Skip to main content

The Huntsman: Winter's War. Untangling the mess. Part I

When the announcement came up that there would be a sequel for 2012's Snow White and the Huntsman, you might have had doubts about it, but still told yourself (as a fan of the fantasy genre) that maybe this was going to be the sequel that we didn't know we wanted but still ended up being awesome. But you knew the truth, deep down you knew. This was the sequel that we didn't need and neither did we want; a quick cash grab that came too late to ride the coattails of its predecessor and was too weak to work on its own. And that became crystal clear the moment the first trailer hit the internet.

It's really bewildering to think that they chose to do a sequel for a movie that, first of all, underperformed theatrically, and, also, was liked by almost no one. Both of these facts made for a very obvious end to the theatrical run of Winter's War; it tanked at the box office domestically and was critically panned by everyone.

But, being the huge fantasy fan that I am, I still braved the courage to watch it a few days back, in hopes that it wouldn't be as bad (maybe even good) even though the trailer seemed to suggest quite the contrary. And that's how I came to waste two very long hours of my life and complete hope in my optimism.

Whilst the first movie's main sin was to be deeply dull and unoriginal as hell, its sequel chooses to also add "annoying", "boring" and "contrived" to the sin list. And it truly kills me, because the movie had potential to be mighty entertaining, but it wasted it completely by making it be like every adventure-fantasy ever made, only worse.

The tone of the movie is completely disjointed and in the end, it seems like three movies mushed into one single movie. The story takes enormous leaps of logic and is overtly contrived in order to bring the characters and plot where it needs them. It has awfully stilted performances despite having a great cast (Emily Blunt and Jessica Chastain are certainly in the top 5 of great actresses working today, and Theron and Hemsworth are really great presences to have on-screen). And all of that derives from the fact that it is poorly directed; the studio chose Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, who had been the VFX supervisor for the first Snow White movie, and it really shows he is no director. The VFX might look great, but the direction doesn't. He is unable to control tone or character or even look, constantly swinging from overtly grim and dark, to bright and clean without no reason.

In the end, the main problem, for me, is that the movie has no idea what it wants to be. On the one hand, it borrows heavily from The Lord of the Rings (the mirror functioning like the One Ring, and the Huntsman suddenly being this stand-in for Aragorn) whilst it also tries desperately to be Frozen. The problem is that these two stories crash one against the other and are almost impossible to mix; the darkness and grim tone of Tolkien's work is almost incompatible with the more kid-friendly atmosphere of Frozen.

But the true reason that I am talking about this mess of a movie here, today, is not that it's a bad movie. It's because it's a bad movie with a bad Costume Design that everybody inexplicably considers good Costume Design. No matter what review was I reading, everyone was pointing out the Costume Design as the only redeeming quality, and it's not. And I'll proceed to explain myself.


First of all, I need to clarify something. Despite the common misconception, the Costume Designer is not the one that has the final say in regards to what design will end up on the screen, particularly when we are talking about big Studio Blockbusters (or committee movies, as I call them). In this type of movie, it's either the director or the producer that ends up choosing which route will be the Costume Designer taking. For instance, in most cases, it's either the director or the producer,  who'll push for disregarding the period or having the female characters dress more "badass" and "sexy". Those types of designs are almost always imposed on the Costume Designer, who'll have to find ways to make that work.

So, whenever I blame the Costume Designer for not being historically accurate enough or having the female character showing too much skin, I'm just abbreviating.

This needed to be clarified, in this particular case, because the "producer choices" are really noticeable in this movie. Especially when you take it into account that it was designed by the always marvelous Colleen Atwood (11 times Academy Awards nominee and 3 times winner).

She's the mind behind the designs of Edward Scissorhands (1990), Little Women (1994), Sleepy Hollow (1999, read here), Chicago (2002), Memoirs of a Geisha (2005), and many more. She also designed the costumes for Snow White and the Huntsman (2012). If you want to read my thoughts on those costumes, read here.

What I mean to say with all this is that she's a household name of Costume Design, and I'm 100% sure that the result would have been a thousand times better without the production directives that are so palpable throughout the movie. It's almost like you could see their greasy paws all over the designs.


First and foremost, my problems with this Costume Design is not that the costumes aren't gorgeous (particularly the ones for the Queens), which they are, or that they are badly done at a technical level, which they aren't. The main problem of the Costume Design in the movie, for me, is the obvious tonal shifts it constantly takes.

Tone is a very complicated thing. Every single aspect of a movie helps build it. And, though often ignored, Costume Design plays a big part in constructing tone. Because, how do you construct a cohesive tone if, visually, every single character seems to be dressed for a different movie? Honestly, place the Huntsman next to the Ice Queen and tell me they belong in the same movie. I dare you.

And what bothers me the most is that these tonal shifts are created by their incessant attempt to bring asses into the theater: "dress the Ice Queen like Elsa, that will bring families to see the movie", but also "dress the love interest all in leather and showing as much skin as possible, that will bring grown-up guys to see this", and also "dress Charlize Theron as if she was about to go to the Paris Fashion Week, that will bring the lonely middle-aged women into the theater"... You get my drift.

With that out of the way, let's break down the characters and their designs.


Because Kirsten Steward refused to return as Snow White, the movie found its new protagonist in the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) from the first movie, who apparently is named Eric all of a sudden. Also, a side note, they completely changed the personality of the character. I'm not complaining, now, at least, he is charming. But it makes for a jarring change if you watch this movie right after its predecessor.

As for the designs; they kept his very similar to the ones he had in Snow White; they were simply upgraded. It was considered that now that he has Snow White's support, he would be able to afford better clothes, and so the few changes done were done to improve the quality of his still very basic costume: now it's made of a nicer leather and the finishing details are also neater. But the overall feel is the same: gritty and dirty as befits the character.

They even gave him a nicer coat as well!

By now, you'll have noticed the other major change in his design: he's gone from browns to blacks. This is an odd choice considering that they took the character's personality in a lighter route, changing him from a moody and depressed man to a very charming and optimistic one. 

It's not a change that actively bothers me, but it's a weird choice, to say the least, and a clear sign of the confusion the movie has about what it wants to be: it wants to be a dark epic and therefore darkens the palette of the protagonist whilst at the same time, stripping him of every personality trait that made him dark or edgy.

In the end, his costume is purely serviceable. It won't be memorable, but it also won't actively want to make you gouge your eyes out. It's the costume that tells you: "this is your fantasy hero, and he's a tough one". Nothing unique, but not actively wrong either.


Turning Hemsworth's Huntsman into the protagonist wasn't as simple as they made us believe. Let's not forget that the Snow White movie didn't even bother to give him a name. His previous role was purely supporting to Steward's lead, so in order to turn him into our protagonist, the movie needed to create a story and background for him. Surely they could have tried not to rip said background straight from Conan (the 1982 version, honestly, it's exactly the same: kid's village gets massacred by the villain's army and he's taken to train as a slave warrior), but that was asking too much effort out of them.

Here's the overly complicated background they opted for: despite what we though in the previous movie, he wasn't referred to as "huntsman" because that was his job, but because he belonged to the feared army of "huntsmen" of the Ice Queen, created by capturing children and raising them as soldiers. Don't question it, just roll with it. otherwise, you'll end with a huge headache.

Despite being a rather crazy premise, it certainly gives room for creating a cool design. What did they do instead? Dress them all in an eerily similar style as the one Eric has had for these two movies: leather trousers and leather vest, with leather arm protections and a rough, spun shirt. Wow, groundbreaking.

But I'm not complaining just because of the obvious laziness of the concept, no. I'm not that petty. I'm complaining because this poses a bigger problem, actually. If that is the "uniform" of the huntsmen, why would Eric wear it even after seven years of his life not being part of the "huntsmen"?

The fact that he wears the exact same outfit would be passable if it was immediate; he runs away and comes back. But between the picture on the left (whilst being in Freya's army) and the one in the right (being Queen Snow White's man) 7 entire years happen (and I know because the movie tells you it's been seven years). And he is wearing exactly the same! It's jarring, lazy and makes no sense.

My best bet is that they wanted to keep it simple, avoiding the possibility that people got confused. But was it so difficult to create a different uniform for the Huntsmen to differentiate his time with them and his time as Snow White's man? The answer is no, it wasn't.

Unfortunately, the worst is still to come.


During his time as a Huntsman, Eric fell madly in love with a fellow Huntswoman named Sara, whom he married and decided to run away with. This brought on them the wrath of Freya, who apparently has some nonsensical rule about not loving, and separated them, making Eric believe she had died right after throwing him to a river and leaving him to die. And, of course, in a twist that nobody saw coming, Sara was actually alive, forcing us to stand for the rest of the movie the neatly tied bundle of cliches that is her character.

Her costume consists of skin-tight black leather pants with knee-high black boots and a tight black leather doublet. The whole look is finished with a metal belt and a couple of leather arm protections.

It truly baffles me the choice of having her go sleeveless. I mean, were they that desperate to show some skin to attract that sweet male demographic? Also, skin-tight leather? That might look sexy, but it's not the most comfortable thing to wear and move around a lot. I don't want to even imagine the friction burns.

At least someone (and my money is on Atwood) though about putting a chemise underneath that doublet, even though it would be way more logical not to cut the sleeves out and have the chemise poking underneath the doublet and covering her arms. But I truly doubt she is wearing much under those trousers... ouch.

I know I'm really tiresome about the sleeves thing. But it makes no sense when you think about it more than 5 seconds at a time. She is part of the Ice Queen's army. She lives and fights in the Ice Realm. It's clearly acknowledged that it's cold up there; when they meet up with the army, and she is wearing only the "sexy" chemise, they give her a fur coat! And I refuse to consider that it's only because she's in the chemise. The sleeveless leather doublet on top would hardly help at all against the cold.

Also, for the first 20 minutes of the movie, she does wear a long-sleeved shirt beneath! Why did they change that? She looks so much better with that addition.

This character and her design are a perfect example of producers meddling with the job of the designer. If you take a look at Atwood's original sketches (here below), you'll see a design that is actually awesome. And the few moments in the movie when she looks the best are the moments when she's looking closest to that original design.

As you can see, her original design was actually created with the cold factor in mind; including sleeves and fur protection around the neck and shoulders. The thing is, something tells me they took her sleeves off for the second half of the movie because during her time "dead" she had become a "badass". And, for many a producer, there is no other way to show a female character is a "badass" except by taking her sleeves off.

But, no matter how much I bitch about the sleeves-thing, at the end of the day, what truly bothers me the most about her design is that her costume is nothing but a bundle of fantasy female cliches all tied together with zero imagination.

She looks like every badass female warrior has before. And that's why whilst Hemsworth costume (even though not very original) feels real, her costume doesn't. It's pulled out of every video game ever made. That's what I mean when I complain about the tonal dissonance in the costumes.


Originally this was going to be only one article, but it was starting to become such a long article, that I decided to split it in two. The second part will continue with the designs for Freya and Ravenna, the evil sister Queens. But, right now, ending this first part with Sara is perfect, because I have been able to introduce my main quarrel with the movie design (tonal dissonance) but has also allowed me to introduce my second main quarrel with it: the re-use of overused visual cliches.

Allow me to explain myself; this movie doesn't only rely on narrative (and worn-out) cliches, it also relies on visual cliches. What are visual cliches? Well, images that we've seen so many times that we associate with certain roles and, of course, plenty of laziness. The result is a boring movie to watch. This is "diet-coke" fantasy. And it irks me because it's lazy storytelling and lazy visuals like this that make people say that "fantasy is silly and just for kids".

Both these problems plague the designs for Freya and her sister even more than they do the designs of the Huntsmen (and women), so brace yourself for the ride!


If you enjoyed this article and would like to support the blog, 
consider buying me a Coffee? 💛💛

If you want more content like this, subscribe! Or come say hi on FacebookTumblrTwitterInstagram and help us grow!

DISCLAIMER: I claim no credit for images featured on this site unless noted. Visual content is copyrighted to its respective owners, and inclusion here is under fair use for criticism, comment, and news reporting purposes. If you own the rights to content here and wish it removed, please contact me.


  1. The original film underperformed regarding the original studio hopes but just before it was supposed to come out there was really low predictions for it. So when the film outperformed them the studio could play the film as a hit. And probbaly greenlit the sequel for investors. If the film was actually good, had come out sooner and had lower budget maybe it could have worked but it looked like a poor choice from the start.

    And nice you have your own opinions and not just repeating what other people say or be impressed by the famous designer.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Burning Question: What's wrong with Belle's gown?

Since the first promotional pictures of Disney's new Live-Action remake of Beauty and the Beast hit the internet, there has been a lot of discussion around Belle's iconic ball gown. And, even months after its release in cinemas, there still continues to be a lot of buzz around it. Why? Mainly, because a lot of people feel that it is just doesn't look that good. The thing is, Belle's animated yellow ball gown is, at this point, an iconic staple of animated cinema. Everybody knows it and everybody loves it. And, as a result, everybody can see the new one and say "this is not the costume I know". Therefore, everyone can compare it down to the smallest detail and see that it just doesn't quite look right. Today, my goal will be to try and dissect the design in order to answer the burning question everyone has been asking themselves: what's so wrong with the "new" dress? Or, to put it bluntly, why is it so incredibly underwhelming?

Disney's Cinderella(s) and the evolution of the "princess" aesthetics

Every girl, at some point in life, has wanted to be a princess. It has become undeniable that the concept of the "princess" is, for better or worst, inseparable from girlhood. We live in a "princesses" obsessed era, and we have for a long time now. And a lot has been said about it, with loud people yelling over the internet about the positive and negative aspects of it. So it was about time for me to join the yelling contest, I guess. If I'm going to talk about princesses, the logical place to go is to the Global Mogul Conglomerate that has led the trend and, in many ways, defined it: Disney. They have, undeniably, redefined the fairytale and have turned the term "princess" into a best selling Licensed Entertainment Character Merchandise. The thing is, even though princesses have been part of the fairy tale canon for a very long time, they didn't become the central figure until Walt Disney placed them there. In the tales that the G

Historic Accuracy in Costume Design: The 16th century

I've never been a purist with historical accuracy as long as the changes made have real reasoning behind (generally a narrative or symbolic one). I will always think that La reine Margot (1994) costume design is one of the most gorgeous and smart designs ever, even if said designs' main premise is to purposely bend the period in regards to costume. But there are certain things that bother me in regards to historical accuracy in costume which I realized when I found myself constantly irritated while watching The other Boleyn Girl (2008). This led me to post a question: when is it right to bend history? why is it interesting sometimes? whilst other times it's simply horrendous? To me, when these changes are made for the narrative's sake, I'm usually on board (like the 2012's "Anna Karenina" designs, which mixed the 1870's fashion with 1950's fashion in order to enhance the sense of theatricality and falsehood in Imperial Russia). But wh

Crimson Peak: Dressing Edith Cushing. The Butterfly

"Beautiful things are fragile" - Lucille Sharpe - Opposite Lucille stands our main character in the movie: Edith Cushing, a young and naive American with ambitions to become a writer. She meets and falls in love with a handsome and charming, but impoverished, English baronet: Sir Thomas Sharpe. They eventually marry and return to England, to the Sharpe's dilapidated mansion: Allerdale Hall. There they live with Thomas's sister: Lucille. The deadly apparitions that haunt the house will force Edith to slowly uncover the buried secrets of Crimson Peak. And so, Edith is to become a fragile butterfly caught in a moth's trap. PART II: THE BUTTERFLY Edith has considerably more frocks and gowns than Lucille does. It's only logical. Edith is our protagonist and, as such, has a bigger emotional arc throughout the movie, and she undergoes bigger changes. These are, in part, expressed through the costumes she wears and how these change throughout the mo

A look into Star Wars: Padme's Dresses. Annex B

Love her or hate her, Padme and her costumes can never be far from our minds. They are too iconic, and probably one of the few memorable aspects of the prequels, so it's really fun to talk about them. And so, I've decided to continue what I started and focus on the costumes I left behind from Episode II . So let's dive back into it! A BRIEF REMINDER What are the Annexes? Well, the Annexes focus on all the costumes that were "left behind" in my selection of Padme Costumes for the A look into Star Wars: Padme's Dresses series. Here, I point out influences, likes, and dislikes, and anything that might feel relevant whilst digging into the gigantic wardrobe of this Galactic Queen. With this out of the way, let's go! ANNEX B: THE ATTACK OF THE CLONES Episode II: The Attack of the Clones brings the character and her designs to a completely different level; she is not a queen anymore, which unfortunately means that she no longer has amazingly weird an

Crimson Peak: Dressing Lady Lucille Sharpe. The Moth

"At home, we have only black moths. Formidable creatures, to be sure, but they lack beauty. They thrive on the dark and the cold." - Lucille Sharpe - CRIMSON PEAK is Guillermo del Toro's new film. Released this past October, the movie is written by del Toro himself and Mathew Robbins (who has also collaborated with the likes of Spielberg and Lucas throughout his career). The movie aims to be a gothic romance movie through and through, and it stars Mia Wasikowska, Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain. The story goes as follows: Edith Cushing, a young budding American author, meets and falls in love with a handsome and charming but impoverished English baronet: Sir Thomas Sharpe. They eventually marry and return to England, to the Sharpe's dilapidated mansion: Allerdale Hall. There they live with Thomas's sister: Lucille. The deadly apparitions that haunt the house will force Edith to slowly uncover the buried secrets of Crimson Peak. In the movie

Moulin Rouge and the art of Kitsch

The spring of 2001 saw the release of Moulin Rouge! unexpectedly shake the movie industry and the box office simultaneously. Despite the many awards, including 8 nominations at the Academy Awards, and the impressive box office numbers, the movie quickly became very polarizing for audiences. Love and hate seemed to be the only two possible reactions to the movie itself. But that should not come as a surprise. The film was directed by Baz Luhrman, who has consistently been, throughout his career, one of the most polarizing filmmakers of his generation. I still have to meet anyone who simply doesn't mind his movies (which include Romeo+Juliet , Australia and The Great Gatsby ); it's either absolute love or absolute loathing. There is no middle ground with him. And that's mainly because he himself doesn't compromise when it comes to his style, which is so characteristic at this point (fast and frantic editing, vivid use of flashy colors and sparkle and stories a

Marie Antoinette: Working with an historical basis

A couple of months ago, I talked extensively about the narrative aspect of the designs for 2006's  Marie Antoinette (see here ). But that's only one half of the story. This movie is, after all, a period piece, so let's have a look at how they translated that period into the costumes. MARIE ANTOINETTE : WORKING WITH AN HISTORICAL BASIS Period accurate pieces are actually the hardest to get by; that is because clothing in past centuries was way more complex and expensive than our 21st century standards. Because of this, most costume designers end up being constricted by their allotted budgets and have to make compromises with accuracy. This was not the case with this movie. Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette had a rather large budget, which allowed renowned designer Milena Canonero the freedom to create period-accurate pieces (the inaccuracies were only added for narrative purposes, not budget constrictions). Because of this, Canonero decided to work off

The Costume Vault Anniversary!

Good day, beautiful readers!! First of all, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone! Today is a very special day for me, here at The Costume Vault . It's our anniversary!!! We're celebrating our third anniversary! Though to be honest, I didn't actually start this project seriously until last year... So, I'm a three-year-old, with the experience of a one-year-old...? Oh, who cares. Today, three years ago, I published our first article ever. So, today is a day of celebration. This project started out of a deep love for movies and costuming and a need to share that. And also boredom... I had quite the free time back then, to be honest. But the project took off, and now I continue even when I don't have as much free time. But it's worth it because I get to share my love for movies and costuming with you. To this day, I've written sixty articles, most of which I am quite proud of indeed. And what's even better, you seem to enjoy reading

The Dressmaker. Part I: A glamorous outsider

2015's The Dressmaker is the wet dream of any costume lover in all of its 120 minutes of runtime. The Aussie film directed by Jocelyn Moorhouse is the adaptation of the Rosalie Ham's homonymous novel. After quite an impressive run in the Festival Circuit (it premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival) and garnishing numerous nominations and wins worldwide, it finally got a theatrical release, becoming a box office success and the 11th highest-grossing film of all time in its home country. So there certainly was a lot of hype around it when I finally got to see it and had a lot of expectations to live up to. ABOUT THE MOVIE So, is the movie actually that good? ... Sort of? Well, it's complicated. That's my official review tagline: it's complicated . The thing is; the movie has a ton of problems of all sorts. A lot of it doesn't work, but what does work, works really well. Let's start with the negatives. First of all, the movie is a t