Grant decided he didn’t really want to marry Duck Face and got clocked for his trouble. An ancient, grand, gorgeous space.
His other sister got married there too.
I thought his other sister was married in India?
I now know the reception was at Old Billingsgate, was gorgeous, and had a big band/small orchestra of at least ten pieces.
who is EH?
Think they may have had a service here too.
EH is Emma his sister.
I actually came across a fan post on tumblr yesterday about seeing Tom at a wedding. Reportedly he had short blond hair. And now I know whose wedding it was.
The fan said the wedding was near St. Paul.
Everybody step aside. Puddle is heading to Australia to film Thor 3 ( or should that be Loki 3?) so I’ll have a serious chat to him about his future career choices.
There is always his excellent theatre work to fall back on, or he can stay home and be a good house husband whilst I work to support us (I’ll even throw in one of those novelty French maid aprons for him to wear)…
The Monkey Movie will be filming in your parts too.
Hmmm yes, but I’m thinking Loki outfit over monkey suit!
I’m hoping Monkey movie involves lots of sweat-drenched khakis.
Sweat-drenched Beige Booty Shorts!
@Lilac, did you see Crimson Peak yet? It hasn’t come to my little town yet, but I’m still excited to see it.
@Mimif, yes, it is corny and predictable with lots of plot holes but beautiful and I did enjoy it despite its flaws.
Late to the party, per usual.
I read Lilac’s post to SecretSquirrel as, “the Monkey Movie will be filming in your PANTS, too.”
LOLOLOL!!!! Now, wouldn’t THAT be something!
“the Monkey Movie will be filming in your PANTS” That could be painful.
I am excited to see Fassy in the Light Between Oceans (loved the book!).
Personally, event though I love Tom, I had no desire to see Crimson Peak. The way he talked about it seemed so try-hard to make it seem like it was an erotic film, but the previews that I saw didn’t show that. Had he talked about the creepiness of it instead, perhaps I would feel differently. (I didn’t see any ads because I don’t watch television. I only saw what y’all posted in articles here about the movie.)
@ Jag
YES. I can even remember when this film was first announced and Cumberbatch was attached to it, the word was all about how erotic and sexy it was going to be. When he dropped out and was replaced with Hiddleston the gossip was that Ben had decided the erotic scenes were going to be to much for his female fanbase and that Tom was the better fit because Aquarius kink and all that. The point is I distinctly remember from its inception there was talk of extreme and unusual eroticism in the movie. Since that was so obviously never, ever true it’s all the more insulting that Tom was trotted out to ratchet up the eroticism/sex/nudity angle. The studio and GDT knew they had a dud on their hands, plain and simple.
I did see the movie. Not good at all. All over the place, predictable, and silly.
I think ‘the word’ you are talking about was pure fan speculation. GDT said it would be ‘kinky’ – anyone who is at all familiar with Gothic romance knew what he meant by that. Some people’s imaginations got a bit carried away!
No-one is quite sure why Cumberbatch pulled out – I’ve heard both the ‘too similar to previous characters’ and ‘scheduling conflicts’ version. I would guess that it actually had something to do with his personal life, and not wanting to be in Toronto over the winter.
I am sure that GDT doesn’t consider the film a dud. He made the film he wanted to make, it just isn’t the film that a lot of people wanted to see.
Yes, maybe fan speculation. But I’m pretty sure GDT knows what “kinky” implies.
I saw only the preview. The preview made the movie look ludicrously ridiculous, like a bad parody of a gothic movie. My spouse and I were both laughing at the preview, as were other people in the theatre. It didn’t help, either, that we were all there for “Straight Out of Compton.” Probably not the target audience to try to lure to “Crimson Peak.”
I still very much want to see this movie.
And I will.
But one of the things I have heard a lot is that this film is a bit hard to nail down as far as genre goes. The die hard horror fans are not going to come out en masse, because it isn’t truly horror. (In so many ways, that is a good thing—-but the reality is that horror these days is so much more hard core and that is what THAT audience expects)
But there is enough gore and creepiness to also keep out a lot of other viewers.
It seems as if it is way more of a traditional Gothic Romance— romance not so much “love story” but more of a drama with suspense, all swoopy, yet eerie.
GDT couldn’t make the film he wanted without spending 55 million, But I wonder if anyone ever expected that there was a 55 million market for something so unique?
I want to see it in the theatre just for the beauty of it alone. But you won’t find 55 million others that want to do that.
Saw it yesterday and was shocked at the inept pacing, and overly-expository speeches. Charlie H was terribly miscast as the amateur detective/doctor/potential suitor. I kept expecting him to say “dude” at the end of each sentence. The ghosts just seemed shoe-horned into the story with no real purpose. The best thing it had going was the gorgeous styling. I’m not a Hiddleston fan (he did well trying to carry the film) but I do love GDT and was massively disappointed. The film should’ve gone full-on supernatural, creepy, sexy but never did.
@ Trillion
Right?? Once glaring example is when the sister makes some threat against Edith and suddenly Thomas growls “JUST STOP IT!” which is supposed to signal to the audience that he has true feelings for Edith and very much wants to protect her from the fate of his previous wives. Trouble is this outburst and the sentiment of love and protection attached to it literally came from out of nowhere. Never at any time up to then does the movie show us anything that indicates Thomas’ feelings for Edith are turning toward love and the desire to protect her. He does end up her protector, but there is no progression of that in the movie. He’s just aloof, distant, conniving, and foreboding one minute while plotting against Edith and then literally in the next random scene he’s growling at his sister to stop her evil machinations. WHAT? There’s no love story here. What there is is the arrogant believe on the part of the filmmakers that the audience is just supposed to “get it” and just accept whatever the movie throws at us — even when it’s throwing conflicting random events and implied emotions at us. It really was infuriating to watch.
P.S. This was only the second time I’ve seen Charlie Hunnam in anything. The first was Pacific Rim. He was equally terrible and miscast in both. I don’t know what this actor is good at.
GDT did say the film was “kinky” but he also said repeatedly very early on that his definition of “kinky” is a lot milder than other people’s and he is not comfortable with a lot of sex/nudity in his films
@Sochan, that’s my issue with the film as well. GDT banked too much on the audience stringing motivations together. It was not edited well.
@Sochan “Never at any time up to then does the movie show us anything that indicates Thomas’ feelings for Edith are turning toward love and the desire to protect her”
Maybe you didn’t watch carefully enough because there were several scenes where Thomas shows signs of sentiment towards Edith. No it’s not overt expressions of love, but the main element and theme of the plot is that of retrained emotions whether they be of fear or desire. I think mainstream audiences might be too used to romantic plots being very central and explicit in movies. In CP the romance is not the central plot, and in those days people would marry spontaneously without much romance if any because it was a necessity of society. So their relationship does work for me on that account.
I can see that Tom and Mia could have better chemistry, maybe. But again GDT never meant to have their romance or feelings for each other be a drawn out plot line. It’s just a convention within the plot to expose what’s lurking under the surface of the characters, what’s tormenting them that they can’t express opening.
erotic film? were you guys watching the same interviews? he talked about gothic romance and bearing his bum. That’s not making it out to be an erotic film.
There is at least one interview where he talked about the “kinky sexuality” at the heart of CP. Some readers took that to mean that it would be somewhat fifty shades of grey.
it goes back to what KTE said. del Torro did say while they were filming about how “kinky” the film was going to be. There were discussions on here about what he meant because one person’s sense of “kinky” is another person “tame.” So, there were a portion of the fan base that ran with the word. Also, during the interviews, it was more Hiddleston than the women playing up the Victorian Gothic romance, which I didn’t even see in the film. The movie was just market wrong and it came out too late.
The thing is, if you’re familiar with gothic romance then you knew what ‘kinky’ was code for. To the extent that one interviewer at comic con flat-out asked Tom about it as her opening question! It’s just that a lot of people aren’t familiar with the genre, and took it to have a different meaning.
Also entirely possible that del Toro intended to show more of the ‘kinky’ stuff, and that some of it went in the edit. He mentioned that some early test audiences reacted to the scene like it was a horror scene rather than a sex scene, so I suspect it was originally more explicit and then was toned down.
I assume kinky was referring to the (spoiler) incest. The Hiddlebum had too small a role IMO.
I saw it last night.
I had a really good time watching it.
It doesn’t surprise me that it didn’t do well and that the promotion felt try-hard, because the movie itself is unique, I think.
The pacing of the film isn’t great, almost like it could have been an extra-long movie or a mini-series, but the sets, the costumes, the actors were all really, really great. Especially the costumes. (I did find it creepy that Tom and Mia’s characters were romantically tied, I thought she looked too young and he too old to look like they had chemistry)
If your local theater has a cheaper day to go to the movies (our theater has $8 movies on Tuesdays) I would highly recommend seeing this movie.
I enjoyed it as well, and I agree, it could have done with more length. Which is odd because I don’t think I’ve ever thought that about a movie.
I agree that it is worth the price of a matinee tix just for the production design, costumes and Chastain.
I found it interesting that due to the lack of character development in Sharpe’s character — which could have ended up on the cutting room floor — Tom was having to explain his character more during interviews. The way he was describing Edith’s effect on Thomas doesn’t come through during the film at all. The turning point of the sex scene at the post office wasn’t very clear either, except that Lucille was very upset to discover he was tapping his wife instead of her. Then, his transition from being complicit in the poisoning of Edith (after killing 4 other wives) to suddenly wanting to save her came off as contrived because it happened so fast.
His character seemed more of a side piece when it could have been fleshed out a bit more with some additional running time, imo. We needed more of the family backstory to help explain Lucille’s murderous side better and give the audience more empathy towards her and Thomas. As it was, I thought they were terrible characters that both needed to die, so not much empathy there.
I think CP could’ve been longer too! More time too develop the drama, especially Tom’s and Mia’s relationship. And less ghosts. Most of those scenes were awkward, with a puddle of special effects plainly visible in the middle of the room. More darkness, more suggestion please. Still, I liked the movie, but as it was it felt oddly cobbled together.
Another vote here for CP being longer! I wonder what got cut out? I remember an interview with Guillermo from earlier this year where he said he screened a different cut of the movie that was 20 minutes longer but he wasn’t happy with it.
I love a movie about women. I think Guillermo did well in creating a story for two opposite leads, with meaty roles.
I fancy a good story. I still have to see it, it comes to my city this Friday.
I suspect I’ll be left wanting a novel, a book created out of the characters.
We saw it today and liked it. del Toro really must like the Disneyland Haunted Mansion, because there were so many little facets to Crimson Peak that reminded us of that attraction. It kind of felt like it could be a back story film for the Haunted Mansion in some ways.
@Ennie, there’s a novelization of the movie out on Amazon.
He’s a white English actor with a posh background. Don’t worry he’ll get countless chances.
This.
There is always BBC.
Indeed. If Hollywood falls through for him after another couple of flops (although I hope he finds something successful), Auntie Beeb and/or London theatre will come through for him for as long as he wants them to.
This is why he needs to keep a steady stream of theatre and Beeb work on his CV. In the end, it may be his most successful work outside of Loki.
I would love to see him land a great TV part — something like a Walter White, Michael Bluth, Greg House — that would allow for some great character development over time and keep him on screens year after year. But I wonder if he’s more interested in having variety in his work, rather than investing in one character over several years.
I’m really looking forward to The Night Manager. I have more hope for that project than anything else he’s done since it’ll draw 15 – 85 year olds. That being said, it’ll draw a large crowd because of the subject matter, not because Loki and House are starring in it.
I’m looking forward to The Night Manager, also.
To be honest, I think most of his eggs are in the Hollywood basket. I think he wants a Hollywood career punctuated by the odd bit of prestige theatre. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s how I see him.
I think all actors need to get with the digital program, though. Looking at all these box office “flops” this week – I don’t think these films are flops. I think cinema is changing, slowly. Soon, we’ll only go to the cinema to see the big effects numbers. Everything else we’ll watch at home. I do that already because I can wait as I’m not an eager-beaver fan of anyone. The distinction between films, TV plays and TV mini series are blurring all the time. And eventually, the non-CGI films will just debut on TVs as PPV or via subscription channels.
“I think cinema is changing, slowly. Soon, we’ll only go to the cinema to see the big effects numbers.”
Sixer, I was just saying the same thing on the Fassy post. We gave up a $60/month cable bill for an $8/month Netflix one and have never looked back. With all the smart US and UK TV shows that are available through streaming and with the success of Beasts of No Nation (3 mill views!), I think we’re seeing why studios aren’t making $$ on most non-blockbuster, sci-fi, superhero, action flicks.
When folks can invest in a big-screen, HD, smart TV with a quality sound system, there are fewer and fewer reasons to go spend $20 at the cinema unless you’re going for the IMAX experience. I’ll stream it for $3 or wait until it comes to Redbox 3 months later and pay $1.50 to rent the DVD.
ETA: Thankfully, my kids are still an at age where I can wait until their films come out at the second-run cinemas so I’m spending $1.50 for the big screen experience instead of $8.
Now the Sixlets are old enough to meet their pals and go to the cinema alone (still have to drop them off and fetch them, however. SIGH), all the films I watch are from the comfort of my sofa. I think da kidz still enjoy it as a social occasion but not so much adults, outside of the crash bang wallop stuff.
Also, TV watersheds have pretty much gone the way of all flesh with the coming of digital so TV doesn’t have the limitations it once did. There are fewer of those 20+ episode per season shows because of this also.
If I were an in-demand actor, I would certainly be including quality TV work in my portfolio. Growing market going forward.
It’s a bit like the declining circulation for newspapers, isn’t it? Culture and information flows are both changing. Participants need to be up with the times.
@Sixer, I agree it appears that Tom is taking aim at Hollywood, but I put a slightly different spin on it and I don’t think he’s aiming for it just because he wants to be a famous Hollywood face. I think it’s a means to an end actually- the more an actor is considered bankable by Hollywood, the more access he has to the really good projects. The studios bury A-list actors in scripts, the ones they say no to eventually trickle down to the guys further down the food chain. I think ultimately Tom wants to be the one saying no to things, rather than trying to grab the best of other people’s leftovers.
@Nutty (@Sixer too), I couldn’t agree more than the nature of television and cinema is changing. I think it’s terrific for the consumer (Overall, I think the quality and variety has never been higher) and will probably be terrific for the industry – as soon as they figure out how to make and market their product in this new age.
@Sixer, I too agree that distribution methods and audience viewing patterns are changing. It will be interesting to see how Beasts of No Nations fares with the likes of AMPAS. Will they embrace it or reject it because of the distribution method, as they did with Snowpiercer? Or will they consider it Emmy worthy but not Oscsar worthy?
Directors, like Jarmusch, have bemoaned recently how difficult it is to get funding for traditional independent fare and then distribution deals are even more limiting.
And studios really need to stop releasing all the decent movies at the same time. I’m a regular moviegoer and have seen most of the recent major releases but I’m already behind in what is out there – probably will need to take a vacation day to see Room-, won’t be able to see anything over the next two weekends, and I know that with SPECTRE, Hunger Games, and Star Wars looming, there won’t be many show times/screens available for the likes of Spotlight, the Danish Girl, Brooklyn, and other films
Sixer, I’m hoping that by the time my kids are Sixlet age, they will party in our basement with the HD TV streaming those newly released films. It’s their gaming/play area currently.
Dara, I have no doubt that online streaming will continue to pick up steam and that Netflix, Hulu, Vudu & Amazon will find a way to make it profitable. Actually, Vudu already has — they offered Slow West when it was in the cinema for $7.99, I recall. Given the choice, many of us will save a few bucks and watch at home in our pjs. I’ll be curious if more studios will be willing to sell the streaming rights to their films to give an alternative to seeing them in the cinema, particularly for their indy films.
While I agree that tv is an emerging gold mine, I still really enjoy the movie experience. And I will not pay $8 to watch something at home when I can pay $1.50 more and see it at the theater. $2 for an at home movie? Yes. $7.99? Hell no.
Agree. I like Hiddles but let’s not pretend like he doesn’t have a huge advantage over many other actresses, POC, and even other non-posh actors like James McAvoy because of his background and public persona. He’ll get chance after chance, just like most of the A-/B+ list posh Brit actors. Kong Island though sounds like a huge mess, people were dropping out and there have been behind the scenes changes several times.
I’m a huge Hiddleston fan, but he doesn’t have an advantage over James Mcavoy, who has been around for far longer, and had consistent success. It’s unlikely that they’re going for the same parts, in the event that they did McAvoy has a spot on RP accent that’s so good people have accused him of being ‘posh’ too, so their respective backgrounds would make little difference.
The ‘posh’ thing really doesn’t make a difference at this stage of an actor’s career, it’s more helpful when trying to get established, if it confers any advantage at all.
Well but that is just it: McAvoy is well anchored in consistent successes, and if he were not, he would not be in the running for anything. Tom will stay in the running for a good long time even if he continues to have flops. He is exceedingly well connected, The posh thing and financial security are both certainly a part of that.
The Skull Island film sounds abysmal. Just the title sounds gimmicky. But who knows, maybe it’ll be one of those films that surprises.
I think the Posh Brit got his foot in the door, but I don’t think it’s enough to keep him there. There are SO MANY Posh Brits with Cheekbones circling around- Eddie and Benedict are the two that come to mind first, that I think Tom does need a solid hit on his resume in order to stay relevant. Otherwise, why go for Hiddles, when you can have someone else who has the accent, cheekbones, and looks just as good in a suit, with a similar acting training/pedigree?
But who knows. I do kind of hope something makes it for him.
How is Tom extremely well connected?
I think there are two separate strands: Hollywood’s appetite for posh Brits will only take Tommy so far. And he probably does need a hit insofar as Hollywood goes, else it will just move on to the next pretty posh Brit. But Tommy’s uber-poshness and social network will give him British work (good theatre, BBC TV) even if Hollywood waves goodbye. My sense is that he wants Hollywood, though, so fingers crossed for a hit.
@ neutral – almost half (45%) of influential TV, film and media people in the UK come from the 7% of the population who were privately educated. The disparity is even greater if you take the 1% from the elite schools and Oxbridge. Tommy’s social network is the strongest indicator of success in the entire UK. We’ve banished a lot of the class distinctions here, but not that tiny network at the top who control all the institutions, I’m afraid.
If he’s well-connected it’s because of his work, not because of his class.
Thanks Sixer, the reason I asked was because I can’t see how he is better connected in the industry than others, so I probably didn’t explain myself very clearly. He did work a good few years before those connections worked for him, and that would be as much because of the work he had already done.
Interesting that Eddie Redmayne, same sort of background but probably richer, couldn’t get a job for a couple of years after Les Mis, made Jupiter Ascending which was a disaster and his performance was criticised, then hit the jackpot with the role of a lifetime.
@KTE
Sixer is sort of right
Many of the British directors you mentioned came from the same privately educated schools as Tom They went to eton and Harrow followed by Oxbridge or Bristol. A few years ago my friend worked for a film company as an intern every single person there came from Oxford or Cambridge apart from him. Every single person
Ever wondered why Tom Hollander was cast in so many Mendes movies and plays? They went to Cambridge together. This is how the British film industry works and it’s I suppose part of he reason so many of the actors right now are posh. People like to work with likeminded people.
As someone has previously pointed out, Tom Hiddleston is a company man. He’ll always land on his feet.
@ Hannah
Quite. This is what I meant about two strands in my earlier comment. If Hollywood goes off Tommy and casts him adrift (although I agree with Lilac et al that we’re a long way off that yet) – he will not end up workless, thanks to that social network. Worst case scenario: he pops up at a theatre company as artistic director. Most likely: he gets seasons at the RSC, Auntie puts him in every other big ticket classics adaptation, etc etc etc.
So, we have a hugely talented, attractive, charismatic, intelligent actor with a proven track record on stage and screen and notable work ethic – who has a particular gift for interpreting Shakespeare – and his success, past and future is being attributed to his class background and ‘social network’.
I can’t be the only one who thinks it’s a bit weird, can I?
Nobody’s saying he’s not talented, KTE. People are saying that middle-to-highbrow culture, along with politics, law, media, and most other main institutions in the UK, are dominated by a very narrow gene pool and nepotistic social network, to which Tom Hiddleston very firmly belongs. And for that reason, he is unlikely to ever become unemployed in the UK in his chosen field, whether Hollywood kicks him into touch or not.
KTE, you hit the nail right on the head.
It’s got to be a Brit thing, you guys talk so much about class, though actors and actresses who came from well to do family isn’t a phenomenon only happen in UK. But it seems only the Brits talk about it all the time. And they particularly like to reduce the likes of Cumberbatch, Hiddleston, Redmayne by simply attributing their success (if they have any) to gene pool plus nepotism and nothing else. Now I wonder why is Lawrence Fox who grows up in a well to do very famous acting family not equally successful if talents and hardwork don’t matter, when only money and connection are all that counts. Not denying that life isn’t much easier when you aren’t struggle to make ends meet, only saying that being from a well-to-do family isn’t the only reason some people are doing better than others.
Agree 100%, it is easy to be brave when you have a safety net and there will always be some chum to give him a helping hand if he needs it. Is he the one who use to play rugger with Prince William?
I don’t think the fact that he was at school, the year above William has had any effect on his career, given that I doubt they met between him leaving Eton and the premiere of War Horse.
No-one gives someone a job, in theatre or TV, solely because of their social class or what school they went to. You do need to prove yourself, through work. Where class and school background help is getting you in the right place at the right time to get that work, with a financial safety net to support you while you’re trying to find your first job.
At this stage in his career it’s irrelevant. Tom will not lack for stage offers because the last production he starred in got him nominated for an Olivier and won him the Evening Standard award. He is famous, which sells tickets – not $50 million worth of tickets, true, but theatre costs a lot less than that!
He *is* well connected, but that’s because he has worked for and with some of the powerhouse directors in recent theatrical history – Sam Mendes, Danny Boyle, Richard Eyre, Michael Grandage, and (of course) Ken Branagh, with Thea Sharrock and Josie Rourke up and coming. None of those people hired him because of his class or social connections, they hired him because they’d seen him do good work. They’ll hire him again because they enjoyed working with him and their previous projects with him were successful.
James McAvoy shares a lot of those connections with him, even though he comes from a totally different class background, because they come from working in theatre.
I actually think that one of the reasons that so many british actors are doing well at the moment is that so many british directors who started out in theatre have crossed successfully into TV and film work. Just look at the actors that Sam Mendes has cast in his Bond films because he has worked with them on stage.
Sam mendes is a prime example of a posh director. People do get jobs because of connections. Paltrow, the gyllenhalls to name a few. Sure you have to have some level of acting ability but it sure makes it easier.
You have no idea how difficult it is to even get through the door for most actors. They can’t even get seen for stuff. It sure helps to have someone in your corner.
“You have no idea how difficult it is to even get through the door for most actors. They can’t even get seen for stuff. It sure helps to have someone in your corner.”
This. No, the vast majority don’t have any idea of this business, how it works and for how many it actually doesn’t work at all. Connections are huge in artistic fields. Much bigger than in any other field. One word can get you an audition and from there you can actually show your talent. But for the thousands of actors without such a chance, it’s a dead end street. No one ever discusses the number of professionally trained actors who give up each year because they can’t afford to not have a job any longer and switch to other professions, despite their love for acting, and with many – their talent. It’s who you know. That’s the harsh truth.
I don’t get the hype with Tom Hiddleston. I don’t think he’s pretty or handsome, just sort of nerdy in a pleasant way. He seems more nerdy looking, like Chris Martin.
……….On a separate note At least Hiddleston’s film made more than The JOBS film….How about the news the The Steve Jobs movie starring ( the other actor ,can’t remember his name right now )also bombed. I found that especially funny after that actor talked about Ashton Kutcher. Ashton Kutcher’s Jobs film made about the same amount as this new JOBS film on opening weekend and this new JOBS film was in more theaters.
Well… The difference is that Fassbender will be nominated for an Oscar and Jobs didn’t have a budget of 50 Mio….
No,but the real Steve jobs had a huge following, which make me think that all the apple worshipped couldn’t face the idea of a fassy playing the controversial genius
I don’t get the Hiddleston hype either…I think nerdy in a pleasant way is the best way to describe him. I think he’ll probably find more success in the long run with a great cable series then a leading man roles. But, he’s a white guy, he’ll get plenty of chances just like the Hemsworth brothers do, the Chris Evans and Pine, Fassbender who also cannot open a movie outside of X-Men which is an ensemble, Ryan Gosling and so many others.
I don’t think it is necessarily a good thing that I Saw the Light was moved to March and I’m real iffy on the success of Kong: Skull Island.
I came to realize that Hiddleston shines as a part of a group. He plays off the other actors nicely, he completes them and himself.
But by himself – no, he lacks the pull. I don’t know if it is possible to develop it, but as of now he can’t be just by himself on screen like the best leading men.
He is very attractive, but he is not Jude Law, and I scratch my head when people describe him as a hunk. I think he shines because of his personality and charm. Who doesn’t like that? But is it enough to carry him as a lead actor? I have my doubts.
EN did you see him in Corilanus?
> EN did you see him in Corilanus?
I saw a preview before Hamlet, and I was disappointed. He didn’t center the attention on himself the way you would expect a lead to do. And I thought the whole leather thing was silly. I still saw a posh Brit dressed as a warrior, sorry.
I’ll still go and see it if it is broadcast here ( it wasn’t when it came out) since I am fan of the theater , of any kind. But that preview didn’t do him any favors.
I think Tom would be great at playing intellectuals and nerdy/ uptight people – scientists, philosophers, spies, detectives, aristocrats, officers. That sort of thing. That is just how he comes across on screen, there is a tiny hint of doubt about himself that come across and so he can’t play macho ape leader types like RDJ.
He is incredibly charismatic in Coriolanus. And quite “macho” as well. My friend who saw it with me the first time it was screened, and is not the smitten TH fan that I (admittedly) am, remarked that you couldn’t take your eyes off him when he was on stage.
EN ennui is right about Coriolanus (spelled it right this time!). He was as macho as anything in Coriolanus and his who performance was great. Totally different from his Loki acting.
> And quite “macho” as well.
Well, he was trying to be. Maybe the fact that I knew he was played a trick on me.
Tom’s Coriolanus was extremely macho.
@EN, I’m going to echo what @ennui and @neutral have said. Coriolanus blew my socks off. The second time I saw it I was with two Shakespeare-loving friends (who had zero idea who Tom is) and they both thought he had magnetism and charisma to spare – and a surprising ability to translate the language for modern audiences. The true drama geek – she has performed Shakespeare in local theaters – was particularly impressed by almost everyone in the cast.
It took me a minute to get used to seeing a play projected on a movie screen – there’s an intensity to the performances that is different from a standard film – but once I adjusted to that, I was transfixed. If Coriolanus is typical of top-tier London theater both in quality of acting and production value, I am beyond jealous. Even though I’ve seen some very good productions here locally, there is just no comparison.
@EN, Caius Martius Coriolanus is a member of the ancient Roman Patrician class. That class earned political power through military service. So, the character is both ‘posh’ and a warrior. The idea that you can’t be upper class and ‘macho’ or a warrior is decidedly modern!
He is meant to be posh, entitled and arrogant in the play, as well as a supreme warrior. He wants to deny the plebeians political power because he thinks they are not worthy of it, because they are craftsmen rather than warriors, and he thinks they are all cowards.
> @EN, Caius Martius Coriolanus is a member of the ancient Roman Patrician class. That class earned political power through military service. So, the character is both ‘posh’ and a warrior. The idea that you can’t be upper class and ‘macho’ or a warrior is decidedly modern!
Well, I am a bit of a history buff and I am familiar with the concept of a philosopher-warrior like Marcus Aurelius or Germanicus or even Alexander the Great. And Tom wasn’t that . But then Joaquin wasn’t convincing enough as a Roman Emperor for me either. So , may be it is me.
Coriolanus is meant to be portrayed as extremely brave but not a very nice person. And totally unsuited to being a politician which was, of course, his downfall.
> EN did you see him in Corilanus?
I saw a preview before Hamlet, and I was disappointed.
So you saw the trailer and draw your conclusion?
> So you saw the trailer and draw your conclusion?
That is all they were showing. And that is what the trailers are for, to make people interested and have an idea what it is about.
I think they are going to broadcast and Encore in February, then I’ll see it.
Charisma and talent.
It is not a good year for Fassbender. I always thought Steve Jobs was too big of a risk for him. Jobs is a very divisive character, then there was already one Jobs flop, Fassbender looks nothing like Jobs and it is jarring, and on top of Fassbender is not American, how is his accent in that movie?
Though, accent is probably not an issue either way. I think the issue was his looks and that nobody wanted to see a boring Jobs biopic. They should’ve made Jobs in the villain he was, then it would’ve done OK.
Macbeth also seems to be a dud. I’ve seen the trailer and both Fassbender and Marion are uninspiring. The scenery is beautiful though.
Having said all of that, Fassbender has proven himself as an actor in Hollywood. Maybe not as a leading man , but still as a strong actor.
Hiddleston is not on the same level. He needs something serious and meaty to carry him. King Kong is not that. Though, hopefully King Kong does well, and if so, Hiddleston will get more chances.
Macbeth would have been better if you could have heard what Fassy and Cotillard were saying.
I know people haven’t seen HR and ISTL but Hiddleston definitely is a strong actor in both. One is great for him to chew on and the other is a great showcase for his quieter acting.
I liked Macbeth very much. In fact, I was deeply disturbed by the movie which is good. Rarely a movie manages to disturb me. Both leading actors did an excellent job, imo.
I also don’t think he’s pretty. Chris Martin is a good comparison. I honestly think it’s a mistake to market him as a leading man. He should have built up a portifolio as 2nd or 3rd lead in top tier movies instead.
Doesn’t it rather depend on what he got offered? And we don’t know that.
He’s the leading man in CP which is a female centric film. That’s not the same as being the “leading man” in terms of being the protagonist of a film. ISTL is his only lead role in a film (besides Archipelago in UK), and it’s a small independent film. So he’s been 2nd or 3rd lead in most things he’s done so far except HC and Coriolanus which again was mostly seen by UK audiences.
This is the conundrum of Tom, he’s pretty famous for an actor that’s not been the lead in any substantial films (even be it mostly internet fame). I think this is why he’s doing SI. It gets him exposure as the lead of a big film even if it’s just a 2nd or 3rd tier movie. It might not be the best move for him, but it makes since to start placing him in big film leads while he’s got a large, hungry fan base.
I don’t unterstand why everyone cares so much about Rotten Tomatoes or whatever that site is called. I checked and you know which Tom movie has the best reviews? ARCHIPELAGO… I was shocked. I fell asleep while watching that movie. The reviews for CP are not bad. They are average and totally okay. Besides why a flop? No one expected more. I certainly didn’t. Why is everyone so panicking about his career? It is laughable. Talking about getting more clicks I guess…. He is doing fine.
Everyone isn’t in a panic. But some believe that Tom’s career is in a constant downward spiral and he’ll never work again, despite consistent good reviews for his performances and the fact that he has projects lined up. Come, have some breakfast on the peaceful veranda and watch the fray fret and fight it out.
But that is laughable. He is working for two franchises now. Kong will be very expensive and they will distribute the movie worldwide. He has Marvel. He has TNM. He will always have BBC. And may be he will suprise us soon again…. I will join you on your veranda… People all should take a chill pill…#### his movie choices…. I wish he would find a decent chic and look at HER like a puppy on the carpet….haha 😂
I’ve said this before, I think Tom’s taste in films is rather at odds with his Marvel fanbase. He likes making small, independent, interesting films that appeal to a certain kind of intellectual film critic, rather than to mainstream audiences. Hence The Deep Blue Sea, Archipelago, High Rise – even Crimson Peak fits into that mould. People need to stop expecting his every film to be a massive box office hit.
Honestly, the indie and artsy stud is the best way to break free of the marvel stuff and hopefully the nutters in the fandom. I hope he does more like that after the franchises are done. I’m not worried about his career atm. He has plenty to offer.
For myself, I wish he would just throw himself into these indies and say goodbye to big tent films. But this is not what he wants.
Actors need big films om their filmography in order to go on with indies. Especially actors who can not produce or direct their own ones. But I think he wanted to do King Kong film partly because it is a big franchise action movie and partly because he can run in the jungle like Indiana Jones.
don’t forget OLLA
I think he chose Kong because he’s like a kid in a candy store. He’s always been a huge pop culture geek (his love of Star Wars, Indianna Jones, Ghostbusters, and Jurassic Park is super apparent)
@MissJupitero, but as I said above, many directors are having problems getting financing to make indie projects and when they do get made, distribution is another problem. High-Rise still doesn’t have US distribution. OLLA had a very limited release. Unrelated and Archipelago never had cinema releases in this country and only were available as DVDs or for streaming legally a year ago. Exhibition had an extremely limited distribution and showed in art museums, not art houses but museums. I saw it at the MFA. So, the indie market has some serious drawbacks too
Not everyone is panicking for his career, some are just here because, schadenfreude. The prediction on pro box office website before CP opens was an opening weekend of $14M based on a longer term tracking of 3 months considering many factors before opening. The actual opening weekend was $13.1M, 9.3% less than the long term tracking expected. But some media wrote on opening friday predicting a bigger opening based on one factor, Thursday night previews figure, a half day figure, and they predicted a much higher number and cannot stomach the fact that they are grossly miscalculated and went on to write articles about how the film flops. That’s journalism for you these days.
Good point 👍🏻
Good point +2
Rotten Tomatoes, like MetaCritic, is an aggregator site. The critic ratings can be helpful, especially if it’s a movie you’re sort of on the fence for. But it also has viewer ratings, which can diverge greatly from critic ratings. A lot of the movies that have flopped over the past few weeks, including CP, didn’t have good word of mouth from actual viewers. RT is a guide, not the be all, end all.
It seems the Marvel actors/actresses generally don’t do very well outside of the franchise? Chris Hemsworth bombed with Blackhat; Evans’ Snowpiercer did well with critics but it never broke out into the mainstream thanks to Harvey; RDJ bombed with The Judge (although he still has the Sherlock Holmes franchise I guess); Jeremy Renner’s Bourne movie is a dud; and now Tom joins that list.
Interestingly it is ScarJo who has done fairly well – critically acclaimed performances in Her and Under The Skin (although the latter did poorly at box office), and a commercial success with Lucy. But then again she is a star before her Marvel role.
And Chris Pratt is having commercial success too of course.
SacrJo was a already great actress before she joined Marvel. She is head and shoulders above many of them. Marvel didn’t make her famous, she already was.
That scene with her and Ruffalo at a bar – “a fellow done me wrong”, oh my, it is something else. I loved it and that is where you can see how great she is.
I know people hated the Bruce/Natasha storyline in Avengers 2, but I loved that scene. It made me want to see ScarJo in a screwball comedy.
“Marvel didn’t make her famous, she already was.”
Yes, that’s what I said.
I can’t remember her scene with Ruffalo at the bar unfortunately. Most superhero movies go into and right out of my brain and I can barely remember their plots.
I would add Mark Ruffalo to that list, too. He came in with respect and a good reputation, and outside Marvel he is making good/successful movies. Now You See Me was kind of dumb, but in a fun way, and it ended up being a sleeper hit the year it came it out. He doesn’t make a lot of big movies outside Marvel, but when he does, they do well. I think Spotlight will probably do pretty well when it comes out, based on reviews from festivals and also, that’s a really compelling story. My parents don’t go to the movies often, but they saw an add for Spotlight and were like, “We want to see that, when does it come out?” Generally, if my parents go, the movie ends up doing well. Not to imply that my parents are magical, but more that if a movie entices them, it must have a pretty wide appeal.
People respected him, sure, but he hadn’t had a career success for a long time, pre-Marvel. That was partly due to his health problems and partly because he decided that Hollywood wasn’t the right place for his family to live.
He has talked about this – he pretty much thought his acting career was over.
That’s my point, though. Pre-Marvel, he had the reputation of a good actor who was in Quality Films. Marvel made him known to a wider audience, who have been willing to see him in other movies, like Now You See Me. He’s also continued to do well with smaller/indie movies. I can’t think of a real bomb on his recent resume. But then, he’s also not trying to be a movie star like Hemsworth, Hiddles, Renner, and the some of the others.
Oh yes I forgot about Ruffalo. I’d agree with you he’s done well outside of Marvel, even if he’s not going the movie star route.
Renner does well outside Marvel when it’s a supporting role. American Hustle, Mission Impossible franchise, etc…And they’re still discussing another Bourne movie though I don’t know how that’s progressing given that Matt Damon is back as Bourne now. But he’s got hooks in 2 franchises–MI and Avengers and is a critically acclaimed actor (The Town, The Hurt Locker) in supporting roles so I think he’ll do fine. Same with Mark Ruffalo–they had a lot of cred and some hits (that they didn’t carry) under the belt pre-Avengers. It’s Chris Hemsworth that I think will have the biggest problem moving on since he’s so identified with Thor. Maybe Chris Evans too.
Chris Evans at least doesn’t seem to be pursuing big roles outside Marvel. He isn’t trying to be a movie star (which is convenient, as Marvel is making him one anyway). That goes a long way to limiting exposure to box office bombs because the expectations for smaller, low budget movies is completely different.
We already know what’s next for him – Kong: Skull Island is shooting next, then Thor: Ragnorak. That’s the nice thing about being in the Marvel franchise, as Hemsworth said after Black Hat (which flopped a lot harder than Crimson Peak!).
Both Crimson Peak and High Rise have people who adore them and will be talking about them for years to come – High Rise was never going to be a box office hit as it’s not that type of film. None of Ben Wheatley’s films have had big box office – his work is defiantly anti-mainstream. I guess it sucks for you guys in the US that you won’t get to see it in the cinema, it is getting a UK release next year, though. Crimson Peak may not have found its audience in the cinema but it does succeed on its own terms.
ISTL is the only real disappointment, creatively, as that one had so much potential and really does sound like it failed. Most critics singled out his performance as the best thing about the film, though, so its failure can’t be laid at his feet.
Every actor has the odd dud on their CV. Tommy will be around for a long time to come. The Night Manager’s international sales mean that it’s already a hit, by TV standards, and Marvel films seem to be bullet-proof by this point.
I really hope that TNM will be terrific and more US audience will come to see him differently. HR is a divisive film, but I don’t think being divisive is terrible in itself.
He will be fine. No one is blaming this on the actors, it was the material. I am always baffled that movies will spend a ton of cinematography and directors and special effects but the script is almost an afterthought, when in fact the script will make or break a movie. Take a great cast and a poor scrip, and you get this. Get an average cast and a terrific script and it will elevate even average acting. Also, this movie was just problematic – not really a horror, not really a romance and not really a grown up sexy flick…. It had a limited audience from the start.
You are so right. Most movies fail because of the script. I am often puzzled by how weak and dogmatic some scripts are, for a movie on which billions were spent.
Yes, it makes you wonder where the money went — especially since we’re hearing that the women are grossly under-paid even when they’re in lead roles. In the case of CP the script was so very, very bad. Then our intelligence is insulted because we’re expected to ignore glaring, embarrassing flaws because of TH’s naked butt and some pretty dresses. I was ANGRY sitting in that movie. I was angry over how inexcusably bad a script could be in 2015. After 100 years of movie-making certain lame dialogues and plots should not exist in any movie that expects to be taken seriously.
You can lay that at GDT’s door. He doesn’t care about scripts. He gets an idea and “sees” the movie and runs with it before the script is fully cooked.
+ 1,000
THIS. Exactly. Everyone talks about what a “visionary” GDT is and how much passion he has. But it’s passion for his vision, and his vision is “my way or the highway”. I wonder what it’s like to try to give him advice.
I saw CP at a VIP theatre. $52 for snacks and admission. I never pay that but CP wasn’t playing at a regular theatre. I was so excited to see it! What a waste of $52. I should have waited for Netflix to release it. No, I don’t blame the actors either. Just never got really scary or tense, really. Pretty to look at though.
I had a similar experience, including the snacks! $20 IMAX ticket at 1:00 in the afternoon and I was the ONLY person in the theatre. The movie wasn’t even playing. I had to leave the theatre (which was pitch black) and get staff to start it up. I said, “It’s okay if you want me to see another movie. I don’t mind. It’s just that I have bought food and I don’t want to keep chasing staff to get on with a movie I paid $20 plus food to see on my only day off.” They insisted, “We’re going to put the movie on for you, promise.” It took a total of 15 minutes. Really, really an unpleasant start. So yes, I feel your pain. TOTAL waste of money and time. I would have seen it on Netflix for sure.
I have a funny story to share , about a movie theater. Kind of a similar experience.
So, I came to watch a broadcast of La Traviata. There were like 4 people in the audience, including me.
They start the broadcast, and it is in definitely not La Traviata as it is in French )).
Nobody else bats an eye. I am thinking – ok, I must’ve mixed up something . So we ended up watching Donizetti’s “La fille du regiment”. Fine. I liked it. But the shocking thing is, through all 3 hours none of the other 3 people acted like anything was out of order.
So, I asked the manager later about what happened. And he says – Oh, we couldn’t download La Traviata, so we showed something else.
EN A friend of mine told me only the other day that she and her husband once went to the cinema and sat there, and sat there, and nothing happened until someone went and complained after about 30 minutes. Apparently the projectionist (?) had forgotten to start the film!
@ En and Neutral
The propensity to “wait for someone else to step up” galls me. You shouldn’t have had to go through that. I guess the other 3 people didn’t know what La Traviata was or were fine seeing whatever was shown. Or maybe I’m just too high-strung and should learn to chill and accept whatever is thrown at me.
Um, on second thought … NOPE.
EN you should have asked for your money back!
> EN you should have asked for your money back!
It is no big deal. They actually offered me a showing just for me, but it would have to be during work hours and I couldn’t do it.
And I also couldn’t figure out the other people thought – an opera is an opera, no matter which one ? Or maybe they slept through it all. Odd.
Actually the last time for Othello, one woman dragged in her poor husband with her. He raised the handle bars and slept through it all across 5 seats. )) He should’ve just went and watched Martian next door.
I had the choice to see either this or The Last Witch Hunter. I saw the Last Witch Hunter which wasn’t AS bad as I expected. Then again, I will forever and always have a hollywood crush on Vin Diesel, fat, muscley, whatever, just him talking makes me happy.
And The Last Witch Hunter flopped really hard, yet Diesel will continue to get work too.
He produces and throws a lot of his own money behind things like his video game studio so if it flops, it’s on his dime which I’m ok with. And Elijah Wood, Micheal Cain, and Rose Leslie are probably going to find work again too and they were in the movie.
Yes, they will all continue to work steadily with some successes, some failures, and some things that just do okay. It is the nature of the business. Caine has Jaws The Revenge, Blame it on Rio, and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure on his resume and was admittedly just taking parts for the paycheck for a while but he’ll always work – as he should.
I don’t think this is on Tom Hiddleston. The film just seems to muddle too many genres together. The horror aspect alienated this period film fan. The Marvel nerds would have been put off by the woman (not in bikinis) centric aspect. And probably not enough hideousness for the horror fans.
I totally agree here, the film fell down between two markets. Not enough horror for GDT fans and it would never of appealed to the HellBoy/Pacific Rim Marvel fan-boy crowd. As for the fan girls, Loki crowd, yes they are the ones who are loving it and watching it. [sorry for bad stereotyping]
As for moi, i love period dramas, suck them up faster than a camel in a desert. I had to drag my friends to see it, because they thought it was horror. it wasn’t despite me telling them so. So unfortunatley, in the UK especially, the BBC Bronte lovers crowd would havel loved this film and packed in to see it on a sunday afternoon. However, they have been put of by the “horror” that it was initially marketed.
Therefore, in my view…. the Loki /hiddleston fans are saving this movie from tanking even worse. Mia has no fan base, and she is the lead for the film! And, she had no personality in any of PR interviews to carry a mainstream release film – she has no Emma Stone or Emily Blunt spark for bigger films. And, Jessica who had the juiciest character in the film was splitting her promo with Martian and this film. I think, there was too much expectation on Tom to carry this film, when he wasnt the lead and or even joint lead. I remember when they were filming it, the buzz was mroe Charlie’s character being the leading man. Thomas Sharpe was the supporting character, but the marketing has pushed him out to be the lead, but he wasn’t, Mia was and it confused it. The marketing for the film was a mess, as a big a mess as the paragraph i’ve just typed.
And, now, unfortunaltey due to a loooooot of movies coming out. it wont pick up from word of mouth or repeat viewings. i’ve only managed seeing it once 🙁
Hmm, I like him very much but I didn’t expect he would dominate fall and winter. I expected to see him quite often. My humble expectations were : a) Crimson peak would be better than Pacific Rim but not so wonderful as Pan’s Labyrinth. Barely successful at box office; b) High-rise would be as unique as Wheatley’s other works. Limited release in US or go direct to vod; c) ISTL is just as good as Marc Abrahms’s former film, which got about 60 RT. It is worse than I *hoped*.
But I don’t worry much about him. Hollywood people don’t think that he is a big box office drawer from the first, and it is difficult to blame him for the results. In fact few articles did. After hard working 12 months, he didn’t get much as much as he deserves. That’s quite sad, but at least for two or three years, he will get works because he has shown his acting chops and commitment. I don’t know whether Kong will bomb or not, but even in that case, people will talk about whether we need another King Kong movie, rather than Tom’s star power.
Only a handful of diehard fans expect that he will dominate Fall & Winter. Besides the film festivals, no one really know when High-Rise will be shown until not long ago when a UK release date of next year was finally mentioned. ISTL is a small indie even with the buzz which isn’t much in the first place, and CP is a genre film. It is probably disappointing to those few fans who expect too much.
I was always under the assumption that the deluge of Tommy-related promo would be a treat for his fans particularly, because the drought is severe, but it’s not entirely correlated with how much exposure or star power he really has.
To me High Rise was not at the same level as A Field In England, for example. I am a fan of Wheatley’s work, usually, and didn’t like High Rise much. There was something missing. A more personal involvement, kind of, on the director’s side. It felt a bit flat and cheap at times. The book has a strong message, I didn’t see it on the screen.
I’m sorry that High Rise doesn’t have a distribution deal in the US. I liked the book, and was really looking forward to this.
It could still happen
Exactly why I own a Region 2 DVD player.
it will get a deal, but they will wait to see what happens after the UK Spring release. Netflix could hook a US exclusive deal for High Rise.
Plus, the are few poeple complaining about the dog in Crimson Peak, how will they cope watching High Rise :-p
I recall three dog scenes that are flinchy. Poor pooches.
After Netflix bought Beasts of No Nation and gave it to subscribers for free, I wouldn’t be surprised if they or another one of the streaming services picks up HR. No one else may be willing to purchase it for cinema distribution since it’s a niche film with a limited audience.
TIFF has been the biggest market for quite a few years already (it was a few years ago when TIFF left behind two other famous festivals in terms of market deals and has been steadily leading since then). Movies come to TIFF with big hopes as the market part of the festival, which doesn’t always match the show part, offers the highest potential for finding a distributor. High Rise was pulled off from its second showing and didn’t do well at the market. However, these days there are other options – streaming, online, on demand, etc.
Actually, High Rise sold out its first two showings. Not sure why they cancelled the THIRD showing (noon on the 18th) before the festival even began, but sales for that showing were strong before it was cancelled. It likely would have sold out that showing as well. There were quite a few schedule changes before and during TIFF, for what it’s worth. I’m sure the controversy at TIFF affected its distribution in NA.
I will need to see some data as proof that TIFF is the biggest market, otherwise, it’s just talk. When TIFF announced the Platform, it’s been said that they want to make an effort to boost sales title because they have became a festival for high-profile and Oscar baits and not a place for sales. If you look at the sales announcement coming out of festivals like Berlin, Cannes and even Sundance, there are always big and significant deals, not so much for TIFF (I will link some article after this post, don’t want this to get deleted if links are in here.)
TIff is very prestigious no doubt. But it’s a very mainstream festival. High-Rise is niche. Doesn’t mean other opinions besides TIFF don’t matter. High-Rise came out of LFF very well perceived, most buzzed and 3rd in poll of most likely to see. Also did very well in Fantastic Fest where they have 6 shows, the last one was added on the screening day. It was most buzzed there too, in a genre festival and audience are primarily male. The movie is not for the mainstream, rather understandable that distribution is hesitant. It has nothing to do with its quality. Just google High-Rise and read the recent reviews from all over the world, London and other European cities where it has been touring, and you will get a sense of how it is received, more positive than negative. TIFF is just a small portion of all opinions out there.
As promised, some links, hope it won’t get deleted.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/why-the-toronto-film-festival-is-adding-platform-competition-sidebar-20150715
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/tiff/2015/09/19/tiff-sales-deals-elusive-but-hope-looms-knelman.html
http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/london/high-rise-suffragette-top-lff-buzz-chart/5095702.article
https://cclegit.com/top/fantastic_fest
@Totally-Biased, that’s what I heard too. And Wheatley and some members of the cast did Q&A at the second showing at TIFF as well.
Oooohhh, still pissed about CP. I was so looking forward to it. Total disappointment. TH is so talented. I am sure he will continue to get work. Hopefully, he lands something that showcases his skills, cause these last few movies are not doing it.
He is really talented, but I think every actor has movies in their resume´that aren’t so great. The downside to being prolific and working all the time is that when an actor like that is in many movies in a row, the “not so great ones” are really highlighted. Another example: I think Alexander Skarsgard is a pretty decent actor, but remember a couple years ago he was in 4-5 things in a row and none of them turned out to be very good. It was highlighted more because they were piled on top of each other. Daniel Day Lewis, on the other hand, mastered the art of spreading his movies out. He works every 5 years or so and just enjoys a life away from the spotlight and the ambitious drive to work all the time. As a result when he does work it’s far superior to what most actors are putting out.
And even DDL has stuff like Eversmile and Stars & Bars on his resume
@LilacFlowers Yes, very true! DDL is not bullet-proof at all. Another fave of mine, Ralph Fiennes, has also done some crap even while his talent and dedication to craft is unquestionable. I think Tom will be fine. I think the best actors are the ones who go away and make a non-celebrity life for themselves and only work when something is truly worthwhile. If more actors refused to take part in garbage, then less garbage would be make. Standards have gotten so, so low for movies.
He’s fantastic in all his films, so I think he’ll be fine. Too bad the reception for them is less than expected.
@Kri
Why not still looking forward to CP? IMO it’s a good movie. After reading user reviews on other sites and even here on CB, I’ve decided not to rely on them if at all. The internet has become a forum for all sorts that just want to trash, troll or just ‘jump on the band wagon’ even when they don’t know much about cinema. CP I think is the victim of all three IMO. There’s been good professional reviews of it. Best to find a critic or two you like or the very few user reviewers that are fair if you’re really on the fence about a film. I knew I wanted to see CP for Tom and GDT’s return to fantasy horror/Gothic Romance, so I didn’t read any reviews before seeing it, and I really liked it as did others that gave it a chance. Not to say that you’d like it as much as I did, but including any flaws, it’s worth seeing on a big screen.
Let’s face it: movies starring men more often than not bomb at the box office. They might want to think twice about making too many male-centered movies.
But Crimson Peak is a female centered movie, not male. I am not sure whether your statement is geared towards C/Peak
Saying that, i want more women leading movies that are not action orientated.
Actually CP’s main characters are Edith and Lucille. Tom’s name is listed third, and rightly so. GdT is much more interested in his female characters and in interviews he seldom mentions Tom’s character. So CP can be another case of the female centered films that did not go well.
Not true at all. Facts and numbers don’t support your statement.
I really wanted to see this, is it a movie that plays better on tv?
No, it is a visual feast. So best in imax if you love any of the actors or period dress, or Del Toro’s art designs.
The costumes and set design are sumptuous and you’ll lose that on TV
Definitely one to be seen on the big screen. I didn’t see it in IMAX, but am glad I saw it in a proper theater.
I don’t get the appeal. He is very overrated in my opinion.
High Rise will probably fare much like “Only Lovers Left Alive”. It will bang around the festival circuit, get released in the Spring in Europe, be in limited release in the US next Fall and then land on DVD and streaming. I think it is going to be a big hit with the indie and cult movie denizens. The movie will help bolster Tom’s cool factor even if it doesn’t add to his box office draw.
Critics have singled him out for praise in all three movies. I have yet to see a review that criticizes his performance. His career is fine.
I wonder if TNM is successful it would help to find a distributor for HR.
Then it would be a marketing error, because Dr Laing has nothing in common with Jonathon Pine except a nice suit and blonde hair.
But, what i do hope, is that TNM will expose Tom to a bigger market and, for once, not with raven hair but in a modern mainstream role.
Penny, what I expect from TNM is exposure, not marketing using a direct comparision. Actually I am wondering whether ISTL and TNM may be out almost simultaneously.
I think HR will follow the OLLA path as well. I, for one, really want to see what Wheatley did with that book
Hoo boy! Only Lovers Left Alive was awwwwful. Just terrible. One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. And I love both Jim J and vampire movies. And watching Tom Hiddleston in movement/talking. But this was so, so, so bad in every conceivable way. The only parts I liked were when Tom’s character (don’t even remember any names!!) would go in disguise to the clinic to pick up blood. HILARIOUS scenes. He was so great in those.
I enjoyed it, rather to my surprise.
I love the film! haha very different tastes. I hate Exhibition though. Terrible.
It was odd because often when I go to the cinema I get the fidgets and start looking at my watch, but with this, which is a slow movie I didn’t.
I don’t mind “slow” movies. I can completely relax and immerse myself in the pace. I am a movie-lover of all kinds – foreign, various different genres, big and small budgets, featuring movie stars or unknowns, you name it. But this was awful. The match of 32-y/o Tom Hiddleston with Tilda Swinton who is 20 years older trying to pull off being lovers was absurd. And she didn’t fit the character in any case. HIS character was boring and uninteresting. Bad wigs. I didn’t care about anything to happened to either one of them. The little sister, played by Mia was annoying and also uninteresting. I only liked the scenes where Vamp Tom went to the clinics. I laughed out loud.
OLLA was a beauty of a film, Tilda & Tom were electric together.
I’m sad for knowing this, but Tom was 31 and Tilda was 51 when they filmed OLLA. I thought they complemented each other. I can see how the film is not for everyone though.
I liked seeing him as a vampire and he and Tilda’s interactions—Mia was boring and annoying, but that was more her character wasn’t it? The movie seemed to drag out a bit, but I wouldn’t mind seeing it again and fast forwarding through the drag on bits.
“They were electric together” OMG! I am genuinely laughing out loud, and not in a mocking way. It is just endlessly fascinating what a wide scope of taste exists among people. I thought they were dreadfully ill-matched and the age difference was such a distraction I couldn’t overlook. On the polar opposite is “they were electric together”. Fascinating! (I’m sincerely not being sarcastic.)
“who is 20 years older trying to pull off being lovers was absurd”, maybe it’s absurd, but it’s a norm when the male star is 20 years old then their female co-star who plays his lover, like Will Smith and Margot Robbie, or Colin Firth and Emma Stone.
I really enjoyed OLLA. I thought Tom and Tilda had great chemistry and while I can see it’s not for everyone, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I loved the humor in the film too. Surprisingly, Mr Balls liked it too and he doesn’t go for the weird stuff usually.
Tilda’s character was supposed to be several thousand years older than Tom’s character.
Loved OLLA and also loved Exhibition, as I do the other Hogg films. A story in which two middle aged people live in a lovely house and nothing much happens Should Be boring but I was riveted and thought it was great. Quite offensive to suggest that no man could fancy a women 20 years older btw. Seen Monica Belluci lately?
I adored Crimson Peak, but it was marketed terribly. It’s both a Gothic Romance (and as an enormous fan of Gothic literature and cinema, I was in trope heaven) AND a horror film, but horror in the vein of Italian giallo films, especially those of Mario Bava — not exactly what is currently en vogue in (especially) US horror. Neither of these elements was indicated in the marketing campaign, but truthfully, this film was never really going to play for mainstream American audiences.
Thanks for explaining this Margo! I have yet to see it, but it is on my list. I was really surprised that the movie got so much press and it’s being labeled as a flop.
I enjoyed it as well and I think people should give it a chance.
I don’t get the appeal of Hiddleston at all. He’s a decent actor but he’s so geeky and try hard. I’ll tell you why Crimson Peak flopped. NOT ENOUGH CHARLIE HUNNAM.
There was loads of Charlie in the film! more than i expected and he was more interesting than i expected as well. Granted, i missed his usual facial fluff and scruffed up hair, but he was very nice :-p
And, geeky is the new sexy, especially Spectacle-Tom.
And, wish people stop trying to shame others for trying hard in life, if more of us did it we would be a more successful race of people. Instead most of us, like me, are lazy gits and phone in our jobs everyday.
Charlie was barely serviceable in the movie though. And his accent was so distracting. He’s a likeable enough guy.
I saw Crimson Peak this past weekend and I LOVED it, but I really thought EVERYONE’S accent (except Tom’s, obviously) was appalling. Charlie’s was especially abysmal, and I didn’t find Mia’s to be much better. And I’m not British, but even I could tell that Jessica’s accent was bad.
Other than the bad accent, though, Jessica was the best part of the movie. She legitimately scared the bejeezus out of me.
It’s funny, I am British, and I thought the accents were fine.
Sometimes I think that people from overseas have an expectation of what a ‘British’ accent is that’s a bit of an exaggeration. There’s a huge variation in English accents – Tom’s is not a typical accent at all.
In fact some of us Brits can’t understand some British accents! 🙂
Charlie and Mia play Americans, I think Charlie’s American accent is particularly bad. Jessica’s british accent is a bit weird, but not that distracting.
I thought Charlie was the weak link in the film. He was so forgettable.
Yup.
I saw Crimson Peak on Saturday and simply adored it! It was definitely not much of a horror flick but more of a gothic romance gone wrong(I love victorian era/gothis stories). I think it was marketed poorly as a horror movie and it has scared a lot of people away (I have a coworker who was scared to see it since she cannot handle horror). I really liked Mia (whom I adored in Jane Eyre and Only Lovers Left Alive) and Tom’s performances. I feel like a lot of people are missing out on this movie and should see it for themselves.
My sister refuses to see Crimson Peak because she said she did not want to be scared out of her wits. I told her it’s not scary. She won’t budge. The marketing team drilled the horror aspect in general audiences.
Yep, I won’t see it for the same reason and you won’t convince me. I can’t do horror at all. Not even a little bit. As long as they don’t show the gore like in the action movies I am ok, but as soon as they start showing gore and body parts, I am out.
I quite enjoyed it as well. I found the dialogue a bit stilted in the beginning section, but by the time they got to the house, it either got better or I no longer cared because I was swept away on a wave of emotion, color, and atmosphere. Yes, you could easily guess what was going to happen, but the point was to enjoy watching it happen anyway, via the gorgeous house and costumes and spooky sounds and lovely nuanced performances. I thought Tom was wonderfully haunted and conflicted, but I enjoyed Jessica Chastain even more. For me, the film would be worth watching just for her performance.
As a fan, I thought he dominated. I think to general mainstream audiences, he barely made a blip, but as a fan I got to enjoy a few weeks of constant Tommy. Pretty happy we got a lot of him lately.
His little indies didn’t work out as planned and his bigger picture flopped. But this does happen sometimes. Most actors need a string of expensive flops before their careers are affected. I think studios are aware that actors don’t really open movies anymore, and Tom wasn’t the problem with any of these films. One was always a little oddball, and the other two just weren’t very good.
He’ll go off to film his silly monkey movie, Night Manager will air, and he’ll go on a bunch of auditions for other stuff.
It’s one thing to have a sort of cult fandom, in certain corners of the Internet but quite another to front a movie and put bums on seats. You have to have a much broader fanbase.
Fact.
Like the kind of fanbase Jessica Chastain and Mia have? Besides if you’re going to pin this on Tom, it’s notable that a large % of his fanbase are under age for R rated movie.
Funny thing is, some of you are zeroing in on CP not doing well in BO and pinning it on Tom, as if everyone is expecting him to be a huge draw. But why would anyone expect him that? When you see that Van Diesel, who has 95 millions like on his FB account, his bigger budget movie Witch Hunter made even less, Fassy’s Jobs’ BO is as horrible, and it’s likely that this week we will be adding Bradley Cooper’s Burnt (who already had Aloha failed earlier the year) and Sandra Bullock’s Our Brand is Crisis to the list. Weird that some are happily shading Tom on here while even bigger stars also fail. There’re a lot of facts, one of them is the success and failure of a movie just isn’t a simple formula of whether actor is a draw or not, there are other factors that resulted in BO receipts. The other fact is, it doesn’t matter if someone is Internet famous or other kind of famous, known names don’t guarantee box office success anymore nowadays.
Crimson Peak was a gorgeous, we’ll done film that was marketed badly. I’m no Dragonfly, but he was great in it.
I agree to the ‘marketed badly’. I am a huge fan of TH’s but skipped this because Stephen King said it was terrifying in the early marketing campaign. If King is terrified, I’m out. I’ll wait for it to come out on my little TV at home.
I know he has a lot of fangirls on this site but i do not think his looks (which i think are pretty average) is why he gets chances. Hes basically a good actor and more importantly british guys especially posh british guys with plummy vovels are in vogue in america right now. He surfed on the benedict cumberbatch /downtown abbey bandwagon a bit.
Crimson Peak had a lot of the makings of a good movie, except for the plot. The “twists” were basic and completely obvious. Also, some of the way the plot was revealed was incredibly ridiculous.
I kept thinking of The Others, which had a pretty decent twist ending. That’s really all you need. Guillermo should have spent less time writing character biographies for his actors and more time writing a better basic premise.
I’m not worried about Tom’s career. I know fans were hoping Crimson Peak would break box office records and ISTL would win him an Oscar (and he probably did too), but that was setting expectations way too high. He put in some good performances that I think have improved his reputation as an actor, which will help him get more roles in serious films (with better directors than Marc Abraham). This year has been a net positive for him, no doubt in my mind.
Marc Abraham said he offered Tom the Hank Williams role after he saw him on War Horse and before Thor even came out, he has no financing for the movie yet when he cast Tom. I doubt Tom accepting the role then because he was thinking award. He probably took it because he was still an unknown then and playing an American music legend from the South stretches him. Granted, Tom could have dropped the project during that 3 years in between and his stock has grown so much since, but he stuck with it. Turned out ISTL isn’t going to get him any award but it probably has already fulfilled his purpose of stretching himself.
It sounds like ISTL was in the works even before Crimson Peak came around. There’s a great quote in Empire magazine from Marc Abraham about how no one knew who Tom was when Marc cast him, and now everyone is asking how he managed to sign him to his little movie.
G is one of those directors with a rabid fanbase or so we are told, yet his films repeatedly flop because either the fanbase isn’t as big as suggested or his films don’t appeal beyond the fanbase or his fanbase is a mirage.
I think it’s the “his films don’t appeal beyond the fanbase” problem. There are people who love his work and who’ll go see his movies, but I think Pan’s Labyrinth was something of a fluke because the dark fairy tale genre is popular among a wide base of people and getting Academy Award attention will help almost all fans. Del Toro’s subsequent work has been a lot more niche, has had bigger budgets, and hasn’t had the same critical acclaim. I think his fans do go to see those movies, but I don’t think everyone else is.
Most his films like Hell Boy and Pacific Rim appeal to guys between ages 10 to 25.
Why should he eat it when it is Mia’s movie? She can’t put butts in seats either.
yea lets blame a flop on an actor who gets third billing lol
Chastain is the biggest star in the movie, and she can’t put butts in seats, either. Almost no one can these days. People go to see her movies when they get good reviews, and avoid things like Miss Julie or A Most Violent Year that are panned.
None of the cast should be blamed for the flop. Their performances were all fine, and none of them are really bankable anyway. The film flopped because it got bad reviews, almost all of which was attributable to Del Toro (who I think might get limited budgets after two disappointments in a row).
@lunchcoma, and the reviews weren’t even all that bad. Our local critic, who is well-respected, gave it the same rating as he gave Black Mass and Steve Jobs.
A Most Violent Year isn’t panned. It’s very well made and got 90% on RT with 192 reviews. Both Oscar Issac and Chastain’s performances are praised. But both of them aren’t box office draw and the movie made less that $6M with a widest release of over 800 theaters.
Reviews on CP aren’t that bad either, 68% in RT. Goosebumps has a RT score of 73%, not that much higher. But Goosebumps is a very successful book series that comes with a big fanbase and family friendly rating. There is just a lot more than just reviews to determine the box-office success of any movie.
Now that I look at Metacritic, you’re right, Lilacflowers. It didn’t get great reviews, but they weren’t terrible. Maybe a combination of reviews, somewhat offbeat subject matter, and bad marketing? After having seen the movie, I don’t think I would have released it at Halloween, and I definitely wouldn’t have marketed it as horror. It’s a haunted house story, but I think people took that too simplistically and decided to sell it like a scary movie. It might have done better later in the year as counterprogramming to Oscar bait or perhaps during the summer when all the other movies were light and happy and action-oriented.
The BBC’ s very well respected film critic, Mark Kermode, loved CP.
Sight and Sound, one of the most high-brow film journals in the world also liked the film, and the reviewer states, “Hiddleston plays Sharpe’s squirming indecision to perfection.” Admittedly SS almost always loved art house films that Hiddles made, from Archipelago, DBS, to OLLA. Well, to me and many critics, they are all good art house films, and it’s no wonder that the films are praised.
If any of you love reading film reviews check the site. Cahiers Du Cinema also reviews CP though you cannot read it online.
Agree @Madly. The primary focus of the marketing that I saw was her character and many people don’t know her that well. I had to explain to a group of my friends who she was, and they only connected her to Alice. That’s not a good sign. TH will be fine and I think that with the quality of tv now , he may make more of impact on American audiences with TNM.
are you saying she lost her muchness?
Looking forward to Alice II.
Mia is the least well known and high profile of those actors. Why would they focus the marketing on her? That seems strange. It’s also not how it seemed if you were following the PR tour it seemed to mostly be about Tom and Jessica. Or maybe it’s because I read this site? But did Mia really do as many interviews as Tom?
She did, but she spoke far less. Tom is probably the most vocal and the two ladies usually let him do all the talking.
Mia went on Seth Meyers. She also did the whole European tour with Tom and GDT. They interview her as much as Tom there, but even by herself, she doesn’t talk much.
A lot of Guillermo’s films tend to flop, I found curious that some people were expecting Crimson Peak to be a big hit. I’m sure Guillermo is happy with his film because it is truly beautiful and the cast is really good especially Chastain.
My only “concern” about this movie flopping is that Guillermo said this movie took so long to find financing because it was a female driven film.
That is the real concern here not whether Tom will survive. Crimson Peak is not “Tom’s movie”. He’s not the lead or even the villain. CP is a female centrist film. It’s a role reversed film where the protagonist and villain are female, and the male actor is the eye candy usually reserved as the beautiful female role. And even though Jessica is still very beautiful in this film, the scars on her face, her matronly dresses and morbid expressions cast her in a dark light leaving Tom as the desirous element luring the protagonist (and audience) to her demise.
CP was centrally made for and about women. Too bad so many gals are afraid to see scary movies.
p.s. Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought Pacific Rim made a lot of money.
Cranberry–PR was very expensive to make, and I guess didn’t do as well in domestic (US) box office as the studio wanted. But it did better overseas, and with video sales probably broke even.
This is a really good article addressing that very perception of PR as a ‘flop’ that the media perpetuated, and it makes some interesting points re original material vs adaptations/comic books.
Comicbook.com/blog/2013/08/30/pacific-rim-is-the-highest-grossing-live-action-movie-worldwide-of-the-year-based-on-new-ip/
The article also asks some tough questions of Hollywood.
Thanks TotallyB. That’s what I thought about Pac Rim. Very interesting points the article makes. I knew there was a reason the studios trusted GDT with large budget. I don’t think they’ll let him stray out of his established male demographic again. For now it’s just Pan’s Labyrinth and Crimson Peak even more that are his female centric works.
I think Tom is doing fine. Ok so CP and ISTL wasnt great movies, but he was great in them and he has proved to both his fans and the industry that he can do more then Loki. Maybe the mainstream audience will connect with the night manager and Skull Island. They are already planning Godzilla vs King Kong, so it would appear that they really believe in Skull Island.
I think most of his fans are young, teen girls. CP and HR are restricted so, perhaps, this has impacted the films money-making.
Exactly. Even if CP and ISTL don’t do well in theaters, they still give Tom a lot of exposure outside of the Marvel fanboy/fangirl universe. Even the trailers get his face out there. As others have said, he still is not well known by US mainstream movie goers, and he’s only been the lead in British productions HC and Coriolanus. I still hope CP can make bank in the long run once more realize it’s a decent movie – plus it’s unique.
Hiddleston will have a good career, maybe he won’t be a major movie star, however I am sure he will be ok.
Tom Hughes will be the next posh Brit they try to make a star of. I don’t know if he’s as good an actor as Hiddleston but he’s far prettier, he’s like ridiculously Jude Law pretty.
He probably has a better chance at mainstream success to be frank.
Wow–tastes definitely differ here. I thought Hiddleston was GORGeous (as Kat Dennings so memorably out it) from the very first moment I saw him in Return to Cranford.
But I looked up Tom Hughes, and he does nothing for me. He’s like this pouty-faced love child of Nicholas Hoult and that guy from Peaky Blinders with the pretty eyes. Very nice individually but not a good combo IMO.
Oh, you’re right! He looks like a poor man’s Cillian Murphy with a horse mouth.
Yea tastes definitely differ. Tom Hughes looks like a hybrid between Benedict Cumberbatch and Colin Morgan
Horse mouth? OUCH dragonflies can be mean, hahaha!
To be honest Kat Dennings is attracted to erm.. Josh Groban..her taste isn’t all that..
Hughes looks nothing like Cumberbatch he looks like a young Jonathan Rhys Meyer. Maybe with a dash of Cillian Murphy. He’s very striking. Hiddleston, at least in my eyes, is a a more average looking man. But the latter is the better actor, at least from what i have seen of Hughes, admittedly not much (The Game).
Yes, that boy has a bad case of pouty trout-mouth to me, at least in pictures. Pass.
He looks a young Mick Jagger. Tom Hughes is one hot specimen. Big lips are sexy. 😻
awww Return to Cranford, i loved that special. Not just for Tom.
However, i say this, Tom’s character in Return to Cranford and Crimson Peak are the different sides of the same coin. I felt Tom acted Sir Thomas very similiarly to the way he acted in R2C [his character’s name escaped me]
The waltzing, the floaty touches, in the first half of C/Peak was exactly the same character. Then it went south and he went a loooooooot darker.
@Leah “Kat Dennings is attracted to erm.. Josh Groban..her taste isn’t all that..”
Well Kat and Josh are a couple. He’s not as hot as Tom, but he’s alright looking. Plus he’s a really nice, funny and well spoken guy with a lot of talent (hey, sounds similar to Tom). So I think Kat erm.. knows what up.
And Cillian Murphy does nothing for me.
The boy does nothing for me. Just nothing. But I said the same about Tom, too. That was before I watched his interviews and finally understood the hype.
Tom Hughes looks like a cross between Hugh Grant and Cillian Murphy.That qualifies as handsome in my book.
But does he have talent and personality? I don’t think I’ve seen him in anything.
I saw him in The Game on BBC. He is very handsome and striking, its almost a bit distracting. He’s a burberry model.
Saw him in the Hollow Crown and Silk and he was ok. He looks like a Burberry model as Eddie Redmayne is. While I am not a big fan of that style particularly, I think they are beautiful in their own ways and better than Tom as a model. Eddie is great as an actor, too.
I am curious whether CP can pass Chinese censorship. Both South Korea and Japan have to wait one or two months before CP gets released, Though I cannot imagine how Asian audience will react to the film, the three countries are quite big markets and there are fans of GdT and TH.
I don’t get his appeal. He was definitely the weakest link in the film, but I liked it.
I am a big fan of gothic novels and older suspense films and beautiful things, but the trailers telegraphed that Crimson Peak was going to be gory and bad things were going to happen to the poor little papillon (big no-nos for me), so I didn’t see it. I don’t think the actors are a fault here. Horror movie levels of gore have slipped into suspense films, on the few occasions when they’re made today, which turns off suspense fans and is not enough gore for horror aficionados. So, these movies are weird hybrids and they flop for lack of a specific audience.
I would love for someone to do a straightforward remake of Suspicion with Cary Grant and use Hitchcock’s preferred ending, though.
Chastain cannot get butts in the seats. Period. The only movies of hers that do really well at the b.o. are when she’s part of a large ensemble cast and is a supporting character (The Martian, Interstellar). So many of the reviews that I read for CP said that she overacted in a major, ridiculous way and needed to dial it back several notches.
SHAMELESS THREADJACK:
I see that Spotlight is premiering in Boston tonight. Any of you ladies going?
No. I’m sick and the weather is horrific.
Why is everyone talking about bad reviews? The reviews are totally okay. You can’t just check RT and think that a movie is bad. Sometimes I ask myself what exactly people expected. The problem is not the script. It is not the actor or the actress. It is cinema in general. Have you ever noticed that nowadays only 3D movies are coming into cinemas? With so many special effects that the actors and actresses are not necessary anymore? Franchises are important and all this Marvel stuff runined cinema from my point of view. Sometimes I ask myself when this comic stuff will finally end. Chris Pratt was not great in JW, the movie was a hit as it connected two audiences: the one which grew up with JP in the 90s and the other audience (the one which wants popcorn cinema) I loved CP because it was different. A different time, with nice costumes, no 3D, nice cast. People are saying “flop” for a movie which hasn’t even opened in China, South Korea etc. yet. It is not the US market which is important. It is the Asian Market which tops everything. And what a lot of people forget: the rating! You can’t compare CP with the other movies as they had another rating. I do think that the TNM and the Kong movie will bomb in a positive way in the USA. If not, who cares? Not everyone is interested in Hollywood. Unfortunately Hiddles is, it seems. Which is a shame. There a lot of actors who are great but not really known in Hollywood as they are not one of the usual good looking American actors. Sounds awful, I know but I really wonder what exactly people are seeingn in Chris Pratt etc. The only actor I actually started to admire this year was Jake Gyllenhaal as he clearly chose a lot of great movies in the past. Darker roles, which I clearly prefer. As for High Rise and Tom: High Rise is not a “normal” movie and I am pretty sure that a lot of Tom Fans will be pretty shocked which is amusing me. Tom is doing fine, if not, he will do another pap walk with EO *snickers*
I was surprised and disappointed that Crimson Peak wasn’t in 3 D!
Maybe people mean viewers reviews. Reviews from the movie goers on imdb are pretty brutal,
The professional reviews are not bad.
I agree with a lot of what you say guest, but Chris Pratt is bloody fantastic…
CP will never show in China. China has no rating system for movies. R-rated movies have to be cut to pass the scrutiny. CP is facing a worse situation since in China movies are not allowed to show that ghosts are real (Edith said “ghosts are real…’ in CP).
CP is played in HK and Singapore but got cut. You don’t get Hiddles English Countryside:( My only hope is South Korea…
Actually China banns films that “promote cults or superstition” because they are against “Communist Party’s secular principals,” and there might be ways to do something if Legendary and GdT really want to sell the film. I read that there are some Chinese films which show ghosts and still pass censorship. So it depends on their interpretation of the supernatural elements in the films though I am not very optimistic. I guess Legendary and GdT already knew the rule — Legendary produced Dracula: untold in 2013 which didn’t get released in China — and figured out the ways in advance or they didn’t expect to pass the censorship from the first.
Anyway China’s foreign film quota for 2015 were already filled. Even if CP pass the censorship in any mangled form, it will be released in 2016. I don’t have high hope for South Korea or Japan, either. But when they aggregate, it won’t hurt definitely.
I know little to nothing about the Chinese censorship issue – but the “ghosts are real” voice over could easily be cut without it affecting the story too much. The scenes that run during the credits make it clear that Edith had written Crimson Peak as a novel – if they play that up aspect and emphasize that it is a fictional story, would that take care of the issue?
A friend just saw it in Hong Kong and they definitely cut the English Countryside portion out of the film.
He’ll be in Hawaii most likely. They’ve been doing pre-production there for a while now.
Rated R / genre movies are rarely box office hits. Hiddles is still hot! 😛
here, here!
I saw Crimson Peak. I loved it! That all I’ve got.
Ps – For a psychological thriller/horror movie it seems to be doing pretty good. In the long run it will make money. Especially if it is allowed in China.
Hiddles is too pasty to be a leading man type. He’s more of a Martin Freeman or a Paul Bethany – an A-list sidekick/villain. He’s a great guy, I don’t worry about his future. At least he’s not playing the same person in every movie.
I personally think Paul Bettany is smokin’ hot – I’d rather see him as a leading man/romantic interest (have y’all seen Wimbledon?) than some of the other fellas they give leading roles to.
Agreed Dara! In Age of Ultron when Paul Bettany as Vision came out of that cradle and was all floaty and beautiful and with that lovely JARVIS voice I was like “um, is it weird to be sexually aroused by a computer program in a purple body created in a lab? Cause I AM.”
The Vision was my favorite Avenger in Ultron. Not enough screen time.
The Vision rocked! More please. And @Phoebe, I had the hots for Jarvis when he was just a disembodied voice, so I totally get where you’re coming from.
Looks like he’s going to play a role in the next two Avengers films- so YAY! Hopefully he can distract me from my hatred of the terrible Russian accent twin.
Love pasty guys, really.
But he’s not always pasty. Much of the time it’s the makeup. In CP when Edith “catches” him and Lucielle, he definitely doesn’t look pasty there. Maybe cause he was worked up -if you know what I mean.
I know I’m in the minority here, but I saw the film and liked it. Totally agree that Charlie H was woefully miscast: he was great in Sons of Anarchy but certainly shouldn’t be doing a period piece. The art design here is stunning, very Pre-Raphaelitesque. Most importantly, anyone well versed in the gothic will appreciate the film’s feminist revisions of: Jane Eyre, Fall of the House of Usher, and The Yellow Wallpaper. I think it’s worth seeing as long as we understand that it’s not a candidate for best picture. Plus, all 3 of the stars were quite good, I think.
You’re not in the minority. Some posters here obviously didn’t even give it a chance, just nit picked it apart, or didn’t get the memo that it was Gothic Romance and not modern horror. I think it’s true audience is starting come around now that they’re hearing it’s not too scary or gory, but unfortunately the damage has been done and it’s an uphill climb.
GDT tweeted this Guardian article.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/29/rise-of-female-monsters-shows-horror-movies-are-not-afraid-of-big-bad-women
Thanks Anon222, nice article about the role reversal, feminine/feminista approach of CP.
“Men in Crimson Peak are thoroughly objectified. They exist to be brooding, hunky, seductive and/or devoted, and not much else”.
I wish Kaiser would use this topic and articles like this for a thread discussion on CP during the drought.
I agree MollyO- I wish sometimes people would just go enjoy a movie and not analyze every detail. I enjoyed it, it wasn’t perfect, but it was beautiful and I was glad it wasn’t as scary as they made it out to be. I was truly shocked and moved by the ending and found it overall an enjoyable way to spend 2 hours, some movies are just that and nothing more.
Same here. I enjoyed the movie as well as I enjoy so many other movies. It’s a way to spend some time in a fun way, I don’t analyze the acting, the costumes, the dialogue in detail. If, by the the end of it I had fun and didn’t fall asleep, then it was a nice movie… 🙂
Nope. I said it’s a beautiful movie since I saw it long ago and stand by my words. True, I’m Guillermo’s fan and adore his visual approach, and obviously am a fan of Casa Loma as well, but still. The movie is a beautiful story. My only problem is Mia but then I have a problem with her in general. Too bland.
Jesus Christ, Loki’s fans are crazy. CP bad box office is apperently everyone’s fault but his. He was promoting this movie more than other cast members, he got pretty much all the media coverage especially on this site and also in the trailers. But now you are blaming Mia and Jessica and of course trashing the bad marketing.
Just because you get over 200 comments on his articles doesn’t make him a star.
It’s just an gossip/opinion page @kay.
I appreciate all opinions so thanks for stopping by and have a nice day.
even so called mainstream ‘stars’ have flops Sandra Bulloch won a Rasberry and an Oscar in one year. Bradley Cooper and J Lawrence both tanked in Serena. Harrison Ford has had more flops than successes. Jonny Depp ahs had his fair share of bad movies.
Some films dont gel for various reasons, and the above posters are discussing various reasons why.
“Stars” dont make a film successful, the writing, the production, the marketing, the acting, adn so on. It’s a cake and big one, and one bad egg can bring the rest crashing down. One really good iced sweet star can at least tempt people to eat a bad cake, but it doesn’t always.
personally, i lvoe C Peak.
p’enny – who is lvoe C Peak? 😉
200 comments from the same 15 people does not make one a star though 😛
200 comments from 15 people= 3000!!
Oh, you didn’t mean each?
haha well I mean the sum total of 200 were contributed in total from the same 15 people 😛
Gotta excuse kay, y’all… she gets a little worked up on the Hiddles posts. You don’t need to insult those you don’t agree with. Why not just state why you disagree and let some thoughtful discussion ensue? We’re open to a variety of opinions and many of us welcome it, in fact.
I don’t see the majority here trash talking Mia and Jessica, but many do seem to be in agreement that the script wasn’t great and it could have been marketed better. Also, I think we’ve pretty much established that Tom is “internet famous”, not Hollywood famous, so you’re not saying anything different than we are. None of the lead actors were going to sell this movie to a mass audience — no one in Hollywood has that kind of pull these days.
yea no one is blaming the female leads. From what I see, since people like to throw around logic, then by logic, the third lead shouldn’t take all the blame for the movie underperforming.
I wasn’t sold on Tom because of his performance as Loki – I first came across him in the Hollow Crown and was blown away by some of his acting (not his pretty face) in those productions. I like that and his performance as Coriolanus best.
Loki wasn’t in Crimson Peak. Loki had fans hundreds of years before Tom Hiddleston was born.
GDT did the most promo for the film.
You have a lovely day, Kay!
Thanks for the input, Kay–and REALLY thanks for helping push the total over 300 comments!
From what I’ve seen, CB is not a Loki fan site so your criticism is ill placed. Most of the CB discussion of Tom is about his non Loki work or his crazy antics or his looks. There’s some defense of Tom in this thread because of the click bait-y article pinning CP’s success or failure on Tom. And you’re wrong about the marketing. Mia and Jessica were featured very prominently in all the ads and promotional stuff as was GDT featured a lot. Maybe you’re mistaking internet fan excitement for Tom as proper film promotion.
ok after some thought, I do think the film is not as predictable as I previously thought. For one, in the marketing materials, Charlies is painted as the saint, the savior, the angel. Tom is the devil with a plan. Then as the film unfolds, Tom is not really the villain and Charlie didn’t really save Mia haha! Slight subverting of expectations.
Lets face it jammypants – most films are fairly predictable. How often do you come away thinking “Well I didn’t expect that”? It’s more a case of the journey through the story tbh.
SPOILER ALERT
Well I did not expect him doing it with his own sister and I did not expect that they only wanted Edith’s money. I thought that Edith was a sacrifice for the house. 😂 well guess I was wrong.
I didn’t expect the deformed baby, the many wives, the killing of Thomas, that Alan would survive, and that Thomas really wanted his machine to work and how passive he was to his sister’s deeds, and that he killed no one, not even the dog.
I did say MOST films. 🙂
@neutral “most films are fairly predictable. How often do you come away thinking “Well I didn’t expect that”? It’s more a case of the journey through the story”
Here, here!
I’m so tired of all the “it was predictable” CP comments because MOST horror or spooky movies usually are. It’s annoying when people go to movies just to see how many holes they can punch through the plot, like it’s a game, or ruin the plot secrets way before the end. It’s like some folks need to be trained on how to watch films or something.
Just trying to stay away from all the possible spoilers around the internet before CP was release was challenging. I intentionally cleared my mind of any speculations I’d been exposed to so that I could enjoy the experience and make my own judgement. Not saying CP doesn’t have it’s criticisms, but on a whole it’s good on all levels, plot, atmosphere, acting, etc.
@jammypants
I am laughing so hard now. Thank you for the “not even the dog” part… You are damn right, Sharpie couldn’t even kill the damn dog but he did a lot of bad bad bad stuff with his sister…. Btw, didn’t people back then not know that incest can lead to those babies? Poor thing…..
😉
Yea, he was definitely an accomplice/accessory to murder. Incest was definitely taboo back then. I think the modern view is: genetics with little to no diversity = bad, but not sure what the view on incest was back then.
I don’t think it’s incest in the vein of, hey, who cares if it’s my sister, she’s hot! More of a Flowers in the Attic, we’ve been through a lot of sh I t e together and there’s no one else around….
I think it was also a genetic thing back then because humans have discovered the birth defect outcome of incest couples throughout history.
“You are damn right, Sharpie couldn’t even kill the damn dog but he did a lot of bad bad bad stuff with his sister…. ” He came across as a bit of a softie being dominated by his big sister. Even the scene where Mia discovers them, it was sort of Jessica with her hands all over him and him just responding. Thinking back, while I loved the film on first viewing, I just think Mia and Tom have ZERO chemistry now. Mia’s outstanding with accents but she’s a bland actress (happy to be proven wrong).
jammypants: incest has always been taboo going back in history. Except for the Egyptian pharaohs of course, in which case it was considered compulsory!!
And in medieval times royalty who were closely related ie cousins had to get papal dispensation to marry – consanguinity was the word I believe.
*Sigh* I think I’ve spent too much time in courtrooms or chatting with district attorneys or friends who prosecute sexual predators.
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
Some serial killers and sexual predators will “groom” a victim. They find someone vulnerable and set them up to serve them by luring more potential victims. Often the “groomed” victim will stop short of the actual act but when they do cross over, it is usually because they have been challenged/threatened by their groomer. Thomas was Lucille’s first human victim (she probably began by torturing bugs and animals). Her description of his as a little boy to Edith is very similar to how many sexual predators describe their young prey. She took the beatings for him (supposedly there are edited scenes that show scars on her back from whippings) but with an expectation that he would do favors for her in return. The mother called them monsters because she had discovered the incest but Thomas was still a pre-teen when Lucille killed her. She continues to manipulate adult Thomas throughout the movie, using him to lure more victims; not leaving him alone with Edith; pointing out that he’ll be the one executed for her acts if they’re found out; and challenging him to prove himself to her by killing Alan. When Edith sees them together, he’s a passive participant even in the sex act. Lucille had a baby because she herself says she wanted a baby. When her groomed victim steps away from her directives, Lucille destroys him. And we have no idea what happened to the father.
END SPOILERS!
Spot on, lilac. Mine above didn’t really make sense. I was more referring to this not being incest by choice but rather some major issues going on with this pair.
@lilac Thank You. Excellent analysis. Finally some in depth discussion on the plot elements of CP. Someone complained up this thread about CP making them work too hard to figure out the sub-plots saying GDT needed to explain more backstory. I disagree. GDT gives enough clues so that people can piece together the underlying motivations, which is not the money either. It’s more about having the sensitivity or insight to understand how people can be psychologically trapped by past trauma, their circumstances or their fears.
No, Crimson Peak was not genuinely creepy and the story was predictable and made little sense in the end.
That equally meh film from the 90s, The Haunting, had a better story and scarier vibe than Crimson Peak.
Had it not been for Tom, I definitely wouldn’t have gone to see this film.
However, you rarely get a decent scary film these days. The last one I saw which genuinely scared me a few times and had a really good unpredictable story was The Others with Nicole Kidman. Now that film didn’t need CGI or disfigured ghosts to really give you the creeps.
The Haunting with Owen Wilson and Catherine Zeta Jones? Nah. Sure it was entertaining, but it was pretty laughable especially towards the end. I think because it was a very Hollywood version of your typical plot of a group of people are set up in a haunted house and one by one they’re killed off. As a remake it was alright. It was just modernized with very recognizable actors but no atmosphere and no commitment.
I’ll take Crimson Peak over that any day. At least CP commits to it’s genre. Much of the experience of CP is visuals, the atmosphere; It’s a character playing a part in the story.
I’ll still like the film for its visuals,c olours, and sets though. What did the director say? Eye Protein. That’s exactly it. Lots of smart films out there where the visuals are so boring you wonder if the director shouldn’t go into advertising instead.
Totally off-topic but I’m sure this will appeal to some:
telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11962302/Six-things-Sean-Bean-can-teach-us-about-being-a-man.html