Alien: Ressurection

alienDirector: Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Starring: Sigourney Weaver, Ron Perlman, Winona Ryder, Dominique Pinon, Brad Dourif, Gary Dourdan, Michael Wincott. USA, 1997. Budget: $60 mln. Box office: $160 mln. IMDb: 6.2. RT: 55%. My rating: 3/4. Xenomorphs… shaken & stirred.

– Hey, Ripley. I heard you, like, ran into these things before?
– That’s right.
– Wow, man. So, like, what did you do?
– I died.
(a dialogue from the film)

It may seem strange and irrelevant to write about ”Alien: Ressurection” more than 20 years after its release, especially given that it’s mostly known as a faulty sequel abruptly suspending the franchise for 15-20 years. Or less, it depends how you count. Plus it is the lowest rated movie of the franchise. So why even bother?

PopularOccasionalBasilisk-size_restricted

Honestly, I think there was some misunderstanding. Mostly it happened for two reasons:

1997

  • The tonal mismatch tone of the new xenomorph’s movie was strickingly different from any other entry of the series and many couldn’t stand it… even considering that 3 previous movies was totally different flicks as well (namely: a horror, a blockbuster, a thriller). But in many ways ”Alien: Ressurection” was totally wicked and wry, as if Terry Gilliam directed it (hint: he didn’t, but the director Jean-Pierre Jeunet was directly influenced by Gilliam as a filmmaker).
  • Weak final which worsens the aftertaste of the film

***

Lets also have a quick look at how the xenomorph’s formula works… worked:

  • Alien (1979) = 8.1 IMDb – $11 mln budget + $104 mln box office + 7 years till next sequel
  • Aliens (1986) = 8.0 IMDb – $18 mln budget + $130 mln box office + 6 years till next sequel
  • Alien 3 (1992) = 6.4 IMDb – $50 mln budget + $160 mln box office + 5 years till next sequel
  • Alien: Ressurection (1997) = 6.2 IMDb – $60 mln budget + $160 mln box office + 15/20 years to a real prequel

Then the franchise started to twitch all over, detox and show some remote signs of life thanks to 2 crossovers, namely…

As the detox period ended, cracked-and-close-to-dementia Ridley Scott started to sweat…

  • Prometheus = 7.0 IMDb – $120 mln budget + $400 mln box office + the wow effect  + because it really was quite a solid sci-fi thriller with a brilliant cast and cool designs
  • Alien: Covenant = 6.5 IMDb – $97 mln budget + $240 mln box office + unclear future of the franchise
  • Unknown Covenant sequel which will concentrate more on the A.I. than xenomorphs and will supposingly link the events to the original film

***

I think that in its own wicked way, ”Alien: Ressurectioncould have easily been considered as one of the most creative and dazzling entries of the franchise. By no means the film is a masterpiece, but it’s not a cash-in, trying to blindly copy/rehash the success of the first two movies (like ”Alien: Covenant” just did). It does have its own style, full of grim grotesque, weird humour and surrealism. It’s not a balanced movie, but it’s exactly the case when you think ”oh at least they tried”.

 

15 years before Scott started digging his own shit again with ‘Prometheus‘ and 20 years before ‘Alien: Covenant‘, Jean-Pierre Jeunet (and Joss Whedon, whose contribution as a witer is important, even if he – in his own words – hated the movie) weren’t afraid to approach the creepy theme of genetic modifications and alien/human crossbreeding.

 

They had enough balls to modify the main character (the main reason why Marvel movies prosper so much nowadays – they’re not afraid to tweak, weaken or strengthen their characters) and dig deeper into the essence of human and xenomorph nature. While many wish the movie maintained a more serious tone, I think that given the whole ridiculousness of the plot, the tone set was quite right. Otherwise it just would be even worse.

C’mon, you cannot have a storyline like that and stay serious. That would be too much. That’s why I kinda like the movie – it knows its shortcomings, it dares to create something new and not simply rehash the old stuff, it has enough humour to smooth things over.

 

Without giving away too much of the plot, there are 3 particularly remarkable episodes that set the tone. I wasn’t too sure about the first one as it had really impressed me as a teen, but after rewatching it nowm 20 years later, I feel as good about it which rarely happens. Here we go, this is the episode where you see that xenomorhps can learn and adapt (just some GIFs as I don’t want to give away too much of the plot):

part 1part 2 big

Here’s another episode where we learn that Ripley’s character was ‘tweaked’…

It’s exactly what a sequel like this needs and what ‘Alien: Covenant‘ was missing. The lesson is simple, Ridley – if you can’t make it as creepy as hell, at least don’t be so serious. Please.

Finally, the 3rd episode that I find particularly significant and valuable to the core of the franchise is when Ripley enters the crossbreeding laboratory. A perfect example of the new direction the franchise could easily take, especially considering the final part of the movie and Whedon’s ideas about the battle for Earth.

 

It has always surprised me that among all the cast only Sigourney Weaver has been considered as the core value of the franchise – each of 4 movies always featured strong and charismatic supporting characters, and I don’t see what was the problem of making a 5th Alien movie without Ripley (no, I don’t mean ‘Prometheus’ which I must admit did have a strong cast, I mean the real sequel). Lack of good ideas, probably, but not having Sigourney Weaver onboard is no excuse.

7f74b128384c8a0acbdf82dfc037af42

The production. Before moving to the film itself, I’d love to mention some facts about the crew and the production. Jean-Pierre Jeunet directed several curious flicks such as ”Delicatessen” (post-apocalyptic black comedy), ”City of Lost Childern” (fantasy tale, also with Ron Perlman) and ”Amelie”. The script was created by Joss Whedon (”Serenity”, ”Avengers”) and it wasn’t an easy task – he wrote multiple versions of it, all of them denied by producers and Sigourney Weaver as well as she was not interesed in that kind of setting… The original script had a third act on Earth, with a final battle for Earth itself. Here’s what Whedon said in 2005 about the film:

“It wasn’t a question of doing everything differently, although they changed the ending; it was mostly a matter of doing everything wrong. They said the lines…mostly…but they said them all wrong. And they cast it wrong. And they designed it wrong. And they scored it wrong. They did everything wrong that they could possibly do. There’s actually a fascinating lesson in filmmaking, because everything that they did reflects back to the script or looks like something from the script, and people assume that, if I hated it, then they’d changed the script…but it wasn’t so much that they’d changed the script; it’s that they just executed it in such a ghastly fashion as to render it almost unwatchable.”

On the contrary, H. R. Giger loved the film. I’m with Giger this time.

Worth watching? So, what a paradox, if you think of ”Alien: Ressurection” in terms of pure geeky nerdy fun, I think it could easily qualify as one of the best sequels ever, because it’s not afraid to turn upside down and expand the original cult movies and very little sequels have enough balls to do so. It could have been much better, yes, but it is far from being as bad as many claim. I really recommend it, if you like wry humour and don’t sit and pray the whole day for the sacred 1979 horror (which is as delicious now as it was back then) and 1986 blockbuster (which in my opinion was an absolute breakthrough for its time, but from other point of view reduced the sense of danger coming from the xenomorphs, making them more similar to an insects…). Finally, it’s that kind of movie that even if you hate it, you can still enjoy it. Just know that it’s different.

Spectacularity: 3.5/4
Acting:  3/4
Directing: 3/4
Screenplay: 2/4
Final vote: 3/4

***

Here’s a lovely poster of Alien 3 for those who don’t agree with my review.

alien

Starship Troopers

Starship Troopers” is way more subtle that may seem during the first viewing. I’ve watched it multiple times… the first time was at the tender age of 7, and I am still under its spell. Wonderful analysis, Jaime Rebanal.

”….it only ends up reinforcing its own cleverness here because if this is all that one sees, then a viewer has indeed bought into the propaganda that Starship Troopers has designed itself to “sell.” It sells a shallow idea that humans are good and aliens are bad, but because of the glamor present within the image, the exciting nature of the action sequences even becomes deceiving in the most clever manner.”

Works like a propaganda film, reflecting another sort of truth.  (✯✯✯✯✯)

Full post here: Starship Troopers – Review — Jaime Rebanal’s Film Thoughts

***

Update.  Love this comment by The Celtic Predator of Express Elevator to Hell Blog:

”Something I discussed ad nauseum in my review of this film is how much flack it gets from fans of the Robert Heinlein novel it’s supposedly adapting. While Verhoeven’s nth hyper-violent social satire was undercut upon release by critics who ironically swallowed its fascist propaganda at face value, as you noted above, most of the ensuing criticism of this film I’ve encountered in the 20+ years *since* it’s release has been from bibliophiles, not cinephiles. You know how book-lovers are — they treat their source material like Scripture.

Look up Robert Heinlein if you haven’t already. He had the opposite life experiences of Paul Verhoeven, and most of his military predictions have come true in Western democracies, e.g. all volunteer service, male and female combat personnel, etc. He also had a rather privileged upbringing, served as an officer in the US Navy, and to my knowledge never saw combat in a foreign war — a stark contrast from Verhoeven’s childhood under Nazi occupation.”

Top 17 Highest Grossing Horror Movies Of All Time

 

ezgif-2-e893f6dbbf

As I mentioned yesterday…

It” (2017) is about to become the biggest horror box office success ever, as its current box office of stands at… $666.6 million. Nice number. Just $6 mln away from beating M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense” (1999) with $672 mln…

…and then something clicked in my mind. Wait, was “Sixth Sense” a horror? Wow! Okay. Mojo knows better. So, given this curiousity and the upcoming Halloween, I decided to examine some other highest grossing horror movies…

  • The Exorcist” (1973) casted out $400,214,478 with dark magic and that means 3rd place.

    TE8

    She floats, too.

  • A solid death grip guaranteed 4th place  Spielberg’s “Jaws” (1975) and impressive $470,653,000.
  • On 5th place we see again that M. Night Shyamalan was still showing some signs of life in 2002… with $408,247,917.
  • On 6th place “Hannibal” (2001) is chewing his $350,100,280 with a glass of Chianti (1991 “Silence of the Lambs” had $275,726,716 and that means 11th place).
  • The Conjuring” and “The Conjuring 2” were indeed good at conjuring an impressive amount of cash out of the horror-loving public – $318,000,141 and $311,270,008 respectively, so that would count as 7th and 8th.
  • Then, things get rough. Various sources cite “Se7en”, “Ghostbusters”, “Shutter Island”, “Van Helsing”, “Sex in the City” come on, guys, these aren’t really horrors. Even “Hannibal” is hard for me to consider a horror movie (but it had Anthony Hopkins whose smile is already scary by itself). But Bill Murray?
image

This is a true horror film. Just look at their faces. Holy shit. That’s Bill-motherfuckin-ghostbuster-Murray! (This was a quote. I didn’t invent it. Jim Jarmusch and RZA did.)

  • Bill Murray is not scary.
  • Obviously I would love to skip all these “Resident Evil” remakes and prefer to do a Halloween costume for a hamster plus I love “Event Horizon” but…tumblr_nc0hmrFAU11tuzl74o1_500
  • …but “Resident Evil: The Final Chapter” (2017) grossed $312,242,626 and “Resident Evil: Afterlife” (2010) – $300,228,084. Now I’m curious, how many years will pass till they reboot the franchise? 2? Whatever. 9th and 10th places are theirs. Resident Evil: Retribution” (2012) had $240,004,424, by the way, which guarantees 17th place.
  • Lets move on. “Annabelle: Creation” (2017) is the only horror sequel more successful than the original with astonishing $291,100,361, that is 11th place. The first film, “Annabelle, has the privelege of being the only horror movie on the list with a sweet name and $256,873,813. That counts as 13th place (don’t ask me where is the 12th, because it means you weren’t reading carefully and I’ll cancel you from the subscription lists).tenor.gif
  • Ah, almost forgot. In the old times, when Harrison Ford wasn’t only rebooting all kind of franchises (sorry, old joke) and Robert Zemeckis was an interesting director to follow, there was a film called “What Lies Beneath” (2000). It had  $291,420,351. I didn’t watch it because my parents didn’t allow me to look at Michelle Pfeiffer…

    …at the age of 11, so if anyone thinks it is a horror… that would be 10½th place.

  • The Village” is supposed to come 14th with an impressive $256,697,520 but since it’s not nice to have 3 M. Night Shyamalan movies on the list lets move on. But it was a scary film. I watched it when I was 15 years old on a big screen. So not sure how scary it would be now. But it made a long-lasting impression.P_XViOz6Fo49-I8SqW50GuystPc
  • Get Out” was creepy, but it wasn’t really a horror. A good tense thriller? Yes. As Jay said, “…Peele isn’t exactly trying to horrify you; he’s trying to unsettle you. And he’s doing that exceedingly well.” I love the film and it was a nice debut, so lets just mention it had $252,434,250 which is a lot for a film like that.ezgif-2-e893f6dbbf
  • The American remake of the classic Japanese horror “Ringu” grossed $249,348,933 in 2002 and could have taken 15th place… but that was a remake. By the way, guess which movie was the first on the list of the scariest eyes in horror?
  • I would like to admit that I deliberately skipped “Prometheus” with its impressive $403,354,469 (potential 3rd place) and “Alien: Covenant” with $238,862,031 (potential 18th place – yes, they call it a box office flop now) because I don’t think they were horror movies although some may consider them such. The 1979 “Alien” was a horror movie. The rest was just tense science fiction.
  • To end things on a positive, hm, note… “Blair Witch Project” takes 16th place with $248,639,099.
  • And the winner is… “Paranormal Activity” with its $15,000 budget and $193 mln box office.  But it’s not in the top since we weren’t discussing most profitable horror movies which is what really matters, not the box office.

End of line.

***

Almost forgot. Since it’s Halloween, I must admit that I’ve always been rather indifferent to this holiday (and it’s not celebrated so much here in Europe), but seeing  many fellow bloggers dedicating the whole month to horror movies, trashy costumes, DIY-s, beautiful Halloween cupcakes and soul cakes (soul cake…beautiful name) makes me love a little bit more.

 

Screamers

Director: Christian Duguay. Screenplay: Dan O’BannonMiguel Tejada-Flores. Starring: Peter Weller, Jennifer Rubin, Roy Dupuis, Andrew Lauer, Charles Powell. Canada, USA, 1995. IMDB: 6.4. Budget: $20 mln. Box office: $5.7 mln. My rating: 3.5/4. Post-apocalyptic old-school science fiction B-movie about androids, horror and nuclear wastelands.

– Well, you’re coming up in the world – you’ve learned how to kill
each other.
(Colonel Hendricksson about two androids fighting each other)

– Jefferson, you must be confusing me with someone who gives a shit.
(Colonel Hendricksson)

For a horror story set on a faraway planet, where almost nothing alive is left and killer robots keep on furrowing the ground in search of a new prey, “Screamers” is a very sentimental movie. Under a bloody and violent disguise one can easily feel that it’s also a story about alienation and loneliness. Then mix enough dark humour, abandoned wastelands on a faraway planet, robots with human-like disguise and extreme cynicism. Yes, it’s a sci-fi B-movie – exactly that type of B-movie that we sometimes need so much.

The story. 2078. Sirius 6b, once a prospering mining colony, is now some kind of an abandoned wasteland – a result of a long civil was between 2 fractions who couldn’t find agreement on how to proceed. One of them, Alliance, created AMS (Autonomous Mobile Swords) that are 20170223_193019so effective and hunting down their enemy fraction. These self-replicating machines are called screamers because of an incredibly high sound they produce during the attack. Few people are still left on this planet and try to find a way to escape from it. It seems that 2 fractions finally managed to reach some truce. But colonel Joseph Hendricksson (Peter Weller – “Robocop“, “Naked Lunch“, “Star Trek Into Darkness“) feels that more probably both sides have abandoned their armies, leaving them to slowly vanish here.

The visuals. The world here is full of rust and despair. It looks dead. Abandoned facilities. 20170223_193143Empty deserts covered with snow. Nothing moves here. Nothing happens. Almost everyone has left or died. Many got killed by each other, others by screamers. There are still some people who exist here… yes, “exist” would be the right word. Great, remarkable decorations (mostly Quebec industrial areas). Just seeing how lonesome people cross these hollow landscapes is impressive. Sentimental, but not cheesily melodramatic music and the dialogues – mostly highly cynical small talk – greatly underline their loneliness.

20170223_193547Pretty soon both sides realized that screamers learnt how to improve themselves, replicate and create various kind of disguises that look absolutely human, like a small boy with a teddy bear (type 3), the wounded soldier (type 4). We still don’t know though what type 2 looks like. It makes the atmosphere pretty tense as everybody suspect each other, finally that leads to shooting one of fellow soldiers. He repeatedly used same phrases over and over (it was thought that screamers’ vocabulary is very limited).

20170223_193348What I liked. The good thing is that “Screamers” never over-concentrates on something (that would made it a failure). It doesn’t try to develop complex concepts about human identity like “Blade Runner. It’s not a 100% horror but it has its tense moments that will make you nervous. It has enough plot twists and till the end you don’t know who is who, when even Hendricksson himself suspects he is a robot. It doesn’t rely too much on special effects – the CGI looks pretty dated here, but it looks like 20170223_193815an integral part of the movie. It has enough romantics and humour too. Simply put, “Screamers” does a little bit of everything without trying to be exceptional in it, and it does it so well, that it makes it versatile and remarkable – you just never get bored.

Peter Weller plays a cynical and experienced soldier who still 20170223_193123has some hope in getting out of this planet. Great and memorable role. As the story unveils, under the mask of a cynical soldier starts to appear a sentimental and lonely man. Speaking mostly with short rough one-liners, he nevertheless accepts to take the boy they found in the ruins (to find out later that it’s a disguised screamer), he begs Jessica to continue their trip because “you’re the only thing I have left”.

20170223_193331Other actors are really good as well. All of them have brisk and memorable characters. Some reviewers mentioned thst Andrew Lauer was a miscast (he plays a chatty sidekick), but I didn’t feel so. The music is surprisingly good (mostly orchestral, by Jerry Devilliers – I found out that he mostly just did some lesser known TV series and that’s all) and contributes really well to the overall atmosphere. I actually don’t like the overused orchestra soundtracks in the 80’s and early 90’s sci-fi, but here it’s perfect. Jennifer Rubin’s beauty (“A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors“, “The Crush“) was a lovely addition to the desperate world, and Roy Dupuis (“Shake Hands With the Devil“, “The Barbarian Invasions“) was just fine as a cynical soldier.

The production and reception. The movie, directed by the Canadian director Christian Duguay (“Human Trafficking“, “The Art of War“) is loosely based on Philip K. Dick’s “Second Variety”, where the action took place on Earth and was more about the post-Cold War era. Dan O’Bannon, the sci-fi veteran (he wrote “Alien“, co-wrote Carpenter’s “Dark Star” and did one of main roles, co-wrote “Total Recall“) initially wrote the screenplay that was later reworked. The production was painful and it was a box office failure (roughly $20 million budget vs. $ 5 million box office), criticized20170223_193722 by almost everybody upon its release. Nevertheless, “Screamers” gained a cult status with time, regularly being part of various 90-s sci-fi tops. I can understand that. The movie didn’t look groundbreaking or innovative when it came out, nor it had big fast-paced action scenes. But they are not needed here.

Worth watching? Absolutely, if you like good old 80-s sci-fi like “Outland“, “Inquest of Pilot Pirx” or “The Abyss“. I wouldn’t really consider it a horror movie, but the atmosphere may get very creepy. “Screamers” has all the ingredients in the right place and doesn’t take itself too seriously, leaving enough space for gore, darkness, robots, fun and just a good human story.

Spectacularity: 3.5/4
Acting:  3.5/4
Directing: 3/4
Originality: 2/4
Final vote: 3.5/4

3.5/4

***

If you want to learn more about “Screamers“, Den of Geek did a brilliant lengthy article here. A sequel, “Screamers: The Hunting” was released in 2009 ( but it seems to be pretty bad, just recycling the first movie (with Lance Henriksen though).

 

Was 1997 the Greatest Year for Science Fiction in Film?

I never paid attention to this, but may be damn true. And if we consider “Flubber” a science fiction movie, that is so damn true!

Plot and Theme

Most years have a few high-quality genre pieces to offer, some years see the release of a genre-defining film and a solid collection of supporting movies, and every now and then there are collisions where two absolute classics are released side-by-side (see:  1968, 1977, and 1982).  But, there’s nothing quite like what happened 20 years ago.  Eleven science fiction films of note were released in 1997, spanning all subgenres.  This piece will discuss each of these films, heralding 1997 as a seminal year for cinematic science fiction.

Intellectual Dramas 

In the first section, we’ll look at three slow-burn, intellectual science fiction films:  Contact, Gattaca, and Abre los Ojos (Open Your Eyes).  These films respect the intelligence of the audience while discussing some of the most classic science fiction concepts.

Contact

contact Jodie Foster, listenin’ for aliens.

Based on the 1985 Carl Sagan novel of the same name and…

View original post 1,870 more words

Event Horizon

Director: Paul W. S. Anderson. Starring: Sam Neill, Laurence Fishburne, Kathleen Quinlan. USA, 1997. Budget: $60 mln. Box office: $27 mln. IMDB: 6.7. My rating: 3/4. Sci-fi/horror/thriller in deep space.

– Where we’re going, we don’t need eyes to see.
(Dr. Weir)

– You will never be alone anymore. Now you are with me. I have beautiful things I want to show you.
(Dr. Weir’s dead wife)

Darkness, space, hell, madness and obscurity. Such a cheerful company. Welcome on board of the “Event Horizon”.

Before Paul Anderson entered the endless Resident Evil epos, he did some other notable films as well, like “Mortal Combat” and “Event Horizon”. We all know how his films look, right? I suppose almost every teenager (well, I speak mostly for boys) had a period, when he is eager to watch stuff about zombies, strange creatures, space and stuff. So what happens when these boys grow up? Some make movies, others watch them. Mostly, without being too serious about it. If there is a movie for each occasion, so for me these movies are perfect to watch late on a Friday, when the brain protests against any kind of work. Or after a late party, when you come home late but still not sleepy. But… “Event Horizon” is not exactly what you would expect from a typical Paul Anderson’s film.

It’s also has a very curious and bleeding produciton history, probably one of the best I’ve ever read together with ”The Island of Dr. Moreau”.

20170212_04244120170212_04275620170212_04264420170212_042535

Continue reading

Jonas Mekas / Vladimir Kobrin / Wire / surrealist cinema

Surrealism and absurdism have always captivated me, they slice the reality as we know it and perform its autopsy, opening unseen layers… But first things first. Here is my new video on of the best post-punk/new wave songs ever by the British band Wire, 1979. The clip is composed of 2 works by great surrealist directors Jonas Mekas (born in 1922, Lithuania/USA) and Vladimir Kobrin (born in 1942, USSR).

Continue reading

Jumanji 2 / childhood tales mutating into mindless blockbusters

Another tale of the childhood is turning into a mindless blockbaster. Directed by the guy who did “Sex Tape” and “Bad Teacher”. Why!?

I know, I know – the first one could be also considered a blockbuster with CGI animals and a decent $65 million budget. Pardon my nostalgia rant. However…

…it had an original time-reversing plot with love story that made sense and was believable.

…it had the director Joe Johnston who has worked as effects artists on the original Star Wars trilogy and art director two Indiana Jones movies and you could easily feel that influences in Jumanji too. Maybe it was a blockbuster, but at least it didn’t feature trivial sexist jokes like here:

giphy

If “Jumanji 2” was a genre deconstruction like “Cabin in the Woods”, this would have made sense. Sadly, it doesn’t.

…and it had Robin Williams.

giphy (1)

Now we have another obtuse action-based blockbuster with dick jokes. Hell, they even don’t roll the dice since there’s no board (the final scene of Jumanji actually had a clue that the original board wasn’t destroyed). And what is the audience of this movie? The teens didn’t watch the first part. Those who did would be barely interested in this reboot.

Maybe I am just too old for this shit and don’t get something?

“What, are you crying? You don’t cry, all right? You keep your chin up. Come on, keep your chin up. Crying never helped anybody do anything, okay? You have a problem, you face it like a man.” (Alan Parish, Jumanji, 1995)

P. S. Express Elevator to Hell movie blog made a hell of an analysis about the modern blockbuster culture and how they influence smaller films here. Check it, it’s really worth reading.

Mimic

Director: Guillermo del Toro. Starring: Mira Sorvino, Jeremy Northam, F. Murray Abraham, Giancarlo Giannini. USA, 1997. Budget: $30 million. IMDb: 5.9. My rating: 3/4. Gothic gloomy tale about giant bugs vs humans with incredible visuals.

– How come you love bugs so much?
– These guys were building castles while dinosaurs were still wimpy little lizards.
(Mira Sorvino’s character about her passion)

mimic

I must confess that I approached “Mimic” with some kind of suspicion. I adore Guillermo del Toro. He is an incredible artist with unique visual style, but being just his second feature film (“Cronos” was the first one and it had good critical success, by the way), I had a doubt that it wasn’t already that Guillermo del Toro we all know and love. It’s also his lowest rated movie on IMDb. Damn, I couldn’t have been more wrong. A thousand apologies. Darkness blended with acid colours, gothic gloom in Victorian style, church-like sewers, unborn creatures, gore and blood. Pure joy for the heart. Continue reading