Debutante Corner: ‘Cronos’ and Guillermo del Toro
Best known for his unique visionary style and a sweet love for misunderstood monsters, Guillermo del Toro is undoubtedly one of the most celebrated and beloved film directors of our time. A man embraced by the horror community as much as he has embraced the genre itself, who treats horror, the most stigmatized of the major genres, like art. Watch any interview with him and I dare you not to love that man.
A born storyteller, since the moment del Toro stepped behind a camera and typed out his first script he has shared pieces of himself with audiences in a way that manages to reflect what many have felt since the first time they watched The Creature of the Black Lagoon or Frankenstein; what are monsters if not just lonely creatures searching for a connection? Every film del Toro creates follows this philosophy and it all started in 1993 with his very first film, Cronos.
Prior to Cronos, the only official projects del Toro had on his resume were two short films, Doña Lupe and Geometria, both of which can be found on Youtube, but it wasn’t until 1993 that he made his debut on the big screen. Starring Federico Luppi, Tamara Shanath, and Ron Perlman, the film follows an antiquer who unknowingly turns himself immortal after finding an ancient device hidden away inside an angel statue. Things pretty much turn awful for him after that. It’s a horror film not meant to horrify but to detail loss and love, the loss of innocence, humanity, and the sense of self, and the way people can love each other no matter the circumstance. This is–spoiler alert–a vampire tale that is not so much about being a vampire as it is about the sadness of becoming something of that nature. We as humans are not meant to be live forever so when we lose the very thing that defines our existence, our mortality, are we even us anymore?
Hardly anyone seems to know about this film and even if they do, there is a wide disinterest in it. A factor to consider was that it was made before del Toro’s name hit the ears of even the most disinterested of moviegoers. Many people didn’t even hear the name “Guillermo del Toro” until he exploded on the scene with Pan’s Labyrinth in 2006. Probably his first “original” film to get major attention from the festival circuit that was granted the widest release outside of Hellboy, Blade II and Mimic which were all big budget studio films with pre-existing source material. Another factor is just the tone, and how it feels much gloomier than his usual horror fairytale atmosphere.
Upon release, Cronos was a critical success that won many awards including several Ariel Awards and the Mercedes-Benz Award at Cannes. It was also selected as the Mexican entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 66th Academy Awards but was not nominated. Even though it didn’t give him much international attention it certainly caught the eye of those in the industry including the heads at Miramax who gave him his second film, the $30 million dollar monster flick Mimic to both direct and adapt for the screen during a time when “creature features” were hot.
Yes, Cronos is considered a masterful piece of cinema that would become a blueprint for the films that del Toro would later follow up with, however, despite all that, it not only remains largely unknown but was something of a disappointment for its creator.
If you know anything about Guillermo del Toro you’ll know that all his films are personal. Each film, even the commercial ones contains pieces of himself that he’s exploring. It’s why they feel so visceral, so emotional, so passionate and beautiful, and though not nearly as polished as his later stuff, it’s all there in Cronos.
This is the outline for del Toro’s filmography. A horror-based study on relationships with a touch of mythology. It’s probably the weakest of all his films (in my personal opinion) but there is something so incredibly memorable about it, an image that stays with you like a scar you didn’t feel but can see in the mirror after it’s already stopped bleeding. In a way, it feels almost too organic. The fact that it’s being made by a first time director is not lost on me, the story and every theme it includes are raw and wild in their eagerness. There is almost too much that he wants to say and do.
On one of the special feature interviews on the Criterion Collection DVD of The Devil’s Backbone, del Toro admits that he views The Devil’s Backbone to be his real debut film from which he gained “independence” because he’s never been 100% satisfied with Cronos. Not to say that he hates it, or even thinks it’s a bad film, but that it’s a creation he thinks could’ve been done better. Although significant to his life, a personal project dedicated to his grandmother, the film’s shortcomings are forever highlighted whenever he watches. As he explains it, Cronos features everything he wants to put in a movie, it’s the combined essence of his storytelling. To a certain degree, you can even argue that he’s forever remaking it, from The Devil’s Backbone to The Shape of Water a lot of his work can be seen as variations of Cronos, films that share one universal backbone.
“Cronos is a movie that if I ever had a chance to do something else to it, to make a better transfer, to make a better sound mix or to find a little extra. Every time I find something archival almost, I try to put out a DVD or put a new edition, why, because I think the most important movie in your life, there are two that are very important- the first one and the last one. The first movie articulates your universe. To me Cronos contains the essence of what I want to do[….]I think the worse thing that can happen to a filmmaker is to be given everything that he needs. I think it entirely destroys the basic hunger of the storyteller and it quenches the fire to tell a story against all odds.”Guillermo del Toro
As a film alone, Cronos deserves attention, and as the debut feature of Guillermo del Toro, it deserves much more than that. While looking at his career as a whole, too many people omit the film. For whatever reason, whether people think its not as good as his other stuff or not enough people know about it, it’s too often overlooked. Seek out Cronos people, and if you’ve already seen it, watch it again.
Movies n TV
Returning to the Soothing World of Evil with “The Demon of Death”
“The Demon of Death” is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural drama Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King.
“The Demon of Death” is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural drama Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate the weight of a soul. Father Frank Ignatius (Wallace Shawn) agrees to participate in this test despite his growing disillusionment. David (Mike Colter) and Kristen (Katja Herbers) deal with the ramifications of their confessions. Kristen’s girls go on the warpath with Leland (Michael Emerson). Andy (Patrick Brammall) signs his death warrant.
What I Like about “The Demon of Death”
As season 2 ended with a cliffhanger, “The Demon of Death” picks back up with an interesting addition. The episode provides a more obvious stopping point that Season 2 should have taken advantage of. It dumbfounds me because this addition makes for a more interesting and darker cliffhanger. The added context would have made the cliffhanger more palatable. However, it’s a nice twist for the episode.
Dr. Boggs (Kurt Fuller) and Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) make an interesting pair that adds complexity to both. We even explore some of Sister Andrea’s character flaws, best displayed by her interaction with Kristen in the next scene. Few wise sage characters that display flaws, making this addition appreciated.
Father Ignatius’ introduction adds layers of interest for a character who will play a recurring role, tying into Monsignor Korecki directly. The yet-to-be-explored relationship between Father Ignatius and Monsignor Korecki (Boris McGiver) evokes an interest.
While “The Demon of Death” isn’t a haunting episode, but explores the mysteries and terror of death through science to provide an interesting environment for an episode. It introduces a new character that adds to the cast.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
There’s not much to report here that particularly crosses the line and what teeters on the line holds a dark comedic tone.
Perhaps Sister Andrea’s flaw might rub some the wrong way, as it deals with her overwhelming faith. However, it’s a minor point at the moment. Again, I lean on liking some complexity for the wise sage archetype.
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Death”
“The Demon of Death” still plays it safe with its supernatural elements, but that does seem to be Evil’s standard. At this point of the series, it seems a strange restraint. However, the new normal remains functionally paranormal.
While the premiere starts with an interesting procedural plot, it doesn’t direct the season like prior premieres. This episode doesn’t deliver a massive refocus as season 2’s premiere, but that’s because its conclusion doesn’t deliver as focused of a direction. Regardless, “The Demon of Death” is still an episode that slips away despite its premiere status.
Ben (Aasif Mandvi) seems needlessly hostile as they investigate a soul’s potential weight. The study delivers a thorough scientific process, which makes his resistance linger on the “angry atheist” archetype.
The demon shown on screen certainly isn’t the demon of death the title suggests. While the plot revolves around the mystery of death, there is a demon with a more carnal domain. As future episodes dive into their respective demons, it does seem to be an inaccurate title. However, the demon of the episode will get further focus in a different episode.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Death” doesn’t stand out as a premiere but provides an interesting procedural episode. As Father Ignatius will become another key character in the series, giving him an entire episode to introduce him is a nice strategy. While it’s not a haunting episode, it still provides a level of camp with interesting characters to pull it off.
(3 / 5)
Released in 2010, Rare Exports asks an important holiday question. One that no one else has dared to ask.
What if Santa was a ten-story-tall monster buried under the ice for centuries?
The story
Rare Exports is the story of a little boy named Pietari. After doing what is frankly too much research for a little boy, he realizes that Santa is not the jolly old elf we all think of. He is, in fact, a monster who eats bad children. And it turns out that Santa was trapped in the ice near Pietari’s little town. All this would be well and good if a Russian mining team weren’t in the process of cutting him out of the ice. So it’s up to Pietari to convince everyone of the dark, horrific truth.
Santa Claus is coming to town.
What worked
Some movies need to make sense. Some don’t. Rare Exports is one of the latter.
Why were the Russians digging in the snow to find Santa? What was the plan there? What happened to Pietari’s mom? And who did they sell the elves to? Do the elves need air or water to live?
We don’t get answers to any of those questions. And frankly, we don’t need them to enjoy Rare Exports.
This is a wild story about a little boy who discovers that Santa is a mythical monster with a bunch of scrawny old men with big white beards to do his evil bidding and eats bad children who haven’t been beaten by their parents enough. What sort of explanation would help this story in any way?
I mean, we could pick apart why it’s suddenly legal to sell people, or at least mythical creatures that look like naked old men, or why this all happened right next to the only little kid who had the exact knowledge needed. But in the end, wouldn’t that be like asking how Santa gets into people’s homes when they don’t have fireplaces? Doesn’t that objective reasoning just piss on the Christmas magic?
What didn’t work
While Rare Exports was fun, there were parts that I did not appreciate. For one thing, there wasn’t a single woman or person of any color in this film. Literally not one. Not an extra, not in the background. This little Finnish town is populated entirely by white men. And yes, it is Finland and there isn’t a hugely diverse population. But it’s also 2010. People move. Also, women exist.
On the subject of seeing too many white men, we also saw too much of the white men. Specifically, we saw far too many old white male actors entirely nude. There was just no reason for this. These men were portraying elves. They didn’t have to be naked. If they were naked, they didn’t have to have, um, yule logs. Maybe elves are like Ken dolls. There were so many options that didn’t include so much old man wang.
Finally, I wish we’d seen Santa Claus. Not to spoil the ending, but he never actually emerges to attack anyone. And that feels like a cop-out. If we’re going to be teased the whole movie with this depiction of monster Santa, we should at least get to see monster Santa.
Though, after what they did with the elves, maybe it’s a blessing we didn’t see him.
In the end, Rare Exports was well worth watching. It was hilarious, creepy and bloody. And while it wasn’t perfect, it was a delightful holiday horror comedy.
(4 / 5)
Released in 2016, Christmas Crime Story is about a disastrous robbery on Christmas Eve, and all the many lives impacted by the selfish decisions of one person.
And then, suddenly, it isn’t. But we’ll get to that part.
The story
Christmas Crime Story is the tale of a Christmas Eve holdup gone wrong. We see the story from several points of view, starting with Chris, the detective first on the scene.
Chris is having a hard Christmas Eve. So, on his lunch break, he visits his mom at her diner. It appears that they have a contentious relationship. But nothing is solved in this quick visit.
Chris goes on to pull over a man speeding. When the man, named David, pulls over, Chris discovers something in the trunk. That something must have been pretty damn incriminating, because rather than open the trunk, David shoots him dead.
We then switch to David’s pov for the night. Then his girlfriend’s pov. Then, the man his girlfriend has been cheating on him with. And on and on we go, until we see how all of these different stories and people come together for a dark, sordid Christmas Eve.
What worked
The first thing I want to say about Christmas Crime Story is that it’s heartwarming. Like, to a fault, which we will be talking about.
The ending is very sweet, in a Christmasy sort of way. Families come together, people are filled with joy, and all is right in the world for almost everyone. Except for Lena, who deserves to have a bad Christmas, everyone gets a happy ending.
That brings me to my next point. The characters, mostly, are all deeply sympathetic. Even when David or James are killing people, you feel bad for them.
You don’t agree with what they’re doing, but you do feel bad.
You have to feel sympathetic for the man whose girlfriend hired a killer to merk him. Or the woman whose daughter has cancer. Or the guy who just can’t find work, even though he’s trying to make good decisions. You want things to work out for them. You want them to be okay. Even when they do terrible things.
Finally, I always love stories told from so many different points of view. It’s always fun to see a story unfold in a nonlinear way, but in a way that makes more and more sense as we get more points of view. It’s a hard thing to pull off, and I think Christmas Crime Story did it very well.
What didn’t work
Unfortunately, all of the sympathetic characters and clever storytelling methods in the world won’t save a story that doesn’t work. And Christmas Crime Story just does not work.
Let’s begin with the ending. The big twist near the end of the movie. I won’t spoil it, but you will for sure know it if you’ve seen the film. Or, if you waste your time watching the film.
As a rule, twists work when they make sense. Not when it feels like the writers threw up their hands and said, “Okay, but what if everything we just did for the last hour and fifteen minutes didn’t happen, and instead…”
This wasn’t clever. It wasn’t fun. It felt like the writers didn’t know how to end their movie and just decided to cheat.
Finally, I mentioned earlier that Christmas Crime Story was heartwarming. And yes, that is nice.
But is it maybe a little too heartwarming?
I mean, we have an adorable angel of a child with cancer. Her parents don’t have enough money for her treatment. We have two poor guys who are in love with a black-hearted woman. And we have a detective so sweet and kind that he makes you rethink ACAB. And, he’s about to get married to his pregnant girlfriend. And they’re naming the baby after his mom. And his name is literally Chris DeJesus. His mom’s name is Maggie DeJesus. I tried to think of a sillier less subtle name to use as a joke, and I literally couldn’t think of one.
They could have at least named him De La Cruz. That would be more subtle, and I still would have complained.
In the end, Christmas Crime Story just missed the mark. It came very close to being a good movie. But it focused too much on how it wanted you to feel, rather than telling a satisfying story that made sense. Much like that third glass of eggnog, it’s fun in the moment and regretful after. If you’re looking for a satisfying Christmas horror, I’d suggest looking elsewhere.
(2 / 5)
-
Movies n TV5 days agoDexter lives in Original Sin, And In the Beginning
-
Movies n TV6 days agoFreak Out, a Rocky Horror Memoir by Jennifer Weigel
-
Book Reviews5 days agoDepression + Apocalype = ?: This Is Not a Test Book Review
-
Movies n TV4 days ago
Christmas Crime Story, A Nonsensical Holiday Romp
