thread to discuss Guillermo del Toro's THE SHAPE OF WATER

Just premiered at Venice Film Festival, getting excellent reviews
Mute Sally Hawkins, interspecies love, discuss here!

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-reviews-for-guillermo-del-toros-the-shape-of-1798667636

trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFYWazblaUA

oooh i would like to see this

This seems like a giant fuck you to Mike Mignola from GdT, an Abe Sapien origin pic in all but name (and treading ground covered in the Abe Sapien ongoing book) even starring Doug Jones as Not Abe.

yeah that is a little... odd

still this does look really promising - sally hawkins is fantastic

i had to google Abe Sapien but now that i have, i found that this theory is popular among youtube commenters and conspiracy theorists

these are my people

I have not seen either of the Hellboy movies or know much about Hellboy but when I saw this trailer a few weeks ago, I was initially surprised to learn that another Hellboy sequel was on the way until I realized that's not what this is. I agree, it's weird.

i watched hellboy on an airplane iirc and i don't remember much about it. it never crossed my mind that this movie has anything to do with that series/franchise/story but obviously i am not into that universe or whatever

THE SHAPE OF WATER reminded me a lot of The Iron Giant, but if Hogarth and the Giant were super horny for each other. Wish i liked it more.

— david ehrlich (@davidehrlich) September 3, 2017

i loved the hellboy movies, have not read the comics, still think this movie looks beautiful & interesting

re del Toro's past films... RIP Federico Luppi

http://www.vulture.com/2017/10/guillermo-del-toro-federico-luppi-collaboration.html

He was really good in Cronos, probably his second best film after Pan's Labyrinth.

Enjoyed the hell out of this, but really am not familiar with the rest of del Toro's work. Saw Pans Labyrinth maybe ten years ago. Maybe saw Devil's Backbone but can't quite remember. Fell asleep about 10 minutes into Pacific Rim. Anything notably great or to avoid?

no, on either count.

I like Cronos a lot.

Aldo otm upthread, that's my only real caveat going into this

Some parts of this felt a bit routine but the love story is so beautiful it doesn't matter.

Pacific Rim is onetwo of my favorite big screen experiences of the last decade, would love to catch it again.

I loved this. I love Doug Jones.

liked this quite a bit.

Oh I had never heard of it but that seems nice !
Is it out already ?

By the way, otm this :

Pacific Rim is onetwo of my favorite big screen experiences of the last decade

Oh, I just checked, it will be released in February in France...

Loved crimson peak. Fantasy horror romance on the level of classic burton, set design was top drawer

This was ok but there’s such a disconnect between the romantic, fanciful tone the movie aims for and the fact that it’s about a goddamn slimy fish monster.

There’s barely even a buildup to the romance! Sally Hawkins is making fuck eyes almost as soon as she sees the thing. Does she have a fetish for nicitating membranes or something?

Also can you imagine how ungodly this thing must smell?

That’s the whole thing of it, kinda

Ahah indeed the thing seems pretty ugly. Bot sure about the smell though. Do Dolphins smell ?

the only thing that bugged me is the over-reliance on destroying the myth of the innocence of the 60s.

I adored Sally Hawkins, esp the "You'll never knowwwwwww" sequence

That’s the whole thing of it, kinda

― .oO (silby), Sunday, December 24, 2017 11:00 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Oh I get that it’s supposed to be an unlikely/forbidden romance but IMO the creature just doesn’t have enough personality to make it work. It’s too animalistic.

I buy her having empathy for it as a suffering creature. But how does that immediately translate into “gimme the d”?

I think the movie might have worked more if Sally Hawkins’s character had been one of the scientists studying the creature.

I adored Sally Hawkins, esp the "You'll never knowwwwwww" sequence

― fuck you, your hat is horrible (Neanderthal), Sunday, 24 December 2017 13:42 (three minutes ago) Permalink

I agree, despite my criticisms of the movie she is very good in it.

The creature itself is the weak link for me. I just can’t buy anyone warming up to that thing. The movie tries to have it both ways, excusing its murder of a cat with “it’s a wild creature” while telling us it’s this wonderful misunderstood scaly stud muffin.

I think the obvious attraction are their similarities. both of them take degrees of abuse for how they're 'different' from society (and she witnesses how poorly monster-boy is treated from the onset of his arrival). both of them are largely socially isolated as a result of it.

I don't view it as purely sexual at the beginning - she seems to look on him like an owner looks at an adorable dog that they just purchased at first. The "fuck eyes" seem to come more when she realizes it can communicate back and likes music etc....

xpost

I do wish Michael Shannon wasn't playing his 100th iteration of "morally corrupt baddie". his making unwanted sexual advances to Elisa kind of comes out of nowhere and seems to exist only to say "see, this guy is a shitbeak"

Yeah, the movie spends an awful lot of time with him. Did we need to see his home life? It’s an odd choice because those scenes don’t really illuminate anything about him.

the romance was cute and occasionally delightful and i was so glad they went there with the sex (and made it an ongoing thing) because that part was like, cool, i haven't seen this before in a movie! was way less interested in the michael shannon stuff cause that's pretty familiar territory. woulda been more interesting if he was mildly sympathetic to what the scientists had to say but ultimately more driven by pleasing the higher-ups. i like that the russian spy subplot was fused together with the scientist-thinks-we-should-study-it-not-kill-it plot. sucks that scientist guy gives them up for no reason at all, and that octavia spencer's never-before-seen husband also cracks and sells them out... felt like forced plot mechanics to get us to a final confrontation. i dunno it was sweet and kinda interesting with some occasionally good use of the period and its politics to draw out some of the themes - better than your average B movie?

Not great.

i was so glad they went there with the sex (and made it an ongoing thing) because that part was like, cool, i haven't seen this before in a movie!
same. my mom asked me why it was rated R and i was like "probably nudity and masturbation?" none of the sexuality between elisa and the sea beast was crass at all; she didn't hesitate when the sea beast showed interest in her, but we don't really know that much about her or what goes on in her head. the idea that she would be portrayed as an overtly sexual being at all is interesting to me.

my main complaint about this movie was how her name was elisa but everyone said eliza?! that seemed weird to me. either call her eliza or say it elisa. i don't understand that choice.

it is a petty complaint
also i love sally hawkins

Sally Hawkins was new to me and great in this. I also have an endless appetite for Michael Shannon playing an unmitigated prick.

Also p much everyone of my generation definitely wants to fuck monsters if twitter is to be believed, monster-fucking is in

http://images.sequart.org/images/Neonomicon-The-Deep-One-and-Merril-Brears.jpg

the only thing that bugged me is the over-reliance on destroying the myth of the innocence of the 60s.

Just completing the work Mad Men did. But if they hammered on it once....

Also, the idea of monsters going after human females is the subtext to a lot of the classic horror movies (possibly even text, depending on how you read Frankenstein or Dracula's Daughter). A human female reciprocating, or even initiating such attractions, is a logical extension.

Sure, it’s also the subtext of Creature From the Black Lagoon, which is one of the obvious inspirations for this movie.

Reversing that trope is a good premise that could work, I just don’t think it’s convincingly executed well here. YMMV.

idk it's one of those where there's so MUCH business that at first appears to be outside the main thrust of the movie (fish man romance) that i sort of have to say, maybe i'm misreading what the main thrust of the movie is. more broadly of course it's about difference/othering and the narrow intolerant values of the time When America Was Great Before (seen in treatment of the creature, of nonwhite americans, of shannon's wife, of the gay neighbor), and the fish man saga lets us encounter all of these with the romance just being the most central of those (and the one that leads to a happy ending for one and letting the others feel they scored a victory for minorities and alternative lifestyles).

this falls apart just a little with the red scare, which is one critical thing that might make it into feel-good pop histories of the period ("mccarthyism was bad"); here it's not really framed as an attack on difference or on the Old Left - an actual 100% guilty russian spy is detected and defeated. he's a good guy for our purposes but this bit feels not quite as well worked out; it's mostly an excuse for a more cartoonish "bloviating military guy, obsessed with communists, misses the actual rescuers of the creature right under his nose." i'm okay with that sometimes (see The Iron Giant) but here it felt a bit more off-theme, there just to keep the plot going.

pretty sure Creature from the Black Lagoon was a well-documented explicit inspiration for this

also I was going to post a picture of monster-human female sex from Possession but they were all too lurid -- that's what I think separates this movie from other movies featuring this sort of...odd relationship. there was really nothing too lurid about their relationship. i'd venture it was sweeter than your average relationship between 2 humans.

They spent 3 YEARS making sure he had a sexy ass. This is real art 😩💦💦 pic.twitter.com/q4I0QkF7Vp

— 💙Waiting4My🐟Fishman💙 (@rawrburd) December 25, 2017

V important bc apparently Doug Jones doesn’t have a natural ass to speak of so there’s always the question of whether his character should have an ass

http://www.vulture.com/2017/12/how-doug-jones-became-guillermo-del-toros-favorite-monster.html

Nice profile of Jones

this movie blew me away. it was so well paced & entertaining. loved basically every minute. i completely bought the monster romance. it was really emotional & moved me much more than i was expecting. it was movie magic. its cold as fuck right now here in the northeast bomb cyclone and the medium-filled theater on a friday afternoon loved it and clapped at the end. beautiful

so she was also a water creature, orphaned at birth?

as soon as we saw the scars on her neck and heard her backstory ("orphan found by a river") it seemed clear to me that she was actually an orphaned seamonster, they also made the explicit point about "they can switch between the two modes of breathing" for this purpose IMO

so none of the sudden romance came as a surprise to me, this was two outcasts finding commonality where they least expected it.

sorry "scars"

also the reason why neither of them can talk - they are the same species

damn ok wait
how/why was she in a human suit

what

idk about that part but the rest seemed clear or at the least heavily implied?

This disappointed me.

haha yeah i mean that's a huge leap to make but you have some convincing points

xp to Alfred

why? legit position imo, this was kinda like an X-files movie but I liked the performances and a lot of the shots.

What I wrote last week.

thanks, good points there esp. about the overkill of Shannon's character

and I still liked it enough!

pretty sure Creature from the Black Lagoon was a well-documented explicit inspiration for this

― weird woman in a bar (La Lechera), Sunday, December 24, 2017 10:03 PM (one week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I know I've read that del Toro wanted to remake CFtBL with an explicit erotic angle, but was shot down.

sleeve makes some good points about the conservation of elements/breathing -- it hadn't occurred to me that they were the same species but in spite of the human suit issue, it does make sense. also her name was Elisa -- everyone pronounced it Eliza and I wasn't ever sure what that was all about but if it was a My Fair Lady thing, that would make sense (I don't particularly like that parallel between the two stories but that's irrelevant)

This doesn't screen in UK until second week of febuary.

in spite of the human suit issue

this is a pretty big issue tho

Was anybody else weirded out by the nudity in the first five minutes? Just seemed kind of arbitrary as opposed to the mermaid sexin later.

I also recoiled when Michael Shannon said "pussy finger"

this is a pretty big issue tho
true, and it's why i don't buy this theory entirely -- it also changes the nature of their relationship dramatically and i prefer an interpretation of her as an ordinary woman than than a rescued orphaned special secretly magical mer-person.

as for this Was anybody else weirded out by the nudity in the first five minutes? Just seemed kind of arbitrary
no way, i like nudity that's natural and isn't intended to titillate -- incidental/natural nudity is nudity as it happens regularly in life. when nudity is confined to sexual scenes only, it makes nudity more sexual than it really is. it's actually kind of ordinary.

i think all the things about Strickland that made people recoil (the above comment, the disgusting scene with his wife) were intended to disgust. mission accomplished i guess.

otm re: the nudity- felt very naturalistic, not salacious at all. masturbating in the tub was as much a part of her daily routine as brushing her teeth or pulling a page off of her paper calendar. i really appreciated that detail.

I tend to agree with Alfred though. Shannon felt like a composite of every character he's ever played

I agree, I loved it, but can absolutely understand loathing it and his performance taking you out of the move if he's one of your problem actors, ymmv

Like personally idaf if he plays that same guy in 5 movies a year for the rest of his career, I love it, I love him doing it. Check out The Night Before to see him as a benevolent hobo drug ghost

Like personally idaf if he plays that same guy in 5 movies a year for the rest of his career, I love it, I love him doing it.

cosine

I like Michael Shannon a lot and have seen most of his movies, even 99 Homes. wasn't really his performance that bothered me, but I felt like his character was a warmed-over version of older Shannon roles.

I kept thinking, "Here we go again" every time he came onscreen.

the signing "fuck you" scene was great though. I love Sally Hawkins

Saw this last night somewhat by chance. A friend invited me to go, the theater is a short walk from home, I was around and at loose ends.

I didn't know much about the movie! All I'd really heard was "creature from the black lagoon" and "quirky romance between loner and monster." I enjoyed it well enough but I also agree to an extent with both Dr. Casino and latebloomer upthread -- There was a lack of focus that I thought was detrimental to the love story between the creature and Eliza. We weren't given many scenes between the two that made their romance believable. We get some eggs and then some Glenn Miller, and then it's all sexy. I think if we'd been given more Eliza/Monster scenes it would have made more sense. As it was, their love story seemed like a whole lot of projection on her part and a probable lack of understanding on his? Kind of a weird dynamic imo but.. whatever, I guess.

Just saw this on a whim. I also didn't know much about it going in and live close to the theater! All the themes of toxic masculinity got a little heavy-handed, but this director likes to be heavy-handed and make the monster take the form of a hypermasculine family dude so I wasn't too mad at that. The love story didn't bother me either, actually I quite liked it, but after reading this thread I agree it could've improved with more exposition. This movie was a gorgeous thing visually, though, and fun to see the super-team of the mute person, the scientist, the homosexual guy and the black woman come together against all odds. GdT does some pretty great stuff when he swings for the fences.

Also reminds me of the punchline from this Mr. Show sketch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpWuJxuD5xM

Saw it last night. It was fine. Beautiful colors and set design reminiscent of Amelie. A lot of extra bullshit that didn't need to be in there when a huge chunk of the lead up to the romance seemed to be missing. For the nudity it also seemed to be extra. I just said "there better be some sea creature dong hanging out in this movie".

The NY'er in me was super annoyed by her flooding her bathroom without a care for her neighbors.

"See? See, honey? *This* is why we're not getting an aquarium!"

Amelie

Yep. Terrible.

strangely enough i saw this last night too. the opening underwater dream sequence is top shelf

ILXors ruin all movies for me but I appreciate them anyway

Like usual, I feel like I saw a different (and much better) movie from the rest of you.

I am not that familiar with Michael Shannon, but I thought he was marvelous. His scenes were phenomenal — he’s a hero in a different movie.

There are weird and enjoyable connections between this movie and the Paddington movie(s) and I like to believe they are in the same universe. There are weird and enjoyable connections with Swamp Thing, and Ratcatcher, and Pushing Daisies, and Free Willy and I would like to believe they are all related but they are not.

The musical number was unexpected and well-executed. It confirms my pet theory that most film is the subjective experience of one of its characters.

Also the green Jello / lettuce water thing was funny.

I thought musical bit was clever too, and beautifully executed

Thread reminds me not to google “shape of water dong”, like, ever

that's an Adrenaline Mob song iirc

hahaha

The musical was beautiful but it was completely antithetical to the whole premise of the movie: that this mute woman can be a person without speech. That the climax of her love has to be/can only be expressed in an imagined vocal performance undermines her humanity as a mute person. We can only understand her/relate to her in an imagined/impossible scenario that is the exact opposite of what she actually is. As ridiculous as an interracial love story ending with a fantasy number of one party turning white or that swamp thing turning human. It was a cop out for me.

Much too saccharine and corny a love story for me and the obvious identity politics of all the disenfranchised characters rallying together against the evil straight white cis male military guy (the most interesting character of them all despite his flatness) was a bit much for me. But beautifully shot (the overflowing tub/underwater sex) and the production was super stylish.

It would've been better if Michael Shannon just used his Kim Fowley character in the movie.

favorite thing about the movie: its fascination and disgust with the color green

But I couldn't get past a lot of violence in the movie. I never got over the dead cat, and Shannon is so unnecessarily sadistic he seemed pumped in from a different film (or Boardwalk Empire, since he was playing almost the exact same character, and his character was the worst thing about that show)

The sadism, yes, was revolting and unnecessary.

dead cat bummed me out :\

I didn't realize there were two cats so was super confused when the cat was suddenly alive.

I was also confused about what aquadong did with the eggs.

things that would have caused the MPAA to require a harsher rating

Just read this film as "Amelie on PCP" and you'll have more fun

The sadism, yes, was revolting and unnecessary.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, January 29, 2018 10:38 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The nudity and bean-flicking and fish-fucking was unnecessary too, tbh. You could have 100% told this story in a PG movie

no way, i thought the way they portrayed masturbation and female sexuality as everyday / part of her daily routine was refreshing. also by the time that she has sex with the monster you totally buy into it, it's not ridiculous at all, at least imo. it was still a very sweet and moving love story that included sexuality and wasn't 'obscene' or particularly graphic. i thought that was really important and cool.

Cosign. Why does nudity terrify people? Hollywood could do with some more sex positivity like this.

At least in this case it was used for character exposition, so not gratuitous imo

Yerac obviously a cat-hater irl, to not notice the wide range of felines adorning Jenkins' apartment

The sadism, yes, was revolting and unnecessary.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, January 29, 2018 9:38 AM (six hours ago) Bookmark

this was my mom's complaint
she found his sex scene gross and ott
she never ever swears and she said totally calmly "i did not want to see his ass"
i kinda feel the same way tbh but it didn't bother me enough to remember the scene tbh

the sex scenes between the main characters were generally lovely and at least significantly charged with more feeling than your average hollywood depiction of sex
it was loving
whatever!

someone else said upthread but my only issue w/ the sex-scene was the disregard for the people downstairs lol

I didn't mind the sex! At all! Or the nudity. The violence + Shannon bothered me.

alfred i know -- i drifted from one topic to the other in my post, it was confusing

i don't know why the world needs a PG love story when it can have an R rated one
we only spend so much of our time on earth under parental guidance and have the rest of our lives to watch movies made for adults

should i see paddington 2 on the basis of this?

I watched Paddington 1 last night and the Shape Of Water parallels were lol to me

They spent 3 years on that ass. Tell your mom to have some respect

I guess I found the violence "unnecessary" while appreciating that GDT is still beholden to his pulp forbears and proud of it

pulp for Bears?

water bears, maybe

Michael Shannon spent 3 years on his own ass?

oh, I misread you. Michael Shannon must have spent at least forty though. So if you think about it, it's even more disrespectful

I super don't know how I missed all the cats. I was confused by his hairpiece too, but granted I was distracted during the movie (aka drunk).

the hairpiece WAS the dead cat, duh

Michael Shannon is the.same.guy.in.just.about.every.film. .. Except for that brief moment in "Groundhog Day" where you actually see him laugh.

Whoa that was unintentional text formatting there!

You know the scene in Sullivan's Travels where everyone goes nutso with laughter at a Mickey Mouse cartoon? Every time I watch it, I wonder if people really thought Mickey was all that funny. I ask myself: were people more naive? more susceptible to pratfalls? less inured to the cadences of screen comedy? more certain of the social contracts around public laughter? how big of a factor was novelty? why did they love that silliness so much?

Or maybe Preston Sturges was just trying to prove a point. Now, I love Mickey Mouse (even if he's not laugh-out-loud funny), but I've got to admit a much greater fan on a (semi-)detached critical level than on an emotionally-invested one. And I feel the same way about James Whale films, and about the Universal horror / sci-fi flicks. I enjoy them so, so, much, but there's not a moment of fear or surprise in them. Not to an adult in 2018. But that doesn't touch my love them for their craft, artistry, rickety sets, occasional technical gimcrackery, etc. ... And it doesn't touch the fact that I'll rewatch some of them three times a year, and adore every frame.

But sometimes I wish I could watch a Mickey Mouse cartoon in the 1930s, or sit as a teenager in the 1940s and leap out of my chair when Lugosi lumbers out of the shadows. I *think* that's the experience that GDT was trying to create in Shape of Water – a sultry dames! weird monsters! crooked commies! mid-century pulp with the volume turned high enough provoke the same (or equivalent) emotional effect in a 2018 audience as it would in the era in which it takes place.

(which is a long way to say that the sadism/romance/OTT creepy Shannoning worked towards my appreciation of the film instead of against it)

good posts

Except for that brief moment in "Groundhog Day" where you actually see him laugh.

― Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee)

it always stops me in my tracks when i'm reminded that michael shannon is in groundhog day

russian spy stuff was A+

But sometimes I wish I could watch a Mickey Mouse cartoon in the 1930s, or sit as a teenager in the 1940s and leap out of my chair when Lugosi lumbers out of the shadows. I *think* that's the experience that GDT was trying to create in Shape of Water – a sultry dames! weird monsters! crooked commies! mid-century pulp with the volume turned high enough provoke the same (or equivalent) emotional effect in a 2018 audience as it would in the era in which it takes place.

Man I really wish this movie had been more like that. I’m about as in the tank (pun fully intended) as it gets for the sort of OTT pulpy vibe you describe.

I thought this was pretty good, even if it did remind me at times a little too much of "Amelie," and even if its themes fell just shy of coherent. But I love Guillermo del Toro in general, and find his career fascinating. He's always linked to these projects he has no business pursuing (like a remake of Frankenstein or an over-ambitious Lovecraft adaptation) and you start to feel a little bad for him, like he can't catch a break or get work, and then bam, out of nowhere comes something like Pacific Rim or Crimson Peak - both flawed but worth seeing, especially the latter - or some oddball hybrid like this one.

The violence in this, fwiw, is very much of a piece with that in "Pan's Labyrinth," and as far as I can remember no one complained about the blood and gore and sadism in that one. Maybe it was more necessary, being a movie in part about war and fascism? Anyway, this movie totally could have been told as PG-13 or PG, but I think the decision to go R helped keep it from being too whimsical and precious. (People forget, maybe, that "Amelia" was rated R, too, though of course that didn't keep that movie from being too whimsical and precious.)

Year ago I interviewed Del Toro, over the phone, and he was as charming and generous and smart and energetic as you've heard. An hour or so after the phone call, when I was making dinner, I get a call, and it's Del Toro wanting to talk some more!

I’d kill for that phone call

That does sound amazing.

that's so sweet!

>The violence in this, fwiw, is very much of a piece with that in "Pan's Labyrinth,"

he seems to have a reoccurring thing for injuring people's mouth/cheek area.

Great story JiC!

fwiw i hated the violence in Pan's Labyrinth. that scene where he destroy's the man's face with a beer bottle is the reason i haven't seen any GDT since. i don't trust his films.

Crimson Peak is also super violent. I was surprised, since it seemed like a pretty harmless old fashioned ghost story.

he doesn't deploy violence cheaply, he wants it to disturb you because it's disturbing to be violent. Compare to the refreshing lack of onscreen civilian death in Pacific Rim. They knock down a bunch of Hong Kong but everyone is safely underground.

I just googled the Amelie comparison and am laughing about how many people have brought it up. I thought I had made some weird parallel and after JIC I guess it's pretty obvious.

Yeah, I had no idea before I saw it (I avoided most reviews and this thread) but the parallels are unavoidable, from the lead to the color scheme.

The best Michael Shannon film btw may remain the under-seen and underrated Premium Rush, which I've seen described as a human roadrunner/coyote move. My guitar teacher backed him up a couple of years back doing a set of Smiths covers (he sang; he did a night of Dylan covers more recently).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1wYOmXCJmI

otm, Premium Rush owns

(or Boardwalk Empire, since he was playing almost the exact same character, and his character was the worst thing about that show)

― Evan R, Monday, January 29, 2018 3:36 PM

I never imagined anyone would feel this way. He was terrific fun in that.

Disney wanted to make Pan's Labyrinth but he wouldn't remove the violence for them.

Jesus this blew me away

Masterpiece imo

Year ago I interviewed Del Toro, over the phone, and he was as charming and generous and smart and energetic as you've heard. An hour or so after the phone call, when I was making dinner, I get a call, and it's Del Toro wanting to talk some more!

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:39 PM (two weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'd love to talk him about world building. I loved hearing him explain the intricate details of the universe in Pans Labyrinth (bonus features on the blu-ray).

I knew, regardless how I felt about the film, that I'd have something to be entertained by when I overheard an older couple in the lobby on the phone before the screening. "I've got to let you go. We're at the theater, going to see 'The Shape of Water'. It's nominated for thirteen academy awards. We're gonna see what it's all about!"

I didn't run into that particular couple on the way out, but hearing the reactions from a group of slightly-younger people (probably in their 60s) was amazing. There's a particular old white dude facial expression that corresponds to a challenge to world view and inability to figure out how to react that never fails to amuse me.

There were some challenging shifts in tone, but I felt like they were in service of making a movie that incorporates the central premise (woman falls in love with fish-man) in a lighthearted way while making the escape, and the following investigation, have higher stakes. It worked for me, but just barely!

The main thing is it pissed off wite boomers tho eh

Not as much as Get Out.

I wouldn't characterize any of the reactions as anger, more of a confusion and disorientation, maybe some discomfort

kind of a "whoa, those wacky art people, really doing weird stuff in these 'art films'!!"

You want to see some strong reactions, look at the comments at the (usually useful) Common Sense Media.

I don't know how this got an R rating but this is not ok for teenagers. This movie is full of graphic Sex Scenes starting with the first Scene where the Actress Masterbates fully naked in a tub. It has very little actual storyline content. It is a Soft Porn movie with unrelated scenes that make absolutely no sense to the plot-line to please groups in this society. There are mulitple Racist scenes against African Americans, An Anti Gay scene, Me too Scene, multiple military are bad scenes and several Russian's are wonderful scenes. This is not some fairy tale that is ok for teenagers as advertised. I took my Adult daughter to see it and we left half way through when the Sex scenes got increasingly raunchier.

Or even better!

Pornographic filth - no redeeming quality - a waste of time - we walked out
Graphic sex - beastiality, adultery...name a commandment and it was broken. All I can say is Why ???

geez
i was gonna say no thanks but it's too late

Seriously, though, Common Sense Media is usually quite good and useful for parents.

One of the other reviews accused it of glorifying bestiality. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, if you ever encounter a humanoid fish god, it's ok to get with it.

Can only imagine some poor impressionable kid seeing this, then going home and eyeing the goldfish funny.

All the good things said about this movie upthread are otm and some resonate with exactly how I felt about its qualities

All of the criticism upthread is dumb and wrong

like any review, comments like that are something to evaluate with your own critical judgment

anyone who is going to show their children a rated-R film and then complains about realistic portrayals of racism needs to figure out their priorities

If I parse that review right, it seems like it is coming from a reactionary asshole that is complaining about the inclusion of racism, metoo, homophobia etc. as PC capitulations. Just as they complain about "multiple military are bad scenes and several Russian's are wonderful scenes."

imo if you love the military, you must be willing to criticize their abuses of power and their cruelty toward innocent humanoid fish creatures

“Me too Scene”

One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, #MeToo Fish.

I'm pretty meh about the movie but I went along with it until the bullshit of the Richard Jenkins character.

not really bothered about seeing this but lol at amateur reviewers getting butthurt that this isn't a Disney movie

My reaction after seeing this was that it was my favorite GdT since Pan's Labyrinth and I think that's still true at a remove

my mom asked me if i thought a 15 year old could see this movie and i said sure. then a couple weeks later she said that her (70+ y.o.) friend took her 15 year old grandson and his mom to the movie. i can see how that would be uncomfortable for the kid but god forbid a teenager is uncomfortable? i know my own experience is irrelevant here but 15 is not "protect their innocent eyes" land anymore, at least i don't believe it is. i wouldn't have been like "hey tell your friend to take her grandson to this freaky movie about interspecies love" but she asked if it was ok. i still think it is!

the one scene she objected to, as mentioned above, was the grotesque thrusting of michael shannon's character, which i think is a valid complaint.

Oddly, I am not sure that most fifteen year old boys would be able to watch this movie with a parent although I am certain that most girls could?

he grotesque thrusting of michael shannon character,

boys should be able to just like girls
i feel little to no remorse for sending that boy to see this movie with his mom and grandma

Oddly, I am not sure that most fifteen year old boys would be able to watch this movie with a parent although I am certain that most girls could?

ok this is a bizarre statement

I'd imagine seeing it intergenerationally is the likely issue rather than anything in it being beyond a 15 yr old.

I wouldn't watch it with either of my grannies tbf

"the grotesque thrusting of michael shannon character,"

his turn as 70's Elvis a couple of years back was .. erm something

I was thinking more of the parents who regularly take their 10 year olds to rated R movies

I don't really get that at all, but...

It's normal and appropriate and a great movie, and I don't think any teenaged kid should be kept from seeing it. I didn't mean to suggest anybody shouldn't watch it! (And the finger-crunching is more of an issue for me than anything else)

But to clarify, what I meant is that I don't think most boys are raised in such a way as to have a context for explicit or sexualized content in movies as anything more than erotica –– typical male gaze stuff –– whereas I think a lot of girls at that age already have (both the maturity and) the life experience to understand the characterization and importance of the sex as more than just titillating. This isn't my hill to die on, tho, so maybe I'm just plain wrong.

Depends on how many movies you watch with your family. Definitely heard stuff from friends when i was younger about being uncomfortable or even unable to watch certain movies with parents and i never understood it, but my family has gone to the movies together every weekend my whole life.

One of the other reviews accused it of glorifying bestiality. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, if you ever encounter a humanoid fish god, it's ok to get with it.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 21 February 2018 21:14 (yesterday) Permalink

I dunno, did it really display intelligence beyond that of a small child? Not to mention that it bit a cat’s head off even though the cat posed no physical threat to it. Yeah go ahead and play house with the fish monster.

I’ve shifted from ambivalence to thinking that this movie Is actively evil.

I don’t care how nice your fish ass is, pet murder is a dealbreaker in my household.

Literal fish out of water fights cat

Cat was an actor fyi

Yes I’m aware. But the movie wants us to like the creature. Hence, the moral universe of this movie endorses sex with child-brained cat-eating abominations.

This all could have been avoided if they had replaced one of the 50 scenes of Michael Shannon looking angry at appliances with a few extra scenes establishing the creature’s personality and relationship with Sally Hawkins’ character. The movie is so in love with itself that it doesn’t even bother to earn the audience’s investment in the central love story.

I know I’ve beat this seahorse to death ITT already, just sayin’

Part of the magic is the decision to avoid movie tropes about pacing and establishing the necessaries. The actors manage it imo.

nude dude was hungry

cats eat fish

turnabout is etc etc

Cat started it

And he was nice to cats once explained

Dude has no case to answer here

Also Michael Shannon is a great monster and another hour wouldn't have been too much fuiud

Cat had every right to hiss at the creature. Cats are territorial animals. This thing was an interloper and far outside the norm of any feline’s experience.

This supposedly intelligent being couldn’t surmise that these small, furry animals were pets? Puh-lease.

Yeah they show him petting the other kitties later. Ted Bundy was charming to interviewers.

Blow the fish into space I say.

I don't think we need to buy him as intelligent in the way that would recognise cats as not a threat or delicious.

Lots of women in movies have taken less intelligent men/fish back to their place after less screentime imo

Cat was a dick

If it can’t figure out that the cats belonged there then it isn’t intelligent in a way that makes allowing it near your genitals a good idea.

Oh it’s ok if other movies do it, huh? If everyone else jumped off a bridge would you do it too? smdh

Cat was defending his home! Funny how a movie ostensibly about bridging the barriers between species doesn’t take into consideration the cat’s perspective.

RIP homie

https://i1.wp.com/www.madcatwrangling.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/20180104_205605.jpg?zoom=5&w=1000

imo the cat/fishman regrettable escalation into lethal conflict is a comment on Syria movies has layers man layers

Cat actor’s name is Astro, btw

I don't care if it was Richard Harris from beyant the cold grave dammit that cat was a dick

I read there was a scene left on cutting room floor where the cat wore a fedora actually

Cats are not territorial. That said, eating a pet is pretty much a deal-breaker in my house as well.

I'd be like, I don't care where you go with your simpleton humanoid fish monster, but he can't stay here.

You guys just hate romance and magic

He should have regurgitated the cat parts and healed it.

Bulimagic

Maybe eating the cat is what made him sick. Think about that next time, ALF fish monster.

Well he might have thought the cat a tonic n'est pas

he ate the cat because he has different cultural norms than we do -- he's from the amazon river basin area

I wonder if there's an unintended crossover potential with Lost City of Z here

Well, it's already more or less a crossover with Creature from the Black Lagoon. Adventurers travel down the Amazon, encounter ancient fish monster god with different cultural norms, get eaten. We've seen that movie lots of times before, which is why it got reimagined as a, er, fish out of water tale.

Anecdotal curiosity, of all the Oscar films released this year, this is the one that has been met by the most ambivalence from my friends, especially women. Even my wife, she saw this separately from me, and was amazed at this old couple next to her reduced to tears, whereas she left more or less indifferent to the film.

I'm still irritated at Octavia Spencer's character's husband! c'mon, man

This movie didn't like straight men fyi.

Surprised it managed to leave out the Russian dudes gay subplot but I spose something had to give.

If it had to make the black husband a shining star as well it really would've been a little too much non?

I didn't see any indication of the russian scientist's sexuality whatsoever, unless having a sense of empathy means something!

That's rather the point I'm making

Cats are not territorial.

The hell they aren’t

http://catsinternational.org/the-cats-view-of-territory/

Cat was str8 imo

Missed opportunity for a classic "when you said you saw a cat(-)eating fish, I didn't think..." gag itf

Cat was str8 imo

― Planck Blather (darraghmac), Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:47 PM (seventeen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lol

Cats have comfortable roaming territory (often depicted as expanding or contracting concentric circles) but they are not territorial. There is no such thing as an alpha cat, and they do not hunt as packs.

Can I just reiterate that I was spellbound by this movie lest the puns itt don't make that clear

Does the ilx hivemind not like Michael Shannon?

I do. I'm still not tired of him doing Michael Shannon

Ya more shannon

How could you possibly get tired of it is what I want to know xp

Can I just reiterate that I was spellbound by this movie lest the puns itt don't make that clear

Shannon is a good actor IMO and I don’t have any qualms with his or any other performance in this movie.

My complaints about this film lie almost entirely at the plot/screenwriting level.

xp exactly I could totally allow it as a bold narrative choice it was cmon ppl we have a lot to cover here and I'm not dropping the chase, the musical number, any of the sex and I think I can squeeze in a cat murder if it all works out

im with silby as i've said before itt. michael shannon's stock villain character is inexhaustible imo

and i'm not sure why but i'm shocked that you loved this movie darragh. i did too. it did reduce me to tears a couple times: during the ballroom sequence and at the very end

I also liked (but if I didn't like the film I would have hated, cf Prometheus eg) how dumb all the good guys were, their heist was refreshingly rubbish and should never have worked, idiot coworker announcing to an elevator full of people that they did a heist last night &c. The line "I think he just killed that man" cracked me up

xp I wasn't as enraptured as you guys but I was entertained throughout, and the sequences you mention + the bathroom/cinema bit noted above were delightful

Does the ilx hivemind not like Michael Shannon?

― Evan,

Solid actor who's starting to bore me. I see him and know exactly what notes he'll hit.

When I'm not appallingly cynical I'm appallingly lachrymose rly

xp on its terms- clearly somewhat pulpy, black lagoon style- it gets away with all the broad strokes.

In a way imo marvel gravitas just doesn't, for me Trevor

I think the fact it was so bold and daring in its choices so early helped.

I should add that this is somehow the 1st gdt film I've seen I think so it's possible others have had more time to get tired of his style

Xp the thing about Shannon is you know what he's gonna do but nobody else is quite doing it. He's ona those

His turn in the one about imagining killing redheads was great

Yeah and that film was garbage

There's a bit in that where he's getting up in a creep's face and he suddenly hacks and spits and I was really disappointed when it turned out there was a plot reason for it rather than it just being a Michael Shannon thing to do

xxxp wins- i think the only other GDT film i've seen is Hellboy when it came out in 2004. i was never a fan of his color palette and aesthetic obsessions (really not into Lovecraft et al.). i didn't want to see this movie because the trailer made it look like zzzzzzzz. but luckily i ran into a friend on the street headed to see it and went with him on a whim. so glad i did. somehow i missed Pan's Labyrinth when it came out, but everyone i've talked to has said it's very similar to TSOW but darker/more violent.

I watched They Came Together, that romcom spoof with the tone of Wet Hot American Summer a couple weeks back. Michael Shannon shows up as a crazy ex who just got out of jail for the briefest appearance in the final act and it's just a slight variation on the violent screaming man routine he sometime does, but played up for humor.

Xp the thing about Shannon is you know what he's gonna do but nobody else is quite doing it. He's ona those

― scotti pruitti (wins),

and doing it in movies that no one should ever watch like Nocturnal Animals.

killing redheads = Nocturnal Animals?

Ya imaginary redhead killer movie that's the one

He's great in it

He should do Sam spade or something

ahh ok. yeah. i loved Nocturnal Animals at the time, saw it twice in theaters, but it didn't really stick. Certain Women did though, that was my favorite movie of 2016.

I really appreciated the total lack of groundwork for their relationship, how she went from zero to "I wanna fuck that amphibian" in 30 seconds - the film was like we're doing this, either come with or don't

Yeah. It's a love story but it's so unconventional that I'm not convinced the movie cares whether or not you're supportive of her relationship or if you think it's healthy.

Oh yeah, the other Shape of Water trivia bit that I luckily was able to dismiss from my mind for most of the film: a lot of sets were reused from the tv show The Strain where GdT is the creator/producer and, having seen that show, you could definitely point out the overlap.

Other than a few set dressing bits there's absolutely no similarity

the acting is good in Noctural Animals and it's pretty but holy shit does that film have a bad script

One can't get tied up in script we live our lives in great performances of shitty scripts maaan

*cut to Amy Adams gasping at a book*

I loved Pan’s Labyrinth. I really like GDT in general, even his lesser films, which is why this disappointed me so much. I wanted desperately to like it and be enchanted like everyone else.

X-post to flappy upthread

what else is worth checking out immediately? obviously PL and The Devil's Backbone right? heard great things about Pacific Rim when it came out but I missed it in theaters and feel like that one would really suffer from a home viewing setup

Yeah. It's a love story but it's so unconventional that I'm not convinced the movie cares whether or not you're supportive of her relationship or if you think it's healthy.

― Evan, Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:50 PM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I just wanted the movie to make me care about the relationship. It didn’t.

I guess in that sense I’m old-fashioned. I need a movie to wine and dine me before I surrender my heart to it.

The Shape of Water was caesar salad with too much parmesan cheese and the wine not cold enough but served with a smile.

Honestly I'm not sure I did either. But I was still immersed in the movie's universe and the conflict.

xp

what else is worth checking out immediately? obviously PL and The Devil's Backbone right? heard great things about Pacific Rim when it came out but I missed it in theaters and feel like that one would really suffer from a home viewing setup

― flappy bird, Thursday, February 22, 2018 5:58 PM (twenty-one seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah his Spanish-language flicks are all good: PL, Devil’s Backbone, Cronos. Mimic is not so great but it’s a fairly watchable sci-fi/horror flick. The Hellboy movies are fun (and feature a mich more likable fish man). Haven’t seen Blade 2. Pacific Rim is essentially a live-action Saturday morning cartoon, which is what I liked about it. Crimson Peak is alright.

oh shit i forgot about Blade II! I love that movie!!!!! a theater is doing a 35mm double feature of both Blades really soon, planning on going to Blade II (a very rare sequel that's vastly superior to the original)

There is no such thing as an alpha cat, and they do not hunt as packs.

there's no such thing as an alpha wolf either

but there is such a thing as a smelly cat

But not as smelly as dogs! It's quite remarkable how few cats smell bad, compared to dogs. They've really got the grooming system down.

xpost Yeah, I like the revised conclusion that what we used to consider alpha wolves are actually what might better be termed "parents." That said, wolves hunt in packs with leaders and have an established territory they defend. I've heard the way cats share territory as more akin to roommates or time shares; they sometimes get along, sometimes don't, and generally work out who can be where and when, even if it is the same territory.

There is no way that fish man did not stink to high heaven.

Did I mention how much better I thought the movie would have been had they not given the fish man magic powers, or at least saved it until the end and left things ambiguous? One of the many strengths of the (vastly superior, imo) Pan's Labyrinth is how much of the magic is ambiguous, perhaps just a fantasy for the girl to escape to. As opposed to a literal fish god who restores her gills and takes her back downstream.

i don't think "restores" is necessarily true
it's one interpretation but when i saw it i was under the impression that it wasn't even clear if she was alive or dead at the end, or had been turned into a sea creature or was dreaming in the afterlife or what?
it didn't matter to me really

picking apart the nature/"health" of their relationship is sure to ruin the movie/story
no love story can withstand relentless nitpicking

Tell my wife that etc

If she had been pulled into the water when she was near-death, then that could have imbued the moment with some poetic ambiguity. Did he save her or was this her fantasy? But after going out of their way to show his magic powers, and going out of their way to repeatedly bring attention to her scars - she could have been just mute with no backstory and nothing would have changed - there's really no way to take it but literally, imo. Also explains her instant apparently biological attraction to the fish guy.

You know, while we are talking fish attraction, there's a weird fleeting moment that caught my attention. When Michael Shannon went home and his wife immediately jumped his bones, one of the first things she does is take a deep sniff of his (intact) hand, which I took as a subtle indication that maybe some ladies just like the fish pheromones.

but there is such a thing as a smelly cat

what ARE they feeding it?!

Cats only smell bad in the mouth (smells like meat) and the butt (smells like poop)

ahhhh the tube of filth

Garbage in, garbage out.

https://i.imgur.com/q43Rd7N.png

On the topic of kids seeing this: we took our almost-12 year old to it last night. He still acts like he's freaked out by basic nudity and I did feel a bit bad about the Michael Shannon / wife scene; our son gets overly dramatic and hides his eyes, I can't tell if that's for our benefit or genuine or what. But in the end the only thing that really bothered him a lot was the cat-eating. I think that was more traumatic than anything else. He said he thought it was a good movie though. I loved it myself.

oh, and rightly he hated Michael Shannon's character. I mean sure, this character is like every other Michael Shannon character and is over the top in his awfulness...but my son (or anyone else unfamiliar with that actor's previous roles) doesn' tknow that. Sometimes you really need a non-negotiable baddie in a movie.

otm!

I liked this but I thought they really overdid telling us how these characters are outsiders and Shannon saying out loud "you really are a god" at the end was too much.

Even though it's an unusual film in some ways, the general trajectory was too predictable and it needed a few more surprises.

Highlights were Sally Hawkins and the colours (it really was like a Jeunet film) and the pee jokes. Really want to know if Hawkins used a body double and crafty cgi.

I have FINALLY watched this (better late than never...) !
Really liked it. It was funny, sweet and beautiful visually.
The story was a bit simplistic and predictable + many parts of the plot didn't really work (for instance her plan to evac the monster was silly since she could never have opened his collar without the russian doctor) but since it's a kind of tale, it's not the most important, I guess.
oh and isn't it obvious that she's pregnant after their first intercourse (the drops of water on the bus window describing a fertilization) ?
Which would also confirm that they are more or less of the same species (which would explain their instant initial attraction)...

Still haven't seen, I guess this will be library DVD as well.

Adam Nayman's seems to be the most pedigreed pan:

http://cinema-scope.com/features/the-uses-of-disenchantment-guillermo-del-toros-the-shape-of-water/

Yeah, the story and plotting let this down a bit - it felt baggy in parts, and the tension was built slightly inexpertly.

Visuals, tone, characters and performances all great on the other hand.

Heh yeah her "plan" is defiantly half-arsed, like neither characters or writers have bothered to think it through - this high-security facility should prob have considered installing at least one security camera in the actual room where the fish man is kept, for one thing

It's not really a script kinda film (see: pie shop, see also: everything)

oh and isn't it obvious that she's pregnant after their first intercourse (the drops of water on the bus window describing a fertilization) ?
Which would also confirm that they are more or less of the same species (which would explain their instant initial attraction)...

this made me lol but anything that is open to interpretation is more interesting than something that isn't imo :)

eheh, after the "raindrops on the bus' window" scene, I told that theory to my wife and she was like "wha ?"
to me it was so obvious : they just had intercourse, she's all happy on the bus then close up on the raindrops looking like sperm cells rushing towards an egg then a zygote which starts to divide !

I actually quite enjoyed this second time around, which was surprising because I *really* took against it first time round and only gave it another shot because all the positivity made me think I must have missed something, somewhere.

Weird gratuitous nudity with bad guy wife, when she gets her boob out to tempt him to sex then has her bra firmly on while they're actually doing it. All the stuff with the main character seemed entirely in context, although weird because I've most recently seen her as the mum in Paddington 2.

This was the most teal film ever though, right?

If "teal" is a euphemism for "overrated" then, yeah.

No, actual teal as in teal & orange teal. It felt like every single surface up to the point where he gets his new car (also teal, in a teal showroom) was teal (or, at a pinch, duck egg blue).

yeah, definitely teal but for once it was on purpose and related to the story (mostly aquatic).
I loved the design. It actually reminded me of an old video game : Bioshock !

Yeah, I kind of think Paddington would be a better mate than the fish.

Just wait for Paddington 3.

https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/ted-2012/hero_EB20120627REVIEWS120629973AR.jpg

very interesting (and wow "the wave" on the wall in her flat !)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z7gJ5C1muo

That review linked above is pretty good.

Yeah, Nayman's Cinemascope review is excellent: informed, well-written and worth thinking about. I disagree in that I quite like the film and think it generally succeeds in its ambitions, but most of Nayman's criticisms hit their mark.

Mike d'Angelo otm:

Del Toro is the kind of auteur who conceives a cartoon sadist (every damn time, come to think of it) and decides to hire Michael freakin' Shannon for the role. Everything's a hat on a hat. It's like having someone yell "Surrender to the magic!" in your face for two hours. Maybe I could if you'd stop yelling.

Shannon has really got to stop playing the cartoon villains, or risk being Walkenized.

Or risk being someone who always gets paid?

at some point you've got enough

just get paid every other role

my red hook friends and acquaintances speak well of him as a neighbor and bar regular iirc

I'm sure he's a great person. But boy, he even looks more than a little like Walken, doesn't he?

Shannon works so much, didn't Walken's career really drop off in the 80s? I mean was he in everything after The Deer Hunter like Shannon has been in everything for the last... 4-5 years?

I hate the name of this movie, it just screams oscar bait you will forget about in 10 years.

Walken starred in The Dead Zone and A View To A Kill in '83 and '85, and some other pictures like Brainstorm that people probably expected to be slightly bigger than they were. It's only after that that his profile kinda dropped for a while. If you compare it to Shannon's side by side I feel like there's about the same ratio of "big" movies and stuff most people haven't heard of or kind of forgot about already.

It's not godawful... I'm impressed that a film can win Best Picture while resurrecting Alice Faye's biggest hit AND featuring severed fingers, ripped-open throat, etc. And still come off like Amelie Does the Gill Man.

In a Details profile published in late '93, Walken said, "An agent can't say 'Get a Chris Walken type!' I am the type. I own it. Which means I will work for a very long time."

rote-type

That quote at the top - hat on top of a hat - is perfect. This whole film screams "I Love Monsters! And Whimsy! And! And!". Gimme "Pan's Labyrinth" any ol' day instead.