“One big plus though: Del Toro has a wonderful visual style to all of his films (that I’ve seen anyway, I think there’s one I haven’t caught yet), he’s like the poor man’s Peter Jackson – I feel that I’ve used that analogy before … meh, I’m too lazy to backtrack through this thread (need coffee).”
disagree. i think Del Toro’s images are far more detailed and interesting than Jackson’s.
The Devil’s Backbone is a great film. one of the most intelligent horrors i’ve ever seen.
I didn’t understand that Peter Jackson was a rich man’s director. The man made “Bad Taste” and “Braindead”! :)
“I didn’t understand that Peter Jackson was a rich man’s director.”
King Kong and LOTR.
I prefer his low budget films personally. I also thought H.Creatures was extremely overrated. Give me ‘Fun’ any day ;-)
Well, I guess Del Toro will get into the “rich director’s league” with his upcoming “At the mountains of madness” produced in collaboration with the “multimillionaire” James Cameron.
^^yeah, about time he got financing for it. apparently it’s in 3D.
I’m expectant about his next film. I love H. P. Lovecraft’s works and Guillermo del Toro is the right man to adapt it to the screen. Some are fearful of the involvement of James Cameron, but I believe it will be an added value. It will help get a larger budget and, as a producer, Cameron doesn’t usually meddle much with the making of the films, leaving it totally in the hands of the director.
@Carlos: the expression “poor man’s Peter Jackson” has nothing to do with budgets or income.
“i think Del Toro’s images are far more detailed and interesting than Jackson’s.”
That’s the thing though, Del Toro relies too heavily on his images (though his visuals are usually great), to the point that he neglects other areas such as character/plot development. And nothing del Toro’s ever done has impacted me the way Jackson’s Dead Alive did lemme tell ya, damn! I’m not a huge fan of Jackson either, but his work just tends to be much more interesting IMO. Perhaps I should’ve called Del Toro, the more talented brother of Robert Rodriguez, heh.
^^his movies have pacing problems, i’ll give you that. not sure if i agree on character development though, but there is something off about his pacing, no doubt.
Despite everything I just said though, I’m excited about his Lovecraft adaptation!
He’s a good mainstream director who brings elements of fantasy and the surreal to his films. I agree with some of the comments about his pacing. He likes details, but not in a Ridley Scott way where the details are the film. I’m glad he doesn’t rely too heavily on CGI to create the creatures in his films.
I’d like to see what he could do with another genre.
I’m conflicted about Del Toro.
Cronos—yes
Mimic—no
The Devil’s Backbone—yes
Blade II—no
Hellboy—no
Pan’s Labyrinth—yes . . . I think
Hellboy II—no
I would rate Del Toro’s films pretty much the same as Matt did, except, perhaps, slightly more conditionally since even films I thought were good, like Cronos, have things that annoy me or don’t quite work.
To me, Del Toro is more or the less as good as Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam and, yes, Peter Jackson. Personal preference may lead one to prefer any one of those guys over the others, but in the end I don’t think there is much of an argument to be made over factors of other artistic worth. Each has a slightly different feel to their imagined worlds, but each also leaves those worlds somewhat hollow since they seem to filter everything through the same lens. There is too little variety amongst their films or characters to really reflect anything much more than the directors own rather single noted ideas over and over again. Each of them make some entertaining films and have some definite skills, but I can’t take them too seriously beyond that level. I don’t see much difference between them and guys like Cameron, the Scotts, and even on the lower end of the scale, Michael Bay in terms of artistic merit even if Del Toro, Burton and Gilliam all have slightly more eccentric visuals that draw attention to their works above those of their contemporaries.
That said, I think Del Toro would be a good choice to create a big budget 3D film since his particular taste in visuals could possibly lend itself well to the technology and move the bar a little bit forward in terms of what the effects can bring to a film.
He’s very good specially for Hell Boy and Pan’s Labyrinth…Looking forward to The Hobbit!
He’s left “The Hobbit” project a few months ago. He’s working on his adaptation of “At the mountains of madness”. The executive producer is James Cameron and it will be shot in 3D.
he is director of the decade…but in horror and fantasy genre.
-To me, Del Toro is more or the less as good as Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam and, yes, Peter Jackson.-
Yeah, I like that comparison, Greg.
He can be the best director of the decade because of the Hellboy alone.
“if Del Toro, Burton and Gilliam all have slightly more eccentric visuals that draw attention to their works above those of their contemporaries.”
it’s only the eccentric visuals that separate them? are you sure? Gilliam’s films definitely have recurring themes; ditto Burton. And the other problem i have with the comparison is that Scott is nowhere near as meticulous as those guys anymore. he stopped making films like that 25 years ago. I read an interview with him back in 2004 where he basically said he doesn’t obsess over shots anymore and it shows, even in Gladiator.
anyway, as far as i see it, those guys make more personal films than a guy like Scott.
I am probably going to get ripped apart here, but I did not particularly like Pan’s Labyrinth. I thought I would, in fact I really wanted to like it. I believe it was the brutality in it that did not appeal to me personally. That, and the story felt a bit rushed in places… the whole thing felt disjointed for me.
I did however love the Hellboy films, and even the animated one.
I do agree with those who are commenting on his style. The reason that Pan’s Labyrinth did not appeal to me was not the visual style, it was the storytelling. To me, the telling of the story is more important than something pretty to look at.
It seems that Del Toro relies too heavily on making it look pretty, than telling the story. For me, that includes Blade II, though I cannot comment on much else of his.
agreed on micky
Dimitris Psachos
“Wes Anderson has such an undeniable influence on the decade, in arenas that transcend film”
Influence to the wannabe-film buffs? Even Del Toro would laugh at this…