Always enjoy your reviews and found this one particularly timely as I just saw Shape of Water two nights ago. I liked this movie. It surprised me from the start with Eliza' s daily routine, showing us just enough to get a feel for her life. Like you, I'm not a romance story person, but I was taken in by the charm of the portrayal of Eliza's developing relationship with the creature (yes, when I first saw him I thought, "Abe Sapien"). I thought Zelda was hilarious and was interested in Giles and his art dilemma in a more modern age. I liked going back to see a Cold War era period piece with clinched Soviets and spy tech. There were just so many things that were cool about this film. BUT I left scratching my head about a couple of things and it kept me up thinking about it. Yes, Strickland is the bad guy and you could see if evilness deepen as his gangrene became worse as he inside and out. If he were the only strait, white, Christian male portrayed this way in the film I'd say, yes that is that character - he's a SOB in the Old school bad guy sense. He wasn't the only one in the film however, and that bugs me. Think about every strait, white male (presumably Christian) in the movie. All of them are bad guys but one and he's a Communist spy! Pie shop guy: racist homophobe. USAF general: Domineering, agenda driven authoritarian. Even Zelda's husband is portrayed as a weak, spineless black man that can't or won't provide for his family. Of course Strickland was portrayed as an over-the-top Alfa male, being all of the above, plus sexist/misogynistic and potentially anti-Semitic. You mentioned his lack of satisfaction in his homelife sexually, but I did not see at that. I saw it more of the assertion of his dominance on all those around him. His wife, the scientists, everyone. When he was talking to Eliza and talked about having his way with her, I didn't think he would have done it to gain any sexual pleasure from it, but in bringer her down even lower. He was a man that thought his current assignment was beneath him. "Look at me, I'm interviewing the f-king hired help." The only person HE submitted to was the general and only after he knew he'd lost control of the situation. Well, this has gone longer than I intended, but it has been bugging me. Thanks again for the reviews and keep up the great work. Respectfully, Matt
I'm definitely NOT a romance person, so this movie goes in the 'good but not great' bin for me. And I'm that viewer who sees the bathroom scene and just can't stop thinking about what they're doing to the structural integrity of the building and how much damage all that water is going to do to all those finishes and structures. I mean, I know it's a rental, but still.
@Zombies I disagree with your assertion that this is the "real" world, lots of movies take place in a almost real world where most things are normal but not everything, this movie is one of them. There are various hints to this, the set design for one, the color scheme and the constant deluge of rain "I kept expecting Noah's Ark to sail past by the end of the movie". The over the top characterization of the players and organization, the fact that the world is more 50's, 60's then the actual 1950's and 1960's were. You say that the "rules" should have been established beforehand... I'm curious how you would do that, would you have had a lengthy prologue establishing that apartment construction in this reality was such that rooms can be made watertight with a few well placed towels? It's a movie! The rules of the world are going to be established as you watch. You said you couldn't help but think that that's not how the real world works. Well with all due respect I suggest that that's not Del Toro's fault but rather yours for not suspending your disbelief when you started watching, mind you I'm not suggesting that you HAVE to like the movie, I'm just suggesting that maybe you went into it with the wrong mindset. Now bear in mind much like Siansonea Orande, I too couldn't help but think of the ridiculousness of that room being watertight but I just accepted it and moved on, the same way I just accepted the dance number in the middle of eating dinner at the table, or didn't dwell on the face that the monster was somehow appreciating music underwater even though sound travels horribly underwater and wouldn't sound anything like music. Anyways I didn't mean that to come off as confrontational I just get in debate mode sometimes. Hope you enjoy your next movie better.
I feel like Michael Shannon's character was meant to be an archetype as he was meant to represent the worst aspects of American culture. I don't understand the problem with this, there were plenty of people in this time period who were like him no doubt. As for the movie pushing an agenda, I also don't see the problem. Art will always be political, and every piece of media we consume is pushing some kind of agenda. The inclusion of minorities in our media is no more political than the lack of minorities, which often sends an equally loud message to viewers.
No... there was subtlety with Michael Shannon's character. He's good to his effeminite son, and patient with his family. He mentions he wants to focus on "positive thoughts" at some point (avoiding his "evil" responsibilities). And also, he practically WANTS to give up his search, but his boss degrades him and threatens him. That makes him kind of tragic imo. All the characters were great, including him.
"The kind of romance I tend to like" followed immediately by "interspecies love story" lighting up. Do you have some crazy dark kinks you're hiding from us, Alachia?
This is a fairy tale. It works perfectly as that. Bad is bad, good is good. The lessons are clear. It's a visually dynamic, fantastical experience. Enjoy it for what it is, maybe?
I did enjoy it for what it was but there wasn't a ton there to enjoy apart from a few scenes were Eliza and the fish man got to hang out. The rest was watching a douche bag run around being a douche.
I love that character. He's almost sympathetic for how human he is, but utterly corrupt and psychopathic. I love how mundane he is in his evil. He's not typical at all to me because he's real. At the end of the day he's just a guy from that time trying to make it up the bureaucratic ladder. The film would have easily had him as the hero were it a true period piece.
it doesn't work as a fairy tale though, it's overwhelmed by the political elements political ideology doesn't mesh well with archetypal fairy tale structures, they're almost opposites --- fairy tales are the stories that remain true across time, while the 2017 progressive ideology will be dated five years from now Del Toro's great at telling the fairy tale aspects of the story, but the political aspects fall flat if it were more of a straight up serendipitous storybook Amelie take on Beauty and the Beast it would've been a great movie, as is it's held back by underdeveloped strengths and overdeveloped weaknesses
I enjoyed it as well! I'd probably give it a slightly higher grade. Somewhere between B and B+. My only real issues were with... *SPOILERS* I got more out of the Russian Mole than you did, as well as Strickland. But, I wanted two other things to be resolved or connected. I wanted the Mole's plan and Eliza's plan to be coordinated instead of coincidental. There were plenty of opportunities for the Mole to come to Eliza and become a collaborator. I enjoyed that he wasn't ideological on behalf of Russia, but just interested in science. That was a great beat for him. I just thought the two plans coming together concurrently stretched my disbelief too far. (In a movie where a mute girl bangs a monster) Second, with Strickland, he had a hinted obsession with Eliza. Going so far as to cover his wife's mouth during sex so he could pretend he was fucking a mute. He seemed to have a pathology around a quiet partner that could have been expanded on. Maybe his wife was a nag or the house in general was just too noisy for him. Beyond that, because he was interested in Eliza, it would have been good to have him realize she had slept with the creature. He was competitive and constantly conscious of his own masculinity and that would have added another layer to his hatred of the creature in the final scene. Over all, I thought is was one of GDT's best films. He normally struggles more with character and narrative. This was leagues better (see what I did there?) than his usual clunky character building. Oh yeah, one other small thing took me out of it--and I know it's a fantasy film, but, really? She filled her bathroom with water? on the second floor of a theater? unconcerned about her apartment?
I started watching the film, thinking to my self: Oh this is a pretty sweet film about this mute woman,but when she started to “flick the bean” i was like 🙄
I actually thought that the scene masterfully normalized her without any effort, it would have been very easy to see her as almost a sort of princess in this fairy world her muteness making her magicly special, but being introduced to her doing something soo.. crude just shows that she's just normal... just like the rest of us.
I'm not sure the "bad guy" is really a "villain" in this movie. I think probably in that era, a lot of white american men where like that (misogynistic, racist, driving for success, have the "perfect american family", religious, etc.), so he's not really "bad", he's just acting as his society tough him to be.
I kind of like the archetypes in the movie. They where inverted when they should be, like the spy being the good guy and ‘normal’ when it should be, but I see the criticism. I agree... wish we’d seen a little more of Eliza! I thought the friend group was awesome, it actually looks like mine 😊❤️
I really disliked the gratuitous brutality in this film and felt that it completely overshadowed the beauty of the fantastical elements. Also, I feel that the poster for the film was incredibly misleading - it suggested a romantic fantasy but what we got for the most part was a brutal, Cold War spy / thriller story with a sci-fi spin. No way did The Shape of Water deserve the award for Best Picture.
I loved Giles' story, Zelda was a riot to watch whenever she's on screen, and Eliza was just adorable. I just wanted all three of them to live together. What almost took me out of the movie was the dance number but I infer that was her internal monologue. I look forward to what Del Toro has for the next film.
I find your reaction...odd. For one thing, you do get a lot of detail pure wrong. The film is set in the 1960s not 50s and Michael Shannon's character is not in charge of this facility. More, Eliza is anything but ordinary plus anything but plain--I mean, she's beautiful! Michael Shannon's character is also a very nuanced one, including the fact he's so aggressive. In terms of plot, he's meant to be a threat, and he comes across as such. If he doesn't, that short-circuits the plot. Eliza has to rightfully fear what this man will do, and feel totally justified in thwarting him (even though we, who know more, can see his life as in many ways pathetic). Your complaint about Russian agents--what is that about? Especially since one of them is literally an example of a different direction to the Asset, seeing something beautiful that should not be destroyed. That weird sigh you give--what is that all about? YOu honestly come across as someone with EXTREMELY specific and narrow expectations, unwilling to accept what something is as opposed to what you want it to be. Like me when I was twenty something. How you don't see communication and sharing between Eliza and the Asset, I simply don't understand. Yeah, I won't be watching any more of your reviews.
This is the very first review of 'The Shape of Water' that didn't leave me feeling that I just didn't get. You hit all the points that were swirling in my head about what wrong with this movie. Thank you for this! I'm like you, I'm not really into romance in movies cos I think most of them are really shallow and unrealistic. I would love to hear your thoughts on 'Call Me By Your Name', cos that's one of my favorite movie of all time.
TBH, I think the relationship between Elisa and the monster was also, to use your words, "shallow and unrealistic" ... therefore it was only really unique from typical romantic stories cosmetically.
Thank you for a decent review that actually recognises some of the fairly gaping flaws in this film! Btw added to the Russian tropes, the Russian they are speaking is garbage
I enjoy your reviews, they are informative , honest and most comprehensive. I love the way this movie left you a tad frustrated, when work leaves you wanting more it has done it's job, job done guillermo
An ongoing... "thing"... I take issue with in these kinds of films is that the main protagonist, Sally Hawkins, is an outcast who could find no connection anywhere in the world of man. I get that it's 1950 and back then any kind of disability that affected a person's communication was often misunderstood as a lack of intelligence, but Helen Keller changed the perspective of deafness, dumbness, blindness and by 1950 she was 70 years old; there would be plenty of people who wouldn't see Hawkins' character as anything to be shunned. Sally Hawkins is a beautiful woman who's shy and maybe a little submissive, whimsical and empathetic, who happens to be unable to speak; no joke, this describes practically an ideal woman for what a man wants. They "plain" her down for the character, but she's still Sally Hawkins. And as part of men's "toxic" masculinity, we LIKE taking care of women. We LIKE women who need us. The idea that she'd be single and alone, disconnected with humanity to the point where she opens the door to - to be blunt - fucking a fish is just a bridge too far.
Yeah, outside of stylistic beauty in the visuals and cinematography , its not too great. Pretty formulaic and tropey with moments of brilliance here and there.
I saw the film the other day and I did find it enjoyable. Had no problem with any of the characters and actually I think that Strickland was used quite well to both endear the amphibian man to us and bring to the fore some elements of the period in which it was set (which in spite of what it says on IMDb is 1963 - Cleopatra was playing in the theatre, for crying out loud!). Also, I don't think there was any sprinkling of diversity in the film (no black librarian in a French village of the 18th century). Scientists in the facility are all white and male, which would have been typical of the time. There is a scene when the bartender orders a black couple out of his caffe (segregation), and he also takes an immedeate dislike towards Giles when he spontaneously comes out (which, TBH, I didn't see coming). And I find it interesting, considering the current climate in Hollywood, that in one scene Strickland insinuates sexually assaulting Elisa, which someone in a position of power, in a world where it's more acceptable to feel entitled and sweep someone's behaviour under the carpet because of their status, would consider to be perfectly within their rights. There is also a trophy wife for Strickland, whose sole purpose is to be accomodating to her husband and bear him children, with at least one male to further his bloodline (a view on women which still exists in my country, Serbia). Russians (or Soviets, to be precise) are also well integrated in the film. To me this part added to the period feel of the film, and I also liked how Guillermo used a de-facto "bad guy", Dr. Robert Hoffstetler, to further highlight the true monstrous nature of Strickland. Now, whether this is a film worthy of 13 Oscar nominations is up for debate. But it's certanly something I would recomend as good viewing to my friends.
Alachia, you have said it right again. The film is beautiful, but feels incomplete and very heavy-handed. Unfortunately, (or fortunately) it is something like a diluted version of his far superior Pan's Labyrinth. I could have really forgiven all the problems if we could have really understood why exactly these characters were in love, or why the feelings were justified.
First, so great to see you again, happy 2018! I am more or less in the same boat, I liked it but wished I could like it much more. In all too rare moments I actually found Strickland funny, like when he was speculating on what God looks like. I think I'd feel more satisfied if I had a better sense, not only of the particulars of what Elisa and the Asset (about as close to a name for it as we get) both like and share, but how their life together is going to work out. I recall the beginning the movie The Day of the Dolphin, in which George C. Scott marvels at dolphins living in a world of sensation. Perhaps Elisa yearns for that, and perhaps the Asset can bring that to her. Record players and movie projectors don't work so great underwater, and things can get dull, so I consider this rather important. That aside, the Creature from the Black Lagoon had a huge impact on me as a baby boy, he was my gateway to science fiction, so I guess I have a bit of a soft spot for this.
Agreed. Very Devil's Backbone/Pan's Labyrinth-esque. You have you're dark fantasy juxtaposed with a social-political drama, copious amounts of injustice, human(s) being the 'real' monster(s) of the story (hence the unapologetically evil villains), ambiguous death of the female protagonist. I dig it :p
A really interesting review. I didn't really have the problems with the Strickland character that this reviewer had. I thought the depiction of the romance was perfect, I mean this is a 'woman on fish' romance story, going any deeper into it would have been comedic. The Strickland antagonist was also necessary. He was the titular monster. I think we actually got to see more of his character development than people realise. It just required you to read between the lines. You gain so much from repeated viewings - Thanks for the review.
My reaction after watching this movie is WTF! I like pretty much every de toro's movie except shape of water. If "the shape of water" = love, then the whole movie comes down to sex and aggression, which is a really fucked up boring theme to explore
The director took this idea from the Creature from the black lagoon series took out all the good pieces added in his own parts and made a bad movie. I'm sorry but when the creature had sex with the human girl all I could do is start shaking my head and laugh. The acting was good and the way it was filmed looked amazing but the movie was awful. I hope someone sees this gets the right to remake the Creature from the black lagoon. One final note just because a movie is weird doesn't mean it's good.
Yeah, I personally couldn't put it any other way than that. It was fun to watch and got me to jump a little at some points but I don't think people should call it a masterpiece. It doesn't't feel hate-able, sure you can like or dislike it but there was never a point where either extreme felt justified.
Finally a review that sees this movie as it is, so basic and cheesy and boring, been done so often, I'm sure I would have liked it in the 80's but, I like to think we r more sophisticated movie goers than this , good review thanks
I loved it. It had almost a Hansel and Gretel / classical fairy tale vibe about it. A very unusual move with bold characters. And say what you will, Michael shannon plays a dodge-pot perfectly.
This was definitely a dissapointment of a movie for me. I expected more originality than a hodgepodge of Amelie and The Swamp Monster with Masturbation sprinkled in for no proper reason. I thought as well that the movie just wanted to be too much at the same time and therefor failed at a lot, except baiting the Oscars.
It just isn't, I mean all the more power to anyone that wants to say it is, but the fact is is that it isn't. The first movie explains that he was found under similer circumstances as to his comic counterpart, thats why he's called "Abe" cause he was buried when Lincoln was shot, the world in Shape of Water is much more fairy tale esque then Hellboy in my opinion, and there's just no point to making the two connect, though there is a part of me that likes calling it an Abe Sapian stand alone spin off! smiles.
It's not because he doesn't have the rights to Sapien's character so I doubt he'd waste his time developing a universe he has no rights to make future movies on.
I said that it "could" be a part of the Hellboy universe. I should have also said that it could be a part of the Hellboy universe without ever having to say its a part of the actual Hellboy universe to avoid any legal issues.
Unfortunately, this film has yet to appear in my remote area of Texas. Especially frustrating for me as I'm a big fan of Nigel Bennett (Soviet officer) and John Kapelos (the theatre manager in this film, I'm told).
We always agree with not Oscar stuff. :P Other than Lion (2016) for the Oscars, The Shape of Water might be my favorite of 2017, not just the Academy Awards, which I'm not much of a fan of to begin with.
Bestiality...that what that movie was. (Actually it was a well made film but it was still some freaky stuff). My favorite scene was when Elisa was imploring her roommate Giles to help her rescue the creature. You're a great actor if you can communicate that level of emotion so convincingly without speaking a word. She was absolutely yelling at him without making a sound... ....but there is no getting around the bestiality.
Is Beastiality wrong from the beasts perspective I wonder... or is it just wrong from the human side... and if so, why isn't it wrong in both cases? And if having sex with non-homosapien's is a sin... does that make someone like Spock's entire existence an abomination?
Came off a bit like bestiality to me. I was wrestling with that feeling the whole movie mainly because the creature showed the ability to mimic sign, but it just road the line of human level sentience for me. For most of the film the intelligence and understanding felt more like a chimp or gorilla because it's communication was more focused on cause and effect type thing. Ex. Make this motion to get food and make this motion to get music (bit like a parrot mimicing a song to get attention rather than understanding it's content). At the end it felt a bit closer to showing sentience, but it never got close enough to where I was comfortable with that relationship.
Alachia Queen Er...not quite sure. Hadn't thought much beyond doing a very shallow, v. silly quip. What do I do? Alachia asked me serious question, n I got nothing...! But, if I were to offer a serious topic for a future Water Cooler Chat, I might suggest one about films which were box office flops, like Wizard of Oz, which have since been deemed classics (and any possible modern flops, which might become so)(like Blade Runner 2049 for eg). And their reverse, films which were big hits, which now regarded as anything but. [If the latter may be a lot harder to quantify/get a common consensus on.] May be best to have two water cooler chats. [Not to mention seconds & referees.] Top of my future non classic list wud be Thor Ragnorak, just a series of disconnected comedy sketches, for me. Which, I went on about in too long a previous post on one of your comments pages. But I've felt I needed to get that particular idea (s) out there, ever since it came out. Good to see u perking up a bit Mrs Queen, & thanks for replying. World needs your particular brand of giggly nilhism!!
Yes please review three billboards outside ebbings missouri Soon . Not sure if that is a movie you looking forward or not to review . I find it a depressingly charming small movie which explore a lot of human inner dark side . Read some say its main protagonist doesn’t have a story arc some say the ending is ambiguous but I find the female protagonist story perfectly crafted and the ending is excellent (finding hope even though how immoral it is amongst hopelessness , and redemption no matter how twisted it is )
Saw this movie today and holy moly what the hell have i watched. It feels like a weird porn on pornhub. The only things I like about this movie is the opening scene and the actors.
"The Shape of Water" is a harsh, left-wing critique of pre- Sixties American society disguised as a monster movie--- the very definition of "Oscar bait."
Michael Shannon is too comical and over the top. I really think he's not that good of an actor anymore. He got pigeonholed into one character. Weakest part of the movie.
I might be wrong but I feel like there are some films where he just goes to work for the pay check and some films where it feels like he's the best actor in the business.
The Shape of Water is a strangely overhyped film. Movies like Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (a similarly hodgepodge enterprise with gorgeous tangents) are trashed while Shape of Water not only gets a pass, it gets credit for things it does not do. This "exceptional storytelling" is, in fact, erratic and tonally confused. I agree with Alachia that Del Toro (a director whose pre-Crimson Peak career I greatly admire) pulls focus from the meat of his story to show us two-dimensional characters who represent *ideas* of people rather than *genuine* people. Richard Jenkins, Michael Shannon, and Octavia Spencer are terrific, but they play weightless plot devices wandering through a twelve-year-old's fantasy of a maximum security government facility set in a pretend 1962 America. Shannon's family life gets way too much screen time when considering that he is a two-dimensional heavy who isn't terribly bright or compelling. Del Toro shows us Jenkins having two(!) meetings with the same ad agency to sell his art, instead of giving us more much-needed dramatic interplay between Elisa and her new Love. There are much more economic, clever ways to demonstrate the supporting characters' isolation without taking us away from the main story: an improbable relationship that requires a complete reconfiguration of how one exists - from interspecies sex to breathing water. This film does *not* demonstrate how good people are strong, that monsters can be beautiful, that virtue can be found in outcasts and that evil is readily identifiable. It is far too artificial to prove these points. Rather, it presents us with the idea that Guillermo Del Toro believes these things to be true. SPOILERS: Look at Michael Stuhlbarg's Dr. Hoffstetler While Stuhlbarg is outstanding, what does his character mean? If he is a scientist and a spy, why is he so ill-prepared for his comrades' plans to kill him? If he is a man of deep integrity, why does he expose Elisa and Zelda knowing he will die soon anyway? Is he an idiot, a wimp, or a jerk? He was critical in getting the Amphibian Man out of the facility and the only voice of logic and compassion amongst the scientists, military men and contractors. Was his final testament meant to emasculate Shannon by revealing that two cleaning ladies stole the prize test subject? Was that a point to be made by a scientific mind? Are we to equate him with the other isolated individuals and forgive him for needlessly aiding the stupid villain? Also, shouldn't Hoffstetler have been more hands-on with the post-facility care of the creature? Wasn't he still curious about how the creature functioned? In the end, Dr. Hoffstetler expedited the plot while also eating up a sizable chunk of it. Why did we spend so much time with him outside the purview of the lead characters when he was so expendable? Ultimately, he helped save the creature, he inexplicably gave away the creature, and he died, burying fifteen minutes of backstory with him. If Dr. Hoffstetler had offered Shannon other comrade spies to kill, he would have served two purposes: revenge against a treacherous network and throwing the villain off the scent. Instead, he died an idiot. The Shape of Water is fantastical, but based on what realities? What truths? The movie suggests that the most downtrodden of people are beautiful and special, but the story tramples on many downtrodden people to aid its heroine. Is this irony considered or explored? No. Instead, we get a dream sequence of the lead dancing with the Amphibian Man. On its own, this is cute and appealing, but it doesn't give us a single piece of vital information that we didn't already have from earlier scenes - unless it was dramatically important to hear the lead sing, which it wasn't. And is she special? More specifically, is she special because she is a beautiful person with no political, social or financial power who stands up to evil, or is she special because she is a different species of being possessing skills we don't know much about? Are humans beautiful because they might not be human, or are they beautiful because they have brief moments of brilliance, and, if the latter is the point, is this movie making its case? I think The Shape of Water, at best, makes the case for its own artifice; in other words, if we already agree that all people are special, than all that is necessary is to present a vague tale in deference to these ideals while artfully generating beautiful images and contrasting images of ugliness. While I reject the accolades this film has received, I certainly accept the fact that these accolades exist and that they are helping to sell the "artifice trumps gravity" assurances of a film that should be much better at exploring what it is to be human. Regarding self-actualization and the rejection of societal norms, how is this practical for those who are not lucky or talented enough to make money at what they love to do? How does someone feed themselves if they have no advocates and want to play video games all day? If most gymnasts, ballerinas, actors, and artists are dirt poor, how does the champion bird caller pay the rent? Serious adults have much more complex issues to deal with than simply following their dreams and hoping it all works out. If Del Toro believes that this is the essence of life, how does he explain the necessity of his dictatorial position of the director? Perhaps he takes it on good faith that most everybody loves working for him with long hours, scant notoriety and little pay. Would he be happy if his crew became "woke" and pursued their own individual stories during the middle of production, or are epiphanies relegated to the king and the cleaning lady? Making movies requires discipline, and the movies championing the abandonment of the very structures and codes that make films possible seems disingenuous to say the least.
This film shows that Hollywood can celebrate fantasy if it praises homosexuals, minority characters and outcasts while framing white heterosexual men as evil and/or incompetent.
George Glass the city of a thousand planets had horrendous acting and flopped at the box office. You and people in your comment thread don’t need to make up SJW conspiracy theories about why that movie was panned... say what you will about the shape of water, but at least it has enough interest and interpretations to have a conversation about. Valerian was mind numbly boring, so poorly cast that my parents actually asked me if either lead was an actor (in the female leads case no, she’s a model...) and if you think Hollywood propped one movie up and not the other, you’re ignoring the countless Ads, in theater promotions and pleas to watch the movie. I worked in a theater when that movie hit. People came out utterly uninterested. That’s the difference, lol.
I'm not looking to reinvent Valerian as a great film, which itself was replete with SJW shoutouts. It currently sits at 49% with the critics/54% audience on Rotten Tomatoes, and 51% critics/6.4 users on Metacritic. That says to me that more or less, half the audience liked it. My point is that The Shape of Water is not much better quality-wise. It *is* aided by better actors, but it, too, falls apart within its own creative indulgences. BTW, Valerian is currently at $41 million domestic box office, while The Shape of Water sits at $33.5 million. ($184 million worldwide for Valerian, $44 million for Shape). Both saw their wide release over a month ago, but only The Shape of Water has the push of The Golden Globes and the promise of winning an Oscar. Nevertheless, paying audiences are considerably smaller for the much-lauded film.
sidenote: you do such a good job with the videos. so hopefully, you will not start incorporating "racist, homophobe, sexist" commentary in videos. as these terms are overwrought, if not a device for those who are brainwashed to believe that there is something inherent in "white people" that such terms apply, excepting any and all other groups. it is just boring to hear!
I liked the last 5 minutes of the movie. Anything before that i was bored and uninterested. This movie could have been sooooo much better than what it was. But its turning into a lgbqt flag bearer. Besides the Russia plot i think overall the movie is not really focused as to what it wants to be. And that flooding of a bathroom with water to turn it into an Aquariam was C.R.I.N.G.E.W.O.R.T.H.Y.!!!!!!!
Alachia Queen But seriously though...It was alot like king kong and there have been many movies like this. King kong just couldn't bang the chick for obvious reasons.
Take in mind that in the 50's-60's, the cold war between Russia and the U.S. was going on. That's why the russians were added to the film. Also, Strickland's behavior was typical.
after so many people telling me how good Pan's Labyrinth was, I finally decided to watch it and it was awful, it left such a bad taste in my mouth that I never want to see another film by this director including this film, even if it wins the best picture I just don't care. I did really enjoy Pacific Rim but I had no idea who directed it at the time and only watched it because of Charlie Hunnam
Yeah, I had the same experience with Pan's Labyrinth. Have you seen Victor Erice's 1973 film The Spirit of the Beehive? If you haven't, check it out. It's wonderful. Pan's Labyrinth is like a cross between that film and The Phantom Menace...
Always enjoy your reviews and found this one particularly timely as I just saw Shape of Water two nights ago. I liked this movie. It surprised me from the start with Eliza' s daily routine, showing us just enough to get a feel for her life. Like you, I'm not a romance story person, but I was taken in by the charm of the portrayal of Eliza's developing relationship with the creature (yes, when I first saw him I thought, "Abe Sapien"). I thought Zelda was hilarious and was interested in Giles and his art dilemma in a more modern age. I liked going back to see a Cold War era period piece with clinched Soviets and spy tech. There were just so many things that were cool about this film.
BUT
I left scratching my head about a couple of things and it kept me up thinking about it. Yes, Strickland is the bad guy and you could see if evilness deepen as his gangrene became worse as he inside and out. If he were the only strait, white, Christian male portrayed this way in the film I'd say, yes that is that character - he's a SOB in the Old school bad guy sense.
He wasn't the only one in the film however, and that bugs me. Think about every strait, white male (presumably Christian) in the movie. All of them are bad guys but one and he's a Communist spy!
Pie shop guy: racist homophobe.
USAF general: Domineering, agenda driven authoritarian.
Even Zelda's husband is portrayed as a weak, spineless black man that can't or won't provide for his family.
Of course Strickland was portrayed as an over-the-top Alfa male, being all of the above, plus sexist/misogynistic and potentially anti-Semitic. You mentioned his lack of satisfaction in his homelife sexually, but I did not see at that. I saw it more of the assertion of his dominance on all those around him. His wife, the scientists, everyone. When he was talking to Eliza and talked about having his way with her, I didn't think he would have done it to gain any sexual pleasure from it, but in bringer her down even lower. He was a man that thought his current assignment was beneath him. "Look at me, I'm interviewing the f-king hired help." The only person HE submitted to was the general and only after he knew he'd lost control of the situation.
Well, this has gone longer than I intended, but it has been bugging me. Thanks again for the reviews and keep up the great work.
Respectfully,
Matt
I'm definitely NOT a romance person, so this movie goes in the 'good but not great' bin for me. And I'm that viewer who sees the bathroom scene and just can't stop thinking about what they're doing to the structural integrity of the building and how much damage all that water is going to do to all those finishes and structures. I mean, I know it's a rental, but still.
Well the movie dosent really take place in the "real" world, it's very much a fairy tale
@Zombies
I disagree with your assertion that this is the "real" world, lots of movies take place in a almost real world where most things are normal but not everything, this movie is one of them. There are various hints to this, the set design for one, the color scheme and the constant deluge of rain "I kept expecting Noah's Ark to sail past by the end of the movie". The over the top characterization of the players and organization, the fact that the world is more 50's, 60's then the actual 1950's and 1960's were.
You say that the "rules" should have been established beforehand... I'm curious how you would do that, would you have had a lengthy prologue establishing that apartment construction in this reality was such that rooms can be made watertight with a few well placed towels? It's a movie! The rules of the world are going to be established as you watch.
You said you couldn't help but think that that's not how the real world works. Well with all due respect I suggest that that's not Del Toro's fault but rather yours for not suspending your disbelief when you started watching, mind you I'm not suggesting that you HAVE to like the movie, I'm just suggesting that maybe you went into it with the wrong mindset.
Now bear in mind much like Siansonea Orande, I too couldn't help but think of the ridiculousness of that room being watertight but I just accepted it and moved on, the same way I just accepted the dance number in the middle of eating dinner at the table, or didn't dwell on the face that the monster was somehow appreciating music underwater even though sound travels horribly underwater and wouldn't sound anything like music.
Anyways I didn't mean that to come off as confrontational I just get in debate mode sometimes. Hope you enjoy your next movie better.
I kinda feel sorry for you. It’s like your immune system actively trying not to enjoy the film, and you can’t switch it off.
Zombies Ruin Everything That is why he's great. His films are a love letter to the transformative nature of movies, "real world" be damned.
I feel like Michael Shannon's character was meant to be an archetype as he was meant to represent the worst aspects of American culture. I don't understand the problem with this, there were plenty of people in this time period who were like him no doubt. As for the movie pushing an agenda, I also don't see the problem. Art will always be political, and every piece of media we consume is pushing some kind of agenda. The inclusion of minorities in our media is no more political than the lack of minorities, which often sends an equally loud message to viewers.
No... there was subtlety with Michael Shannon's character. He's good to his effeminite son, and patient with his family. He mentions he wants to focus on "positive thoughts" at some point (avoiding his "evil" responsibilities). And also, he practically WANTS to give up his search, but his boss degrades him and threatens him. That makes him kind of tragic imo. All the characters were great, including him.
"The kind of romance I tend to like" followed immediately by "interspecies love story" lighting up. Do you have some crazy dark kinks you're hiding from us, Alachia?
This movie is not so original, its Edward scissor hands with a few parts interchanged.
This is a fairy tale. It works perfectly as that. Bad is bad, good is good. The lessons are clear. It's a visually dynamic, fantastical experience. Enjoy it for what it is, maybe?
I did enjoy it for what it was but there wasn't a ton there to enjoy apart from a few scenes were Eliza and the fish man got to hang out. The rest was watching a douche bag run around being a douche.
I love that character. He's almost sympathetic for how human he is, but utterly corrupt and psychopathic. I love how mundane he is in his evil. He's not typical at all to me because he's real. At the end of the day he's just a guy from that time trying to make it up the bureaucratic ladder. The film would have easily had him as the hero were it a true period piece.
it doesn't work as a fairy tale though, it's overwhelmed by the political elements
political ideology doesn't mesh well with archetypal fairy tale structures, they're almost opposites --- fairy tales are the stories that remain true across time, while the 2017 progressive ideology will be dated five years from now
Del Toro's great at telling the fairy tale aspects of the story, but the political aspects fall flat
if it were more of a straight up serendipitous storybook Amelie take on Beauty and the Beast it would've been a great movie, as is it's held back by underdeveloped strengths and overdeveloped weaknesses
Chris C there are no political elements in the film.
I enjoyed it as well! I'd probably give it a slightly higher grade. Somewhere between B and B+.
My only real issues were with... *SPOILERS*
I got more out of the Russian Mole than you did, as well as Strickland. But, I wanted two other things to be resolved or connected. I wanted the Mole's plan and Eliza's plan to be coordinated instead of coincidental. There were plenty of opportunities for the Mole to come to Eliza and become a collaborator. I enjoyed that he wasn't ideological on behalf of Russia, but just interested in science. That was a great beat for him. I just thought the two plans coming together concurrently stretched my disbelief too far. (In a movie where a mute girl bangs a monster)
Second, with Strickland, he had a hinted obsession with Eliza. Going so far as to cover his wife's mouth during sex so he could pretend he was fucking a mute. He seemed to have a pathology around a quiet partner that could have been expanded on. Maybe his wife was a nag or the house in general was just too noisy for him. Beyond that, because he was interested in Eliza, it would have been good to have him realize she had slept with the creature. He was competitive and constantly conscious of his own masculinity and that would have added another layer to his hatred of the creature in the final scene.
Over all, I thought is was one of GDT's best films. He normally struggles more with character and narrative. This was leagues better (see what I did there?) than his usual clunky character building.
Oh yeah, one other small thing took me out of it--and I know it's a fantasy film, but, really? She filled her bathroom with water? on the second floor of a theater? unconcerned about her apartment?
I started watching the film, thinking to my self: Oh this is a pretty sweet film about this mute woman,but when she started to “flick the bean” i was like 🙄
News flash: women masturbate.
flick the bean!!!!! LMAO
I actually thought that the scene masterfully normalized her without any effort, it would have been very easy to see her as almost a sort of princess in this fairy world her muteness making her magicly special, but being introduced to her doing something soo.. crude just shows that she's just normal... just like the rest of us.
I'm not sure the "bad guy" is really a "villain" in this movie.
I think probably in that era, a lot of white american men where like that (misogynistic, racist, driving for success, have the "perfect american family", religious, etc.), so he's not really "bad", he's just acting as his society tough him to be.
I kind of like the archetypes in the movie. They where inverted when they should be, like the spy being the good guy and ‘normal’ when it should be, but I see the criticism. I agree... wish we’d seen a little more of Eliza! I thought the friend group was awesome, it actually looks like mine 😊❤️
I really disliked the gratuitous brutality in this film and felt that it completely overshadowed the beauty of the fantastical elements. Also, I feel that the poster for the film was incredibly misleading - it suggested a romantic fantasy but what we got for the most part was a brutal, Cold War spy / thriller story with a sci-fi spin. No way did The Shape of Water deserve the award for Best Picture.
I loved Giles' story, Zelda was a riot to watch whenever she's on screen, and Eliza was just adorable. I just wanted all three of them to live together. What almost took me out of the movie was the dance number but I infer that was her internal monologue. I look forward to what Del Toro has for the next film.
Great review again !
I find your reaction...odd. For one thing, you do get a lot of detail pure wrong. The film is set in the 1960s not 50s and Michael Shannon's character is not in charge of this facility. More, Eliza is anything but ordinary plus anything but plain--I mean, she's beautiful! Michael Shannon's character is also a very nuanced one, including the fact he's so aggressive. In terms of plot, he's meant to be a threat, and he comes across as such. If he doesn't, that short-circuits the plot. Eliza has to rightfully fear what this man will do, and feel totally justified in thwarting him (even though we, who know more, can see his life as in many ways pathetic). Your complaint about Russian agents--what is that about? Especially since one of them is literally an example of a different direction to the Asset, seeing something beautiful that should not be destroyed. That weird sigh you give--what is that all about? YOu honestly come across as someone with EXTREMELY specific and narrow expectations, unwilling to accept what something is as opposed to what you want it to be. Like me when I was twenty something. How you don't see communication and sharing between Eliza and the Asset, I simply don't understand. Yeah, I won't be watching any more of your reviews.
This is the very first review of 'The Shape of Water' that didn't leave me feeling that I just didn't get. You hit all the points that were swirling in my head about what wrong with this movie. Thank you for this! I'm like you, I'm not really into romance in movies cos I think most of them are really shallow and unrealistic. I would love to hear your thoughts on 'Call Me By Your Name', cos that's one of my favorite movie of all time.
TBH, I think the relationship between Elisa and the monster was also, to use your words, "shallow and unrealistic" ... therefore it was only really unique from typical romantic stories cosmetically.
Thank you for a decent review that actually recognises some of the fairly gaping flaws in this film! Btw added to the Russian tropes, the Russian they are speaking is garbage
Эти шпионы так хорошо внедрились, что даже по-Русски разучились говорить правильно
I enjoy your reviews, they are informative , honest and most comprehensive. I love the way this movie left you a tad frustrated, when work leaves you wanting more it has done it's job, job done guillermo
An ongoing... "thing"... I take issue with in these kinds of films is that the main protagonist, Sally Hawkins, is an outcast who could find no connection anywhere in the world of man. I get that it's 1950 and back then any kind of disability that affected a person's communication was often misunderstood as a lack of intelligence, but Helen Keller changed the perspective of deafness, dumbness, blindness and by 1950 she was 70 years old; there would be plenty of people who wouldn't see Hawkins' character as anything to be shunned.
Sally Hawkins is a beautiful woman who's shy and maybe a little submissive, whimsical and empathetic, who happens to be unable to speak; no joke, this describes practically an ideal woman for what a man wants. They "plain" her down for the character, but she's still Sally Hawkins. And as part of men's "toxic" masculinity, we LIKE taking care of women. We LIKE women who need us. The idea that she'd be single and alone, disconnected with humanity to the point where she opens the door to - to be blunt - fucking a fish is just a bridge too far.
The most overrated film of 2017....its not bad.....but come on....this is average at best
Yeah, outside of stylistic beauty in the visuals and cinematography , its not too great. Pretty formulaic and tropey with moments of brilliance here and there.
lol. totally disagree. Three billboards to me is the most overrated film of the year.
I saw the film the other day and I did find it enjoyable. Had no problem with any of the characters and actually I think that Strickland was used quite well to both endear the amphibian man to us and bring to the fore some elements of the period in which it was set (which in spite of what it says on IMDb is 1963 - Cleopatra was playing in the theatre, for crying out loud!).
Also, I don't think there was any sprinkling of diversity in the film (no black librarian in a French village of the 18th century). Scientists in the facility are all white and male, which would have been typical of the time. There is a scene when the bartender orders a black couple out of his caffe (segregation), and he also takes an immedeate dislike towards Giles when he spontaneously comes out (which, TBH, I didn't see coming).
And I find it interesting, considering the current climate in Hollywood, that in one scene Strickland insinuates sexually assaulting Elisa, which someone in a position of power, in a world where it's more acceptable to feel entitled and sweep someone's behaviour under the carpet because of their status, would consider to be perfectly within their rights. There is also a trophy wife for Strickland, whose sole purpose is to be accomodating to her husband and bear him children, with at least one male to further his bloodline (a view on women which still exists in my country, Serbia).
Russians (or Soviets, to be precise) are also well integrated in the film. To me this part added to the period feel of the film, and I also liked how Guillermo used a de-facto "bad guy", Dr. Robert Hoffstetler, to further highlight the true monstrous nature of Strickland.
Now, whether this is a film worthy of 13 Oscar nominations is up for debate. But it's certanly something I would recomend as good viewing to my friends.
Alachia, you have said it right again. The film is beautiful, but feels incomplete and very heavy-handed. Unfortunately, (or fortunately) it is something like a diluted version of his far superior Pan's Labyrinth. I could have really forgiven all the problems if we could have really understood why exactly these characters were in love, or why the feelings were justified.
I wonder if you'd like the original "Let the right one in" - the first time I saw it I found it jaw-dropping.
Of course she’s married 😭😢
TheCereal1 😂
First, so great to see you again, happy 2018! I am more or less in the same boat, I liked it but wished I could like it much more. In all too rare moments I actually found Strickland funny, like when he was speculating on what God looks like. I think I'd feel more satisfied if I had a better sense, not only of the particulars of what Elisa and the Asset (about as close to a name for it as we get) both like and share, but how their life together is going to work out. I recall the beginning the movie The Day of the Dolphin, in which George C. Scott marvels at dolphins living in a world of sensation. Perhaps Elisa yearns for that, and perhaps the Asset can bring that to her. Record players and movie projectors don't work so great underwater, and things can get dull, so I consider this rather important. That aside, the Creature from the Black Lagoon had a huge impact on me as a baby boy, he was my gateway to science fiction, so I guess I have a bit of a soft spot for this.
This film harkens back to the feel of Del Toro's earlier works like The Devil's Backbone. Cool Vader T
Agreed. Very Devil's Backbone/Pan's Labyrinth-esque. You have you're dark fantasy juxtaposed with a social-political drama, copious amounts of injustice, human(s) being the 'real' monster(s) of the story (hence the unapologetically evil villains), ambiguous death of the female protagonist. I dig it :p
A really interesting review. I didn't really have the problems with the Strickland character that this reviewer had. I thought the depiction of the romance was perfect, I mean this is a 'woman on fish' romance story, going any deeper into it would have been comedic. The Strickland antagonist was also necessary. He was the titular monster. I think we actually got to see more of his character development than people realise. It just required you to read between the lines. You gain so much from repeated viewings - Thanks for the review.
My reaction after watching this movie is WTF! I like pretty much every de toro's movie except shape of water. If "the shape of water" = love, then the whole movie comes down to sex and aggression, which is a really fucked up boring theme to explore
The director took this idea from the Creature from the black lagoon series took out all the good pieces added in his own parts and made a bad movie. I'm sorry but when the creature had sex with the human girl all I could do is start shaking my head and laugh. The acting was good and the way it was filmed looked amazing but the movie was awful. I hope someone sees this gets the right to remake the Creature from the black lagoon. One final note just because a movie is weird doesn't mean it's good.
WestWick88 Shut up, gramps. The film was terrific.
Terrific? You have no idea what your talking about. Your most likely hoping that you can sleep with the creature. Movie sucked
Liked it but not groundbreaking
Yeah, I personally couldn't put it any other way than that. It was fun to watch and got me to jump a little at some points but I don't think people should call it a masterpiece. It doesn't't feel hate-able, sure you can like or dislike it but there was never a point where either extreme felt justified.
Finally a review that sees this movie as it is, so basic and cheesy and boring, been done so often, I'm sure I would have liked it in the 80's but, I like to think we r more sophisticated movie goers than this , good review thanks
Loved this movie so much. The cinematography and music was so beautiful
I thought you were going do the whole video is ASL and I was so hyped 😂
I wish I knew someone in the ASL community here in Austin and I could have had them help me do something like that.
I loved it. It had almost a Hansel and Gretel / classical fairy tale vibe about it. A very unusual move with bold characters. And say what you will, Michael shannon plays a dodge-pot perfectly.
This was definitely a dissapointment of a movie for me. I expected more originality than a hodgepodge of Amelie and The Swamp Monster with Masturbation sprinkled in for no proper reason. I thought as well that the movie just wanted to be too much at the same time and therefor failed at a lot, except baiting the Oscars.
I don't think Del Toro is a particularly good writer. There I said it.
The creature is Abe Sapien's father. This could be a part of the Hellboy universe.
I wish
Why not? Del Toro never said it wasn't. It even looks like he could be Sapien's father.
It just isn't, I mean all the more power to anyone that wants to say it is, but the fact is is that it isn't. The first movie explains that he was found under similer circumstances as to his comic counterpart, thats why he's called "Abe" cause he was buried when Lincoln was shot, the world in Shape of Water is much more fairy tale esque then Hellboy in my opinion, and there's just no point to making the two connect, though there is a part of me that likes calling it an Abe Sapian stand alone spin off! smiles.
It's not because he doesn't have the rights to Sapien's character so I doubt he'd waste his time developing a universe he has no rights to make future movies on.
I said that it "could" be a part of the Hellboy universe. I should have also said that it could be a part of the Hellboy universe without ever having to say its a part of the actual Hellboy universe to avoid any legal issues.
Wow. Good sign language demonstration.
i was hoping someone who knew ASL would let me know how I did.
Unfortunately, this film has yet to appear in my remote area of Texas. Especially frustrating for me as I'm a big fan of Nigel Bennett (Soviet officer) and John Kapelos (the theatre manager in this film, I'm told).
Meh this movie was very boring & I couldn't identify with any character at all
We always agree with not Oscar stuff. :P Other than Lion (2016) for the Oscars, The Shape of Water might be my favorite of 2017, not just the Academy Awards, which I'm not much of a fan of to begin with.
Bestiality...that what that movie was. (Actually it was a well made film but it was still some freaky stuff).
My favorite scene was when Elisa was imploring her roommate Giles to help her rescue the creature. You're a great actor if you can communicate that level of emotion so convincingly without speaking a word. She was absolutely yelling at him without making a sound...
....but there is no getting around the bestiality.
is it beastiality of the creature is humanoid?
+Alachia Queen - If it aint homosapien....YES!!!! (He must have smelt like a fish market. He must have!)
Still an emotional story.
WiserInTime More like merfolkiality!! amirite!
*slaps knee*
Do you consider sex with an elf in fantasy worlds 'bestiality'?
+AzyxA - Elfs....good question.
Is Beastiality wrong from the beasts perspective I wonder... or is it just wrong from the human side... and if so, why isn't it wrong in both cases? And if having sex with non-homosapien's is a sin... does that make someone like Spock's entire existence an abomination?
Came off a bit like bestiality to me. I was wrestling with that feeling the whole movie mainly because the creature showed the ability to mimic sign, but it just road the line of human level sentience for me. For most of the film the intelligence and understanding felt more like a chimp or gorilla because it's communication was more focused on cause and effect type thing. Ex. Make this motion to get food and make this motion to get music (bit like a parrot mimicing a song to get attention rather than understanding it's content). At the end it felt a bit closer to showing sentience, but it never got close enough to where I was comfortable with that relationship.
Well bless your niece's heart for teaching you!
As soon as I saw this movie was in theatres I knew you would review it.
Is del Toro the modern jim Henson?
Why not a 'The Shape of Water' Water Cooler Chat...? The next opportunity for that level of alliteration may not ever come again in our lifetime.
what would the water cooler chat be about?
Alachia Queen Er...not quite sure. Hadn't thought much beyond doing a very shallow, v. silly quip. What do I do? Alachia asked me serious question, n I got nothing...!
But, if I were to offer a serious topic for a future Water Cooler Chat, I might suggest one about films which were box office flops, like Wizard of Oz, which have since been deemed classics (and any possible modern flops, which might become so)(like Blade Runner 2049 for eg). And their reverse, films which were big hits, which now regarded as anything but. [If the latter may be a lot harder to quantify/get a common consensus on.]
May be best to have two water cooler chats. [Not to mention seconds & referees.]
Top of my future non classic list wud be Thor Ragnorak, just a series of disconnected comedy sketches, for me. Which, I went on about in too long a previous post on one of your comments pages. But I've felt I needed to get that particular idea (s) out there, ever since it came out.
Good to see u perking up a bit Mrs Queen, & thanks for replying. World needs your particular brand of giggly nilhism!!
Yes please review three billboards outside ebbings missouri Soon . Not sure if that is a movie you looking forward or not to review . I find it a depressingly charming small movie which explore a lot of human inner dark side . Read some say its main protagonist doesn’t have a story arc some say the ending is ambiguous but I find the female protagonist story perfectly crafted and the ending is excellent (finding hope even though how immoral it is amongst hopelessness , and redemption no matter how twisted it is )
Alvin Ho Hollywood libtard shite
Love your T-shirt👍
Saw this movie today and holy moly what the hell have i watched. It feels like a weird porn on pornhub. The only things I like about this movie is the opening scene and the actors.
Hurry up and have your own damn kid. Baby Alachia!
Alachia Queen!!! You rock!
Sadly, I have to disagree with you again on this one.
Great review! I tend to agree with you!
"The Shape of Water" is a harsh, left-wing critique of pre-
Sixties American society disguised as a monster movie---
the very definition of "Oscar bait."
fell asleep while watching it perfect oscar material i guess
Michael Shannon is too comical and over the top. I really think he's not that good of an actor anymore. He got pigeonholed into one character. Weakest part of the movie.
I might be wrong but I feel like there are some films where he just goes to work for the pay check and some films where it feels like he's the best actor in the business.
he is another "typecast" actor with no range, that can only play one character. sometimes that character works for the movie, sometimes it doesn't.
Will Binge Watch Your Reviews Because Of Three BillB
Nice to see that I wasn’t the only one who immediately thought of Abe Sapien.
boring archetypes probably, had no problem with it, bc it did't matter at all to me, great piece
The Shape of Water is a strangely overhyped film. Movies like Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (a similarly hodgepodge enterprise with gorgeous tangents) are trashed while Shape of Water not only gets a pass, it gets credit for things it does not do. This "exceptional storytelling" is, in fact, erratic and tonally confused. I agree with Alachia that Del Toro (a director whose pre-Crimson Peak career I greatly admire) pulls focus from the meat of his story to show us two-dimensional characters who represent *ideas* of people rather than *genuine* people. Richard Jenkins, Michael Shannon, and Octavia Spencer are terrific, but they play weightless plot devices wandering through a twelve-year-old's fantasy of a maximum security government facility set in a pretend 1962 America. Shannon's family life gets way too much screen time when considering that he is a two-dimensional heavy who isn't terribly bright or compelling. Del Toro shows us Jenkins having two(!) meetings with the same ad agency to sell his art, instead of giving us more much-needed dramatic interplay between Elisa and her new Love. There are much more economic, clever ways to demonstrate the supporting characters' isolation without taking us away from the main story: an improbable relationship that requires a complete reconfiguration of how one exists - from interspecies sex to breathing water.
This film does *not* demonstrate how good people are strong, that monsters can be beautiful, that virtue can be found in outcasts and that evil is readily identifiable. It is far too artificial to prove these points. Rather, it presents us with the idea that Guillermo Del Toro believes these things to be true.
SPOILERS: Look at Michael Stuhlbarg's Dr. Hoffstetler While Stuhlbarg is outstanding, what does his character mean? If he is a scientist and a spy, why is he so ill-prepared for his comrades' plans to kill him? If he is a man of deep integrity, why does he expose Elisa and Zelda knowing he will die soon anyway? Is he an idiot, a wimp, or a jerk? He was critical in getting the Amphibian Man out of the facility and the only voice of logic and compassion amongst the scientists, military men and contractors. Was his final testament meant to emasculate Shannon by revealing that two cleaning ladies stole the prize test subject? Was that a point to be made by a scientific mind? Are we to equate him with the other isolated individuals and forgive him for needlessly aiding the stupid villain? Also, shouldn't Hoffstetler have been more hands-on with the post-facility care of the creature? Wasn't he still curious about how the creature functioned? In the end, Dr. Hoffstetler expedited the plot while also eating up a sizable chunk of it. Why did we spend so much time with him outside the purview of the lead characters when he was so expendable? Ultimately, he helped save the creature, he inexplicably gave away the creature, and he died, burying fifteen minutes of backstory with him.
If Dr. Hoffstetler had offered Shannon other comrade spies to kill, he would have served two purposes: revenge against a treacherous network and throwing the villain off the scent. Instead, he died an idiot.
The Shape of Water is fantastical, but based on what realities? What truths? The movie suggests that the most downtrodden of people are beautiful and special, but the story tramples on many downtrodden people to aid its heroine. Is this irony considered or explored? No. Instead, we get a dream sequence of the lead dancing with the Amphibian Man. On its own, this is cute and appealing, but it doesn't give us a single piece of vital information that we didn't already have from earlier scenes - unless it was dramatically important to hear the lead sing, which it wasn't.
And is she special? More specifically, is she special because she is a beautiful person with no political, social or financial power who stands up to evil, or is she special because she is a different species of being possessing skills we don't know much about? Are humans beautiful because they might not be human, or are they beautiful because they have brief moments of brilliance, and, if the latter is the point, is this movie making its case? I think The Shape of Water, at best, makes the case for its own artifice; in other words, if we already agree that all people are special, than all that is necessary is to present a vague tale in deference to these ideals while artfully generating beautiful images and contrasting images of ugliness. While I reject the accolades this film has received, I certainly accept the fact that these accolades exist and that they are helping to sell the "artifice trumps gravity" assurances of a film that should be much better at exploring what it is to be human.
Regarding self-actualization and the rejection of societal norms, how is this practical for those who are not lucky or talented enough to make money at what they love to do? How does someone feed themselves if they have no advocates and want to play video games all day? If most gymnasts, ballerinas, actors, and artists are dirt poor, how does the champion bird caller pay the rent? Serious adults have much more complex issues to deal with than simply following their dreams and hoping it all works out. If Del Toro believes that this is the essence of life, how does he explain the necessity of his dictatorial position of the director? Perhaps he takes it on good faith that most everybody loves working for him with long hours, scant notoriety and little pay. Would he be happy if his crew became "woke" and pursued their own individual stories during the middle of production, or are epiphanies relegated to the king and the cleaning lady? Making movies requires discipline, and the movies championing the abandonment of the very structures and codes that make films possible seems disingenuous to say the least.
Valerian is not trash and neither is The Shape of Water. Neither film should be credited as exceptional storytelling, either.
This film shows that Hollywood can celebrate fantasy if it praises homosexuals, minority characters and outcasts while framing white heterosexual men as evil and/or incompetent.
George Glass the city of a thousand planets had horrendous acting and flopped at the box office. You and people in your comment thread don’t need to make up SJW conspiracy theories about why that movie was panned... say what you will about the shape of water, but at least it has enough interest and interpretations to have a conversation about. Valerian was mind numbly boring, so poorly cast that my parents actually asked me if either lead was an actor (in the female leads case no, she’s a model...) and if you think Hollywood propped one movie up and not the other, you’re ignoring the countless Ads, in theater promotions and pleas to watch the movie. I worked in a theater when that movie hit. People came out utterly uninterested. That’s the difference, lol.
Get Out is overhyped.
I'm not looking to reinvent Valerian as a great film, which itself was replete with SJW shoutouts. It currently sits at 49% with the critics/54% audience on Rotten Tomatoes, and 51% critics/6.4 users on Metacritic. That says to me that more or less, half the audience liked it. My point is that The Shape of Water is not much better quality-wise. It *is* aided by better actors, but it, too, falls apart within its own creative indulgences. BTW, Valerian is currently at $41 million domestic box office, while The Shape of Water sits at $33.5 million. ($184 million worldwide for Valerian, $44 million for Shape). Both saw their wide release over a month ago, but only The Shape of Water has the push of The Golden Globes and the promise of winning an Oscar. Nevertheless, paying audiences are considerably smaller for the much-lauded film.
sidenote: you do such a good job with the videos. so hopefully, you will not start incorporating "racist, homophobe, sexist" commentary in videos. as these terms are overwrought, if not a device for those who are brainwashed to believe that there is something inherent in "white people" that such terms apply, excepting any and all other groups. it is just boring to hear!
I'm genuinely curious as to why you aren't allowed to use terminology that most efficiently express the meaning that you are trying to convey?
Shannon is best for the role
You never gave the score ???
Quentin Browne She gave it a B.
Those "boring archetypes" were way more interesting than the girl falling in love with that fish that's for sure.
So glad you finally got to see this. This was my favorite movie of 2017.
Alachia, sweetheart, can you make the reviews shorter? please
long and short of it a waste of time
Merman sexy times the movie
I did not like this movie. Cool Bioshock-esque cinematography though.
I like your hair
I liked the last 5 minutes of the movie.
Anything before that i was bored and uninterested.
This movie could have been sooooo much better than what it was. But its turning into a lgbqt flag bearer.
Besides the Russia plot i think overall the movie is not really focused as to what it wants to be.
And that flooding of a bathroom with water to turn it into an Aquariam was C.R.I.N.G.E.W.O.R.T.H.Y.!!!!!!!
Original? Not so much....It was basically King Kong.
really? cuz the creature didn't end up at the top of a building swatting down planes.
Alachia Queen Tmaito Tamaato...Minor details.
Alachia Queen But seriously though...It was alot like king kong and there have been many movies like this. King kong just couldn't bang the chick for obvious reasons.
7.0
Take in mind that in the 50's-60's, the cold war between Russia and the U.S. was going on. That's why the russians were added to the film. Also, Strickland's behavior was typical.
I loved the Russian mole. I hated his cohorts. They were boring and stereotypical.
In Soviet Russia, the fish bones you!
after so many people telling me how good Pan's Labyrinth was, I finally decided to watch it and it was awful, it left such a bad taste in my mouth that I never want to see another film by this director including this film, even if it wins the best picture I just don't care. I did really enjoy Pacific Rim but I had no idea who directed it at the time and only watched it because of Charlie Hunnam
why did you hate it?
Yeah, I had the same experience with Pan's Labyrinth. Have you seen Victor Erice's 1973 film The Spirit of the Beehive? If you haven't, check it out. It's wonderful. Pan's Labyrinth is like a cross between that film and The Phantom Menace...
That movie was too much war drama and not enough fantasy. Didn't see what was great about it.
Oh, yay! More SJW trash! I think I'll pass...