The Shape of Water - Guillermo del Toro

That's kind of a tautology - if it has fans, then they must have connected with the film.

 

Consider this, Deesky...

That was an interesting observation. I'm curious, if you think of yourself more in the SF ("speculative fiction") camp or the "Sci-Fi" (monsters and space babes) identifiers. America usually falls for the latter. But either can be infused with a stnse of a specific style that falls outside the boundaries of their individual families. 2001 attempting to put the narrative within the context of a logical extrapolation of science in the near future; but it's the "static" storytelling most people remember as what makes the movie different. Independence Day going for thrills whether it tries to feel like reality or not. And the film "feels" like your typical narrative, with larger-than-life characters and subplots, and plucky people coming up with last-minute solutions (OH! - and, explosions and flags).

I see Shape Of Water as set in the style of reality as something as broad as (but not really conforming to) film noir. More cinematography than acting and inspiration from real life. This film could have been envisioned like an '80s Spielberg story, or a Frank Capra flick, or, Harold-Ramis-ish "buddy" pic, or, God Help Us, a "subtle'd-down" version of Michael Bay. But it's the overall film "tone" that would still be compatible with any of those narrative processes. The green is gonna get all over anything, and the creature is still going to be mostly sympathetic to the waif-ish mute assistant. And maybe, at long last, these elements are the ones that set-off the harsher opinions.

How might these specific detractors react to, say the politically-loaded themes of an SF stealth-epic such as, Children Of Men, or the eerie nervousness in the mystery surrounding the Sam Rockwell tour-de-force Moon with its' tough questions-for-later about how you feel about AI consciousness.?

The past couple of weeks, my wife sat me down to watch Deep Impact, that Tea Leoni "asteroid" movie, so a coaxed her into watching Miachel Bay's treatment of the exact scenario, in Armageddon, with all its' excesses. And now I'm wondering, which of these might have been a more agreeable "filmic language" to ear their approval.

 

Here is a deeper look into the meaning of the film as broken down by Sociology. I think it explains the love and hate people have with the film. Fascinating.

 

Tea Leoni movie has brains and heart

Armageddon had BRUCE WILLIS. RAAAWWWWWRRRR!


Armageddon, in my case, refers to the headache it gives me. Every minute has to beat you over the head with it's pulse-pounding drama. That movie.... brrrr.


I'd actually like to see another nice realistic Deep Impact movie. That one with the giant arks was ridiculous. Ugh. Morgan Freeman's interplay with the reporter and the "Scoop" was great storytelling. I kinda like that movie, right down to the big waves. Sweet.

 

When we watched it together the other night, she just kept looking at me, like, "why are we watching this...?"

Se what I mean about the dichotomy between the two films, and why a audience who didn't go for Shape of Water, may indeed have chosen explosions and Michael Bay Hollywood ending over the first film...?

 

True, I'm a self-taut critic. BTW, if The Shape of Water has many fans they'd be called fen in sci-fi jargon, but fen in the context of this film is dangerously close to a pun.

Science fiction fandom - Wikipedia

Cat

 

It was the acting performances of Sally Hawkins and Richard Jenkins that impressed me most about this film. And if I want to see "real life", I'll watch the news, as distressing as that might be.

 

Sally Jenkins was one of the biggest reasons I hated this movie. The mute, wide-eyed waif. Like isn't isn't one of the ultimate foreign movie cliches.

"But she expressed so much without ever saying a word!"

If you really think about it, so does your cocker spaniel. It's not really hard. It's probably one of the EASIEST acting roles you can give a hambone thespian.

 

By using a cliche, your argument against cliches doesn't hold water.

 

If you're saying that the average American movie-goer's level of sophistication is on the high end, well - I wish I could agree. Big BO (I like this acronym for these types of flicks, tip o' the cap to you) movies, esp those summer blockbusters that appeal to the broadest audiences possible are always dumbed down and filled with ham-handed cliches and tropes. Would that Del Toro's films were an example of the least subtle in the industry.

 

I really liked it

 

I don't have a cocker spaniel, so I guess I'm just easily impressed by hambone thespians.

 

While I'd agree that audience sophistication varies, criticism shouldn't be dismissed simply because those opinions differ with the prevailing viewpoint ...unless you're willing to concede the possibility that the American audience's lack of sophistication might also explain the success of The Shape of Water.


Cat

 

At the "barely worth mentioning" level, sure. Looking at the figures it grossed more outside the US than in, and I'm not sure how much of the North American gross includes money from Canada. That's beside the point though b/c the awards it was nominated for and won weren't due to BO gains. I'm not saying this was one of the greatest films ever made, but it was better than average. It was certainly better than one of its contemporaries, Downsize Me, which was one of the worst non-summer blockbusters I've sat through in quite a while.

 

Really? Downsize Me was a hit???! It died around here.

 

No, not saying it was a hit but released around the same time - a competitor for BO cash.

I realize now how it reads in my post. Downsize Me was not a summer blockbuster movie but was just as shallow as those movies tend to be.

 

Just watched 'The Shape Of Water' last night & loved it. Another triumph of pure-cinema, filtered through Guillermo Del Toro's lens of the 'art-monster' & combined with as wacky a love story as could be imagined. How this movie even got made is beyond me, but I really dug it. Great cast, fantastic production values & a great ending. And how about that opening shot? Wow...

 

A love story - two lonely souls find each other and live happily ever after, I guess.

 

now showing on HBO for those interested.

 

I give him credit for an audacious opening with her doing a solo on herself. It really laid out that you will either hate or love what is to come. I thought it was a ridiculous scene, but I gotta say it gets your attention. Like the opening of Shoot the Moon with Albert Finney sobbing.

 

I see what you did there.

 

Gee no wonder I immediately hated it. I must’ve realized he wasfilming this for cable since it opened with a masturbation scene. guess we won’t be watching the “best movie” of 2017 on the new Apple channel.

 

It is Rated "R" just like Deadpool which also had a solo scene along with a lot of other stuff.

 

Having seen this last night, I felt like it was good in some qualitative sense, but not much more than that. The visual style seemed to be the best thing going for it, even if that style felt ripped straight out of Jean-Pierre Jeunet's universe. The way the story was executed eventually made me think of movies like "ET" and "Splash", though that's not to say the movie wasn't original in its own way. Furthermore, the characters were kind of one-note to me, to the point that I didn't really care about them. Overall, I was fairly disengaged throughout, but that's common for me these days, so it's not really a reflection of the film's inherent qualities. In fact, the only moment that drew a particularly strong reaction from me was the song-and-dance number, which I hated with a passion.

 

And apparently, comedian and actress Leslie Jones is not a fan of Shape of Water...

Leslie Jones Asks 'What the F--?' About 'Shape of Water' Sex Scene