Jump to content

baumer

The Shape of Water (2017)

Grade it  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Grade it



Recommended Posts



It snuck up on me; There's two scenes where I realized that I cared about these people, not a great deal, but up until then I was just indifferent to this movie while watching it.

 

The Asset is just that - an asset they lazily slap one, maybe two traits to to try and get people attached. 

 

Spoiler

I think the stuff with the scientist being a Russian spy is a little odd, it took focus away from this creature we were supposed to care about.

 

There's definitely good production value and some things did get a reaction out of me, but I'm not swept away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



One of the few awards hyped films that hit the A level for me this year despite the romance not being as emotionally moving as I'd hoped.  A beautiful film to look at as well as to listen to and a great cast doing very good work with Richard Jenkins as the stand out.  The twist at the end was great and nicely foreshadowed.  A pleasure to experience. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I saw this yesterday, didn't know it was out for a bit. 

 

I went in knowing very little other than just seeing the poster online, that's it. I do like Toro's imagery and art in this, it's very unique in a way and it was pleasing to the eye. Hawkins does an outstanding job playing Eliza who isn't deaf but mute due to some reason with her throat that I don't think was explained (or I missed it). The beginning is a bit off, took a bit for it to set root with me on what was going on. The design of the creature was cool, I liked the look of it and I hope all other directors take notes to follow Toro's lead vs. the CGI crap we always get.

 

With that said, I kind of walked out of the movie feeling eh, it was alright. Maybe it's a generation thing  but the movie just felt very weird to me. I found Eliza's romance with the creature to be sped way to fast, she just without reason is drawn to it and then all of a sudden the creature after one egg likes her? And the dream of her dancing with it on stage and having sex with it? Eh, it just felt very odd and uncomfortable (I'm not saying this in a derogatory way for those that did like this, it just wasn't my cup of tea). 

 

Overall, the film was just okay for me, though I won't lie........the part when the creature ate the cat's head......I legit almost walked out of the theater as my mouth was on the legit floor and my heart exploded (I'm a cat freak). I think it was the saddest and most teary eyed I got throughout the whole movie. With that said, it wasn't bad but at the same time it won't stick with me at all. I just didn't get any connection with any of the characters at all, and I'm not sure why other than that perhaps the film just didn't settle for me and thus my interest lacked. I'd give it a B-, 6//10 overall

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Nothing bores me more than a movie filled with caricatures, and that's what this movie is, the plainest meal decorated with all kinds of fancy adornments that serves to only one purpose: mask its intrinsic basicness.

 

"But it is not even human"
"If we don't do something... Neither are we."

 

The cringe.

 

3/10

 

Was supposed to see The Post next, but this put me in such bad mood that it’s better that I go home.

Edited by Goffe
I apologize for the 57 grammatical mistakes this post originally had.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Goffe said:

Nothing bores me more than a movie filled with caricatures, and that's what this movie is, the plainest meal decorated with all kind of fancy adornments that seves to only one purpouse: mask its intrisic basicness.

 

"But it is not even human"

"If we don't do something... Neither are we."

 

The cringe.

 

3/10

 

Was supposed to see The Post next, but this put me in such bad mood that I better go home.

 

wtf Goffe

Link to comment
Share on other sites



8/10, A-

 

A modern fairy-tale centered around the uncanny power of sexuality. Perfect art direction, and Sally Hawkins is a force (she was the best thing about Blue Jasmine, too). The beginning was more Jeunet than delToro, a few hints of Amelie and City of Lost Children, but the movie found its voice about 20 minutes in. It positively revels in its B-movie tropes (Michael Shannon's first scene sets the tone) and takes them to extremes which were not possible back then when the originals were shot, without changing the basic sensibilities.

 

Was there something not to like? The side-plot about Hofstettler - not Stuhlbarg's fault, but the whole setup was completely superfluous; since it's a fairy-tale anyway, why not have the creature rescued by the cleaning leadies on their own? Every scene we spend with those cardboard Russians is a scene wasted imho; ads nothing to the story and takes us away from the protagonists. In a fairy-tale things should be kept simple.

 

Not delToro's best but definitely worth a ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed it but wasn't blown away. I love that it is so clearly Del Toro's movie - it doesn't have to follow rules of the real world, or have internal logic, because it's completely the story he wants to tell, and he's put what is in his mind directly on to the screen, which is rare. 

Performances are all good, I love Michael Shannon in everything and this makes good use of him. Sally Hawkins is terrific. Whoever played the monster (I'm assuming it is motion capture) gave it life. 

My main issue was I didn't really connect to the story. I think a lot of people have that issue with Del Toro's films because they are so personal. Thought the romance was very sweet but I can't say I was really on edge and rooting for them at the end.

 

Also what was up with the Russian sub plot? I get that its set in the cold war but dont see how that storyline added anything.

 

I enjoyed seeing what Del Toro had made but didn't love the film in its own right so suspect it won't hold up on repeat viewing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites







7 hours ago, Rorschach said:

Creepiest. Sex Scene. Ever.

 

  Hide contents

I'm not talking about Eliza and the creature.

 

 

I didn't really like that scene either; I guess the intent was highlighting the contrast between hero and villain - mechanical sex vs. being-in-love sex, but it really doesn't add anything to the story, rather takes us out of it. It didn't make the villain more complex or less likeable. Same goes for Strickland's harassment vs. Eliza - it's in "character" but nothing we wouldn't already have guessed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





On 2/23/2018 at 12:03 AM, Rorschach said:

Creepiest. Sex Scene. Ever.

 

  Reveal hidden contents
 

 

it was a bit awkward from our perspective but not sure would call it creepy, it was just sex. not very good sex but just normal sex. or am I mis remembering it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 hours ago, Treeing Me Apart said:

it was a bit awkward from our perspective but not sure would call it creepy, it was just sex. not very good sex but just normal sex. or am I mis remembering it.

Hand over mouth sex was essential when living under the parents roof

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The Shape of Water is one of the most immaculately made films of the year. The whole endeavor feels like a delightful morsel, forged together by several great artists led by Guillermo Del Toro. It feels utterly magical for a majority of the runtime, and touches pure beauty in cinema at several points. The entire cast is phenomenal, with Hawkins and Jenkins deserving most of the praise, but there's no one weak in the main cast, and all get a moment or two to shine spectacularly. Del Toro's eye for scene construction coupled with gorgeous cinematography is here, and the film feels like a gift from him to us as beautiful, helpful escapism. Desplat's score is also beautiful, giving an enchanting feel to every scene, no matter how mundane.

 

Sadly, there's one major problem with The Shape of Water, and simply put, the film is rushed at points. Something that we should see bloom naturally is mostly skipped over in a montage in the first act, and although the film comes back to it, those moments are still missed. More importantly though, the third act happens far too quickly, disregarding the gorgeous atmosphere and the characters we care about for back-to-back sequences that slowly drain the magic out of the film. Although the film's final moments bring it back, it's too late and too abrupt for the fulfillment felt through the first ninety minutes to return.

 

Despite this massive flaw, The Shape of Water is still excellent virtuoso filmmaking. It's just disappointing because it's clear that this film was close to being a masterpiece if it was longer than a mere two hours. Nevertheless, Del Toro has crafted a magnificent adult fairy tale that's both gruesome and magical, anchored by a strong cast and wonderful production design. The Shape of Water must not be missed, as it's one of the year's most audacious and lovely films, even if it does not stick the landing. A-

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.