The Shape Of Water (2017)

[DollEyes]

This is the thread for The Shape Of Water, the story of a research lab that captures a half-man, half amphibian creature who meets a mute, human cleaning woman.

Spoiler

Let's just say their relationship gives "fish tail" a whole new meaning.

It stars Sally Hawkins, Doug Jones, Octavia Spencer, Michael Shannon & Richard Jenkins, is directed by Guillermo Del Toro, has been nominated for 14 Critics' Choice Awards and is generating huge Oscar buzz.

[snickers]

I saw this today...I really enjoyed it.....it was typical for Del Toro but I think this was my favorite of all of his movies

 

I think it's worthy of all the hype and Michael Shannon...man that guy can act....be nice to see him pull off a surprise best supporting acting nom though Richard Jenkins is getting most of the nominations in that category

 

I will say though...

 

Spoiler

the part where she breaks out into song was very La La Land like....I mean, I got it...and I actually found that part to be the most heartbreaking part, but still.....pass! Loved the part where Strickland goes, "you are a god" before being killed

[aradia22]

I didn't know where else this should go but... internet, please help. I can't pinpoint who Doug Jones looks like. The closest I got was Hugh Laurie but then my brain short-circuited. I know he reminds me of someone... I just can't think of the actor. 

ETA: I think it's William Fichtner. Does anyone else see it?

Edited December 20, 2017 by aradia22

[AimingforYoko]

On 12/15/2017 at 11:56 PM, snickers said:

Loved the part where Strickland goes, "you are a god" before being killed

I believe the exact quote is, "Oh fuck, you are a god."

[raven]

On 12/16/2017 at 0:56 AM, snickers said:

Michael Shannon...man that guy can act....be nice to see him pull off a surprise best supporting acting nom though Richard Jenkins is getting most of the nominations in that category

I came *thisclose* to feeling, not sympathy exactly, but something other than scorn and distaste for the Michael Shannon character, based solely on his performance.  Then I remembered racist, sadist, sexual harasser and I cheered when he was killed.  It really was a very good acting job though.

I did enjoy the movie; I wanted to love it but didn't.  I think it kind of dropped off after the rescue.  I loved everything about the rescue - the scientist ally; Octavia Spencer's character helping; Richard Jenkins.  I was so worried they would get caught.  "It must have been a 10 person strike team" LOL.   There are some nice subtle touches - Zelda clocking Eliza out, which comes up later in the investigation.

Richard Jenkins did standout - so heartbreaking, yet coming through for his friend even though he's scared, getting a good whack in on the Michael Shannon character.  Michael Stuhlbarg is not getting enough appreciation I think; his crushed expression when he realizes the General is giving the OK to kill the creature, for example.   His non-verbal acting was as affecting as Sally Hawkins'.   In my head, he actually survives; MS's character leaves him and someone finds him and gets him help, or something.  Even though he kind of gave them up, I wanted him to survive.

Like all of del Toro's movies, it was visually very beautiful; I especially loved the apartments that Giles and Eliza lived in.  The lamps, books, art, everything just looked very authentic and lived in and of course the huge windows were gorgeous. 

Not sure what didn't exactly work for me in the 2nd half - the musical number felt a bit silly and out of place.  The underwater-in-the-bathroom scene looked great but it helped to look at it more like a sex in the bathtub being expanded in Eliza's mind.

In my showing there was I man and I guess his son who looked about 8-10 yrs old.  Not a sci-fi movie, people!  Not so much the full frontal and masturbation but I bet the kid was bored.

[Silver Raven]

When I heard about The Shape of Water, I thought that the story, of a woman falling in love with an amphibious creature, was silly. Even after reading all of the rave reviews, I thought it was going to be a slight fantasy. But I was wrong. The score, by Alexandre Desplat, is gorgeous. The set designs, even when it's of a run down studio apartment, is beautiful. The acting is achingly beautiful, especially from Sally Hawkins and Richard Jenkins. Michael Stuhlbarg, the lab scientist with a secret, is wonderful. And Michael Shannon, as his usual creepy characterization, is fantastic as always. And the story is sad and beautiful. It's a story of loneliness, and alone-ness, and longing to be loved. And I bought every minute of it. Even the tiny details are glorious.  Like the movie theater, and the man sitting at the bus bench with a half-eaten cake, and the actor who played the pie shop clerk, gave an interesting performance (who was he?)

Quote

I came *thisclose* to feeling, not sympathy exactly, but something other than scorn and distaste for the Michael Shannon character, based solely on his performance.  Then I remembered racist, sadist, sexual harasser and I cheered when he was killed.  It really was a very good acting job though.

It was an interesting characterization that, as nasty and despicable as he was, his family adored him.

[tennisgurl]

I almost always love anything Guillermo Del Toro, and I thought this one was lovely. In a lot of ways, it reminded me of Pans Labyrinth (fantasy story happening with the backdrop of a historical drama) but is also totally different. It was beautifully shot, the period details were great, and they made the romance between a woman and a fish person seem like something beautiful, and not ridiculous. 

I actually really liked the subplot with Michael Stuhlbargs character "Bob" AKA Dimiti, and its great to cast a talented character actor like Stuhlbargs here in such an internalized, complex part. You dont get much dialogue explaining why he is taking such a risk for this fishman (betraying not one but TWO superpowers) but you can figure it out through just his expressions and the insinuations. I thought it was a combination of genuine human horror at killing such a unique and sentient creature for such petty reasons, and a sort of understanding he felt towards him, sort of the way Eliza did. He felt alone and deeply isolated, living a life of secrets and and fear far from home. He probably related to the fishman a bit. I was really hoping he would survive, and was sad that he didn't make it. 

There were lots of great performances here in general, especially from Doug Jones as the fishman, who managed to create a character without dialogue or much traditional facial expression. And Michael Shannon is always great, and really fits into period dramas well. I found the duality of a man who, on the clock, was so awful, but off the clock was basically a normal guy with a family who clearly loved him (albeit things started falling apart here) to be fascinating.  

Edited January 7, 2018 by tennisgurl

[benteen]

I saw it recently and thought it was very good.  I liked the story it was told, how it was shocked and the performances.  I'd give the film a solid 8 only because I felt that it dragged in the second half.  Maybe it was once they got the creature out of the lab and I thought the story didn't really stick the landing.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 12/30/2017 at 2:36 PM, raven said:

Michael Stuhlbarg is not getting enough appreciation I think; his crushed expression when he realizes the General is giving the OK to kill the creature, for example.   His non-verbal acting was as affecting as Sally Hawkins'.  

He's good with verbal acting, too.  Go see Call Me By Your Name.  His speech at the end is breathtaking.

 

On 1/3/2018 at 8:54 AM, tennisgurl said:

I almost always love anything Guillermo Del Toro, and I thought this one was lovely. In a lot of ways, it reminded me of Pans Labyrinth (fantasy story happening with the backdrop of a historical drama) but is also totally different. It was beautifully shot, the period details were great, and they made the romance between a woman and a fish person seem like something beautiful, and not ridiculous. 

I hate science fiction and can sometimes almost tolerate fantasy, but I'll always consider seeing a del Toro movie because I enjoyed Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy.  Seeing that Sally Hawkins was in this one made me go, even though the trailer gave me pause.  I'm glad I saw it.

 

Quote

I actually really liked the subplot with Michael Stuhlbargs character "Bob" AKA Dimiti, and its great to cast a talented character actor like Stuhlbargs here in such an internalized, complex part. You dont get much dialogue explaining why he is taking such a risk for this fishman (betraying not one but TWO superpowers) but you can figure it out through just his expressions and the insinuations. I thought it was a combination of genuine human horror at killing such a unique and sentient creature for such petty reasons, and a sort of understanding he felt towards him, sort of the way Eliza did. He felt alone and deeply isolated, living a life of secrets and and fear far from home. He probably related to the fishman a bit. I was really hoping he would survive, and was sad that he didn't make it. 

Thank you for posting that.  It's posts like this that make me want to cry, thinking about how the imb forums were chock full of people giving their thoughts/opinions, and it was almost always something I hadn't thought about because I'm incredibly shallow when it comes to "meanings." 

[tennisgurl]

Awwww thanks @StatisticalOutlier I miss the imbd forums as well! 

[SeanC]

Got to see this at last tonight.  This was Del Toro's best work since Pan's Labyrinth, which admittedly isn't an especially high bar in and of itself, but I say that as somebody who thought the film was very good.  Sally Hawkins was really phenomenal here, particularly given that the story kind of requires her to sell both sides of this romantic attachment, given the limitations of the fishman (who could perhaps have been given more hand-sign dialogue along the way).

I think that they should have been Michael Shannon's death a bit more viscerally satisfying after so much buildup to make us anticipate him dying.

[thuganomics85]

This finally came to my area.  Overall, I thought it was excellent and this is someone who honestly isn't a massive Guillermo del Toro fan.  I've always admired his ambition and the look of his films, and he's clearly talented, but outside of Pan's Labyrinth, I've always found his films to not live up to his potential (Hellboy came close, but still didn't wow me.)  But I thought this was his best work in quite some time, and I really loved the look and feel of the film.  All the underwater shots were beautiful.

I thought Sally Hawkins was the perfect choice for Elise and was phenomenal in the role.  It had to be tough not being able to speak for the majority of it (outside the musical number), but she did an excellent job at making Elise feel like a real person and understanding how she felt, and even being able to buy her falling for the creature.  And it does help that while I do think she has a unique beauty to her, she isn't "movie star" beautiful, so I can buy other characters considering her "plain", and her being lonely.  I was impressed.  Any other year, she'd probably be the frontrunner for an Oscar, but Best Actress is just such a tough category this go around.

Loved the min-Boardwalk Empire reunion with both Michael Shannon and Michael Stuhlbarg here.  On one hand, Shannon runs the risk of always being typcasted in this type of role, but damn, if he ain't good at it.  Every time he is on screen, he just puts me on edge and I truly fear for any character that ever gets on his bad side.  As for Stulbarg, he's always one of my favorites, and I loved the unexpected directions they went with this character.  Richard Jenkins came close to stealing all of his scenes, while Doug Jones shows why he's the best with prosthetic work.  Also great seeing a few other familiar faces like David Hewlett and Nick Searcy here (Searcy also had a small role in Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri, so he's surprisingly got himself in both of the Best Picture frontrunners.)

That said, a minor unpopular opinion: while I enjoyed Octavia Spencer's role and performance, I really don't know how she got a third nomination, unless Best Supporting Actress is just really weak this year.  Again, she was fine, but it felt like a performance that she can do in her sleep at this point, and I wasn't really wowed.  To be fair, that could be said for a whole bunch of actors in the past, so more power to her, I guess.

The music was fantastic.

I should have known that there was no way del Toro wasn't going to kill at least one of those cats.  Giles handled that way better then I expected.

Curious about the ending.  I'd like to believe that what we saw on screen really did happen and Elise and the creature live happily ever after.  But since it seems like this film was suppose to be told by Giles, it is always possible he changed things to give it a happier ending.

[MisterGlass]

I also thought the movie was well made, but agree it meandered in the second half.  I wanted the creature to have more character development, and more sign language communication.  All the performances were good, the make-up was exceptional, and the period atmosphere was executed well.  I'm a little surprised by the extent of the Oscar appreciation, though.

In the end, I kept thinking this was a good modern take on Splash, with more social commentary.

1 hour ago, thuganomics85 said:

Curious about the ending.  I'd like to believe that what we saw on screen really did happen and Elise and the creature live happily ever after.  But since it seems like this film was suppose to be told by Giles, it is always possible he changed things to give it a happier ending.

I think it is meant to be as shown.  They emphasized that she was found by the water as an infant.  The 'scars' were perfectly symmetrical and evenly spaced, which would be odd for actual injuries.

[MisterBluxom]

Wonderful film. Hard to believe Sally Hawkins is more than 40 years old. I would have guessed she was 25 maximum.

IMHO, Michael Shannon has to be one of the best villains working today.  You probably have seen him before in the mini series "Atlantic City".

Richard Jenkins did a superb job as well.

I hope this film wins all the Oscars.  But I also hope that "3 Billboards" wins all the Oscars. Does that make me bipolar? I hope not.

On 12/20/2017 at 7:44 AM, aradia22 said:

I didn't know where else this should go but... internet, please help. I can't pinpoint who Doug Jones looks like. The closest I got was Hugh Laurie but then my brain short-circuited. I know he reminds me of someone... I just can't think of the actor. 

ETA: I think it's William Fichtner. Does anyone else see it?

 

David Caruso?

Edited January 29, 2018 by MissBluxom

[MisterGlass]

I think he looks like vintage David Bowie.

[Ohwell]

Just saw this one and I thought it was kind of like ET, the Extra-terrestrial, except underwater, for grownups.  It was somewhat entertaining but I was bored after about an hour. 

[Milburn Stone]

Something that was a real bug for me about this movie was the same thing that for other people is a feature. I realize that. But nevertheless, I'm looking at the creature, and I'm going, "Come on. You gotta be forkin' kidding me. That's The Creature from the Black Lagoon! They couldn't come up with anything better than that?" But, like I say, some see that as a feature, because the movie, on some level, is actually all about movies, and the choice to basically make the guy The Creature from the Black Lagoon can be seen as intentional rather than as a shocking and shameful failure of creative resources. I just didn't see it that way.

[Ohwell]

5 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Something that was a real bug for me about this movie was the same thing that for other people is a feature. I realize that. But nevertheless, I'm looking at the creature, and I'm going, "Come on. You gotta be forkin' kidding me. That's The Creature from the Black Lagoon! They couldn't come up with anything better than that?"

I have to say, when I first saw the thing I started laughing, and I was trying to remember where I'd seen something like that before. 

Thanks for the memory. ; ) 

[Milburn Stone]

15 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I have to say, when I first saw the thing I started laughing...

Me too. (Although I kept it to a quiet derisive chuckle, out of respect for my fellow moviegoers who were in awe.)

Basically, it was the most expensive Ed Wood movie ever made.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Milburn Stone

[Milburn Stone]

For reference.

[SeanC]

6 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Something that was a real bug for me about this movie was the same thing that for other people is a feature. I realize that. But nevertheless, I'm looking at the creature, and I'm going, "Come on. You gotta be forkin' kidding me. That's The Creature from the Black Lagoon! They couldn't come up with anything better than that?" But, like I say, some see that as a feature, because the movie, on some level, is actually all about movies, and the choice to basically make the guy The Creature from the Black Lagoon can be seen as intentional rather than as a shocking and shameful failure of creative resources. I just didn't see it that way.

This movie originated as Del Toro pitching a remake of The Creature From The Black Lagoon to Universal, in which the creature and the female lead would fall in love (which is what Del Toro thought was going to/wanted to see happen when he first watched the original); Universal said no.  So that the Asset resembles the Creature is undoubtedly deliberate.

Edited February 5, 2018 by SeanC

[Silver Raven]

6 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Something that was a real bug for me about this movie was the same thing that for other people is a feature. I realize that. But nevertheless, I'm looking at the creature, and I'm going, "Come on. You gotta be forkin' kidding me. That's The Creature from the Black Lagoon! They couldn't come up with anything better than that?" But, like I say, some see that as a feature, because the movie, on some level, is actually all about movies, and the choice to basically make the guy The Creature from the Black Lagoon can be seen as intentional rather than as a shocking and shameful failure of creative resources. I just didn't see it that way.

It has been said that it is most explicitly based on Creature From the Black Lagoon.  It's not a secret.

[Milburn Stone]

Interesting, @SeanC and @Silver Raven. I didn't know that going in. Although I did intuit it, as you can see from my post in which I said "the movie, on some level, is actually all about movies, and the choice to basically make the guy The Creature from the Black Lagoon can be seen as intentional." So it is an idea. I just don't think it's a very good idea.

Once Universal turned down the remake, I think del Toro remained too "married" to the idea. The Shape of Water would have been a better movie if he'd allowed his imagination to run more free of its sources.

[Ohwell]

12 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

The Shape of Water would have been a better movie if he'd allowed his imagination to run more free of its sources.

Yes, exactly.

[JessePinkman]

I found the movie was held up by performances that elevated the material. The story was pretty paint by numbers and I think this is the first Del Toro work I've seen and I wish I could say I was impressed but I really wasn't. I guess the performances can be thanks to a great director but I didn't see anything on screen that especially dazzled me. I agree that the creature was underdeveloped. They could have done a lot more with it.

 

Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins and Michael Shannon were phenomenal. Octavia Spencer was great, as usual, but this was Minnie from The Help working at a laboratory. I look forward to day she doesn't have to play a domestic or women from mid-20th century. 

[Ohwell]

16 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

It has been said that it is most explicitly based on Creature From the Black Lagoon.  It's not a secret.

That's interesting because in all the discussions I've heard about this movie, I never heard any of the critics mentioning that it was based on Creature from the Black Lagoon.

[StatisticalOutlier]

18 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Interesting, @SeanC and @Silver Raven. I didn't know that going in. Although I did intuit it, as you can see from my post in which I said "the movie, on some level, is actually all about movies, and the choice to basically make the guy The Creature from the Black Lagoon can be seen as intentional." So it is an idea. I just don't think it's a very good idea.

 

2 hours ago, Ohwell said:

That's interesting because in all the discussions I've heard about this movie, I never heard any of the critics mentioning that it was based on Creature from the Black Lagoon.

I've never actually seen Creature From the Black Lagoon, so I didn't get the connection.  Del Toro explained it in a Fresh Air interview:

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568561089/director-guillermo-del-toro-says-shape-of-water-centers-on-love-beyond-words

From the interview:

Q:  This movie is a fairy tale. Apart from the magical fish fairy tales, obviously, one of the big influences on this movie is the "Creature From The Black Lagoon," a movie that you said was very inspirational to you. When you were growing up, what did you respond to in that classic monster movie?

A:  Well, when I was 6, every Sunday my family would go to church and then we would watch movies. You know, we would watch them individually on a matinee or on TV. In my case, every Sunday on Channel 6 in Guadalajara where I lived, they dedicated most every Sunday to black-and-white horror films and sci-fi. So I watched them. I watched "Tarantula." I watched "The Monolith Monsters." I watched all the Universal library. And one good Sunday after church, I was kneeling in front of the TV and I watched "Creature From The Black Lagoon." And there was a - there's a beautiful, very simple, very poetic image, very fairy tale-like, of Julie Adams in a white bathing suit swimming on the surface and the creature, the Gill-man, swimming underneath many, many feet below, looking at her.

Q:  Yeah, I was going to ask you about that scene. It's a beautiful scene.

A:  It's a gorgeous scene. And I got overwhelmed by it in the way that you get overwhelmed by art. I was 6. I couldn't articulate that it represented love for me, but it did. I so loved the encapsulation of the yearning and all that. And having not seen the movie before, I was disingenuously thinking that they would end up together, you know, and they didn't. And, you know, the logical consequence 46 years later is that I do a Douglas Sirk, Stanley Donen, Vincente Minnelli-influenced melodrama/musical/spy thriller about them getting together.

He also said:  "And I started drawing the creature after that when I was a kid. I would draw the creature riding on a double bicycle with Julie Adams having an ice cream, a triple-cone ice cream. You know, and I really - he's one of my favorite creatures from the Universal catalogue."

Edited February 5, 2018 by StatisticalOutlier
Ha! I wrote "Creature For the Black Lagoon."

[Ohwell]

15 minutes ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

I've never actually seen Creature for the Black Lagoon, so I didn't get the connection.  Del Toro explained it in a Fresh Air interview:

Yeah, I saw it as a youngster, which is why I couldn't take Shape of Water that seriously and just chuckled throughout the movie. 

[scarynikki12]

26 minutes ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

He also said:  "And I started drawing the creature after that when I was a kid. I would draw the creature riding on a double bicycle with Julie Adams having an ice cream, a triple-cone ice cream. You know, and I really - he's one of my favorite creatures from the Universal catalogue."

Short film! I originally read the name as Julie Andrews and, after some brief confusion, I decided she’d be game for such a project. Could be fun.

[Bruinsfan]

Oh man, Mary Poppins with the Creature from the Black Lagoon as Bert!

[SeanC]

Congratulations to Guillermo Del Toro, the man who finally got a sci-fi film onto the Best Picture podium.

[EtheltoTillie]

6 hours ago, SeanC said:

Congratulations to Guillermo Del Toro, the man who finally got a sci-fi film onto the Best Picture podium.

Isn't Avatar a sci-fi film?  Oh never mind. It didn't win Best Picture. 

Edited March 5, 2018 by GussieK

[EtheltoTillie]

On 1/6/2018 at 7:48 PM, tennisgurl said:

Awwww thanks @StatisticalOutlier I miss the imbd forums as well! 

There's a site called Moviechat that is trying to re-create the old forums. They have all the old posts. They deserve to get more attention so the old users of the forums will find it. Im happy i found it. 

[Nidratime]

Besides Creature from the Black Lagoon, which was a movie made in the mid 50s, this whole film was a homage to the 1950s. The subplot was all about the red scare and trying to out commies from the U.S. government/security complex, whether real or imagined. It all made sense to me why the creature looked like a throw back to that time.

[StatisticalOutlier]

9 hours ago, GussieK said:

There's a site called Moviechat that is trying to re-create the old forums. They have all the old posts. They deserve to get more attention so the old users of the forums will find it. Im happy i found it. 

YAY!  I wish it were more active on the more obscure current movies, but having all the old posts is wonderful. 

I suspect it doesn't get much action because you have to go there pretty much just for the discussion, unlike imdb.  But it exists, so I'm not complaining.  Although I will complain that they list some of the cast, but not the director.  I think that's an odd choice, but again, I'll take what I can get.

Thanks for letting me know it's there.

[Spartan Girl]

Am I the only one that wishes Del Toro didn't feel obligated to have the creature kill Giles' cats? It's kind of hard to like the creature, let alone ship him with Elisa, after that...

[raven]

9 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Am I the only one that wishes Del Toro didn't feel obligated to have the creature kill Giles' cats? It's kind of hard to like the creature, let alone ship him with Elisa, after that...

The creature killed one cat and was eating it, pretty much right after Hofstetler I believe it was said that the creature needed meat - so I wasn't surprised, though I didn't like it.

After the horrified reaction of Giles, the next time we see the creature with a cat, it is stroking the cat's head in a friendly way and I think Giles shoos the creature off.  In the second instance the creature didn't mean the cat any harm, he learned from Giles that the cat wasn't for food.  The scenes were meant I think to show that the creature was not a mindless beast, but knew about affection and being considerate of others. 

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, raven said:

The creature killed one cat and was eating it, pretty much right after Hofstetler I believe it was said that the creature needed meat - so I wasn't surprised, though I didn't like it.

After the horrified reaction of Giles, the next time we see the creature with a cat, it is stroking the cat's head in a friendly way and I think Giles shoos the creature off.  In the second instance the creature didn't mean the cat any harm, he learned from Giles that the cat wasn't for food.  The scenes were meant I think to show that the creature was not a mindless beast, but knew about affection and being considerate of others. 

I get that, but it would have worked just as well if he didn't kill the first cat. Sorry, but when it comes to animals I'm petty.

[aradia22]

I finally saw the movie. It was fine. There are moments that are very visually striking, especially the creature work. It was nice to finally be able to watch a Del Toro movie. The other ones freak me out too much because they're too close to horror. I don't want to buy a DVD or Blu-Ray but I'm so curious about how much of that was Doug Jones and how much of it was makeup/practical and how much of it was CGI. There were moments of some really nice soft but warm lighting. Like, a lot of things in the movie have a blue or green tint but not the ugly filter that a lot of movies and shows use for nighttime or early morning scenes because it somehow had a warm pink/orange glow to it still. 

The movie was trope-y and kind of paint by numbers as far as storytelling goes but I didn't think it was too cloying or saccharine. It felt like a fairytale. Like the kind of story that's not difficult to understand whether or not you speak the language of the characters. You can tell what's going on. It was that kind of simple. If you want to make jokes, it's easy to make it ridiculous but actually watching the movie I felt that they exercised enough restraint and got some pretty great talent to pull it off. I also liked that the characters in the movie weren't stupid. When someone had a secret, it wasn't long before another character figured it out. 

Spoiler

I did think it was very lucky that the Russian spy/scientist happened to be in the right place at the right time and inclined to help her. I have no idea how she would have managed her dumb plan without him. 

But yeah, I liked that Michael Shannon's character was always suspicious and always just a few steps behind proving what he suspected. Otherwise, he would have seemed like an idiot.

I kind of get why it's significant that the spy and Octavia Spencer's husband gave them up but I did think it was an unnecessary leap. Given that he's already suspicious, he should have gone to Sally Hawkins way before that.  

Even though Octavia Spencer's character is also short-changed because he is supposed to have a more significant story, I thought Richard Jenkins' character was the weak one. If you're going to roll your eyes at anything it's this shallow understanding of a gay character. Correct me if I'm wrong but...

Spoiler

He has multiple cats and the creature only eats one of them? Even so, he's really understanding about losing one of his cats. I thought he really fell into the supportive friend role that's usually reserved for the black best friend character who is entirely too supportive of someone else's story.

[Scout Finch]

On 3/9/2018 at 5:12 PM, aradia22 said:

I finally saw the movie. It was fine. There are moments that are very visually striking, especially the creature work. It was nice to finally be able to watch a Del Toro movie. The other ones freak me out too much because they're too close to horror. I don't want to buy a DVD or Blu-Ray but I'm so curious about how much of that was Doug Jones and how much of it was makeup/practical and how much of it was CGI. There were moments of some really nice soft but warm lighting. Like, a lot of things in the movie have a blue or green tint but not the ugly filter that a lot of movies and shows use for nighttime or early morning scenes because it somehow had a warm pink/orange glow to it still. 

The movie was trope-y and kind of paint by numbers as far as storytelling goes but I didn't think it was too cloying or saccharine. It felt like a fairytale. Like the kind of story that's not difficult to understand whether or not you speak the language of the characters. You can tell what's going on. It was that kind of simple. If you want to make jokes, it's easy to make it ridiculous but actually watching the movie I felt that they exercised enough restraint and got some pretty great talent to pull it off. I also liked that the characters in the movie weren't stupid. When someone had a secret, it wasn't long before another character figured it out. 

  Hide contents

I did think it was very lucky that the Russian spy/scientist happened to be in the right place at the right time and inclined to help her. I have no idea how she would have managed her dumb plan without him. 

But yeah, I liked that Michael Shannon's character was always suspicious and always just a few steps behind proving what he suspected. Otherwise, he would have seemed like an idiot.

I kind of get why it's significant that the spy and Octavia Spencer's husband gave them up but I did think it was an unnecessary leap. Given that he's already suspicious, he should have gone to Sally Hawkins way before that.  

Even though Octavia Spencer's character is also short-changed because he is supposed to have a more significant story, I thought Richard Jenkins' character was the weak one. If you're going to roll your eyes at anything it's this shallow understanding of a gay character. Correct me if I'm wrong but...

  Hide contents

He has multiple cats and the creature only eats one of them? Even so, he's really understanding about losing one of his cats. I thought he really fell into the supportive friend role that's usually reserved for the black best friend character who is entirely too supportive of someone else's story.

 

Same here. Aside from the cat part, it was a gorgeous movie.

[stealinghome]

I saw the movie this afternoon and agree that it was solid but I wasn’t wowed, and that the second half kind of lost my interest. It’s like the movie didn’t really know where it wanted to go after the creature was freed from the lab, so we randomly got lots of fish sex and then a Hollywood action ending. (It didn’t help that it shifted focus a bit to Michael Shannon, who I didn’t find at all interesting despite the screenplay’s best attempts—I found Sally Hawkins, the best friend, and Octavia Spencer way more interesting and wish we spent more time with them.) I think the movie might’ve been better had we gotten more build-up in the lab, and then the escape just took the fish man straight to the canal.

I did feel bad for the Russian scientist. I hope Michael Shannon put him out of his misery after he was done questioning him, but I suspect he left the poor guy to suffer. Russian scientist just happening to intersect with Sally Hawkins’ plan was a little too contrived, but “strike team of at least 10 men” had me chuckling so hard I didn’t mind it. I love that the Russian scientist also thought that was hilarious.

I didn’t think this movie was bad by any stretch, but I would probably not have had it on top of my Oscar ballot for Best Picture (the amount of technical work that must’ve gone into it makes me definitely get behind del Toro’s win for Director though). I wonder if the Academy really wanted del Toro to win Best Picture this year because they think this might be his last best shot.

Edited March 14, 2018 by stealinghome

[paramitch]

So... I finally saw this.

Overall, 5 stars, although it isn't for everyone. I thought it was gorgeous and daring in many obvious and less obvious ways. First off, thank you to Del Toro for giving us a true Beauty and the Beast moment in which, yes, Beauty kisses the Beast—and not when he's safely pretty and princely again, but when he's still ugly and transformed (or arguably, beautiful in a different and more challenging way). You know, the WHOLE POINT OF THE FAIRYTALE. Gah. And yes, I will always be salty about that. She should have kissed the BEAST. Not the man. Ahem.

Anyway. To echo others here, I do have a few minor quibbles: (1) the CAT scene OH MY GOD NO (and the bizarrely calm reaction to it by Giles, Richard Jenkins's character); and (2) that the Amphibious Man needed more moments to solidify him as a thinking communicative being, not as a purely feral instinctual animal.

But. The heroine was fantastic (and I loved how unabashedly sexual she was), but to me the beautiful Amphibious Man was underexplored. I wanted a few more moments of self and sentience, although the beautiful final scene provided much of what I had wished for, and Doug Jones is, as always, an arresting and utterly graceful performer who was yet again a revelation here. And I loved Michael Stuhlbarg so, so much (he's such a chameleon) and honestly kind of had the hugest crush on him the entire story. I wanted him to be okay so badly.

I will also add that while it was lovely to see Octavia Spencer, and she was wonderful as always, you know that woman had to read her part and roll her eyes. I mean seriously:  A maid. AGAIN. She's so much better than that. It's almost insulting.

I asked a friend: Imagine if SHE had been the object of the creature's affections? Honestly to me that is immediately a better story. Right there. 

On 3/5/2018 at 4:48 PM, raven said:

The creature killed one cat and was eating it, pretty much right after Hofstetler I believe it was said that the creature needed meat - so I wasn't surprised, though I didn't like it.

After the horrified reaction of Giles, the next time we see the creature with a cat, it is stroking the cat's head in a friendly way and I think Giles shoos the creature off.  In the second instance the creature didn't mean the cat any harm, he learned from Giles that the cat wasn't for food.  The scenes were meant I think to show that the creature was not a mindless beast, but knew about affection and being considerate of others. 

I get this, but I still felt like it was sloppy. It felt more pandering to have him be sweet to the cats later (after being chastised) than for him to simply realize they were pets and off-limits. I mean, if he is a real, rational being inside himself.

Which brings me to my one lingering issue. While I loved it, the biggest remaining critique for me is still the Aquatic Man and Elisa's connection. I watched it again (using the FF button judiciously in a few moments, LOL) and again... I needed more time to see who he was. 

What did he think about? What was he trying to say when he spoke? What did he want to say but couldn't? I wanted more inner life. Ironically, I kind of got more of that from his moments with Jenkins's character than I did with Elisa. Their moments of sorrow and sympathy (the hand on the head in penance or affection) were so beautiful. Whereas with Elisa, like... it almost felt too purely physical to me, her reaction to him. If she hadn't been like him, would she have still loved him? What exactly did she love? Who did she love Who was he to her? We don't know that. I don't care that he's a fish-man. I care that I still felt at the end like the only moments when I began to know him were so fleeting (the little moments with Giles and the final gorgeous embrace with Elisa).

But then, on the other hand... I'm a gamer. My characters have had relationships with men, women, and aliens both ugly and beautiful. So it's tough to faze me on that front.

Either way, I still really enjoyed it, and just the amount of thought and debate I've had over it makes it worthwhile in addition to some rapturously beautiful moments. But I need there to be more of an inner intelligence in my Beauty and the Beast tales. A more rational being inside my Beasts.

On a side note -- this caused me to think a lot about a book I read years ago, by Danish writer Peter Hoeg, called "The Woman and the Ape," in which a woman runs off and has a relationship with an intelligent, speaking ape. This movie did attempt to discomfit us by asking us to examine our preconceptions about humans and other creatures, as the Amphibious Man is very very Other. (As did a strange and beautiful movie from years ago, "Passion in the Desert," about a man who falls in love with a cheetah.) Food for thought.

Edited March 16, 2018 by paramitch

[aradia22]

Quote

(1) the CAT scene OH MY GOD NO (and the bizarrely calm reaction to it by Giles, Richard Jenkins's character);

I am now convinced some internet smart-ass will write an article or make a video with a theory about how the Amphibian Man was mind-controlling him into being understanding. 

Quote

You know, the WHOLE POINT OF THE FAIRYTALE. Gah. And yes, I will always be salty about that. She should have kissed the BEAST. Not the man. Ahem.

At least as far as Disney goes, I get it. Because it looks like a cute underbite but there's a whole mess of fangs in there. And also the bestiality thing. I still haven't watched the new movie with Emma Watson but seeing a picture, it feels like less of a problem there.

Quote

I asked a friend: Imagine if SHE had been the object of the creature's affections? Honestly to me that is immediately a better story. Right there. 

Insert lame joke here about black people generally not starring in movies where they bought a haunted house or 127 Hours/avalanche survival scenarios because they don't do stupid things like that. But I think Octavia Spencer's character, while sympathetic to the creature, would have never taken a chance like that. Speaking of POC in movies, I was curious how many people pick up on the fact that her name is Elisa Esposito and she's most likely supposed to be a POC. Sally Hawkins is Irish Catholic but I didn't really see anyone making a fuss about the role being white-washed. And in her behavior towards Michael Shannon, she displays a kind of fearlessness that almost feels like privilege. 

[Luckylyn]

My Monster Boyfriend - an interesting anaylsis of Shape Of Water  as well as the whole beauty and beast trope.  I appreciated the historical perspective.

[Rickster]

When you live in Baltimore, why do you have to wait days for rain to fill a canal when you could immediately drive to the harbor or any nearby bayfront town to put the fishman in the water? Plot convenience, obviously.

I thought there was a lot of skill in putting together the feel of the movie, but it would have been better if they dialed back on the nudity, sex and violence a bit. Michael Shannon was a way too cartoonish villain as well.

[msrachelj]

On 1/27/2018 at 7:41 PM, thuganomics85 said:

This finally came to my area.  Overall, I thought it was excellent and this is someone who honestly isn't a massive Guillermo del Toro fan.  I've always admired his ambition and the look of his films, and he's clearly talented, but outside of Pan's Labyrinth, I've always found his films to not live up to his potential (Hellboy came close, but still didn't wow me.)  But I thought this was his best work in quite some time, and I really loved the look and feel of the film.  All the underwater shots were beautiful.

I thought Sally Hawkins was the perfect choice for Elise and was phenomenal in the role.  It had to be tough not being able to speak for the majority of it (outside the musical number), but she did an excellent job at making Elise feel like a real person and understanding how she felt, and even being able to buy her falling for the creature.  And it does help that while I do think she has a unique beauty to her, she isn't "movie star" beautiful, so I can buy other characters considering her "plain", and her being lonely.  I was impressed.  Any other year, she'd probably be the frontrunner for an Oscar, but Best Actress is just such a tough category this go around.

Loved the min-Boardwalk Empire reunion with both Michael Shannon and Michael Stuhlbarg here.  On one hand, Shannon runs the risk of always being typcasted in this type of role, but damn, if he ain't good at it.  Every time he is on screen, he just puts me on edge and I truly fear for any character that ever gets on his bad side.  As for Stulbarg, he's always one of my favorites, and I loved the unexpected directions they went with this character.  Richard Jenkins came close to stealing all of his scenes, while Doug Jones shows why he's the best with prosthetic work.  Also great seeing a few other familiar faces like David Hewlett and Nick Searcy here (Searcy also had a small role in Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri, so he's surprisingly got himself in both of the Best Picture frontrunners.)

That said, a minor unpopular opinion: while I enjoyed Octavia Spencer's role and performance, I really don't know how she got a third nomination, unless Best Supporting Actress is just really weak this year.  Again, she was fine, but it felt like a performance that she can do in her sleep at this point, and I wasn't really wowed.  To be fair, that could be said for a whole bunch of actors in the past, so more power to her, I guess.

The music was fantastic.

I should have known that there was no way del Toro wasn't going to kill at least one of those cats.  Giles handled that way better then I expected.

Curious about the ending.  I'd like to believe that what we saw on screen really did happen and Elise and the creature live happily ever after.  But since it seems like this film was suppose to be told by Giles, it is always possible he changed things to give it a happier ending.

! liked the movie a lot . except for the eating of the cat. giles took that way too well. i'm still grieving a  year later over my fur baby! i was hoping he would rejuvenate kitty somehow but he did eat his head! would not have let him near the remaining cats after that!  did not understand why it had to be raining for them to release the fisherman either, he could have just jumped in. 

[msrachelj]

On 3/5/2018 at 7:34 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Am I the only one that wishes Del Toro didn't feel obligated to have the creature kill Giles' cats? It's kind of hard to like the creature, let alone ship him with Elisa, after that...

exactly how i felt. ruined the movie for me. he could have made it humorous, the creature being scared by the cat, something. but that was pretty disturbing.

[memememe76]

I loved this movie so much. Michael Shannon was brilliant. I became so entrenched in the romantic relationship but in the two primary friendships too. I hope that Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spencer spend more time together. The only other nominated movie I have seen so far was Ladybird, which I thought was hot garbage. But this appears to be extremely worthy.

[Bruinsfan]

On 3/25/2018 at 6:00 AM, Rickster said:

Michael Shannon was a way too cartoonish villain as well.

He's way too cartoonish a villain in everything I see him in. Whatever good other people see in his performances and rave about completely escapes me.

[sacrebleu]

Quote

I can't pinpoint who Doug Jones looks like.

He looks like what might happen if Michael Fassbender and John Waters had a baby.