First of all...Yes, talking about the recent movie, and YES...Spoiler Alerts. So if you don't want to know about it, or haven't seen it? Stop reading now. Secondly, I hesitate to use Prius Chat as a movie discussion forum, but found this experience so unique to me, that I just wanted somewhere to vent. I recently went to see this "Picture of The Year". All I can say, is I was extremely disappointed. Let me just start with the positive. The environment, the sets and the costuming, all seemed excellent. The acting was passable, all in a right character actor for the right character sort of way. Since the main character Eliza, is mute, not a lot of dialogue delivery. Since the "Creature" basically roars, gurgles, also not a lot of dialogue delivery. You are introduced to some basic sign language including a hand gesture for "Egg" and later how to spell out a common profanity letter by letter. So if I ever need some F'in Eggs in the deaf school cafeteria, I can thank this movie for helping me place my order. Listen, I'm not against a romance story, which this clearly is or strives to be. It's most common comparison is going to be to the "Beauty and The Beast" structure. That is Woman meets Monster, discovers deeper humanity, love ensues. But in Beauty and The Beast, that humanity exists because everyone knows, that beneath that beast is a Prince. In the Shape of Water, the very much Creature from The Black Lagoon like creature is given very little back story. Basically just told the creature was captured or taken from a South American Jungle, where it was worshiped as a god by local natives. IMO in any romance or love story, for it to work you have to believe in the chemistry or possibility of love between the two characters whether those are Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan or in this case the characters of Eliza and The Creature. To me, very little is done to develop or reveal this chemistry or the "humanity" of the creature. Eliza brings the creature eggs, stares longingly into tanks of water and the pool where the creature is chained and kept, and sneaks in records to play dance music. But beyond these very limited and scarce scenes, amazingly little is presented to bring into focus or develop the romance between these two characters, we are evidently just to accept it. We are also to believe that Eliza discovers the heart and humanity in this creature. But IMO very little is also revealed to demonstrate this. This is NOT an enchanted Prince, forceably disguised as a Beast. While sympathy for the creatures plight is always in place, and it is being tortured and mistreated by the very over the top evil character in this movie, nearly as much is revealed to define it as a creature with inhuman qualities. Early on in defense, it bites fingers off it's torturer. Later, even when removed from that environment, and supposedly in a place where more of it's "human" nature would possibly be revealed, this development is sidetracked by a disturbing scene where the creature beheads and consumes a pet cat. And yet, we are asked to believe that Eliza and this creature have created a bond so strong, that we have an interspecies sensual/sexual relationship. No...that just doesn't work. In comparison, I would site the Movie "Her"...which also brings forth questions about what it actually takes to create and form a romance and relationship. In this case, however, you have the unlikely bond between a man and an artificial intelligence operating system. But in this story, you have dialogue, interchange, and numerous scenes of actual bonding. I could buy the connection in this movie, much more legitimately than in The Shape of Water. The Shape of Water, IMO is a strange flawed fairy tale sequel to The Creature From The Black Lagoon. A weakly revealed romance, that is also turned into a strange Cold War, "Free Willy" rescue film. With a fantasy, reverse "Little Mermaid" twist. And IMO,- none of it particularly works. The only compliment I can give the film, is I think it could of been a lot worse. But I must be wrong. Right? It won picture of the year. Guillero del Toro won best Director. But I really feel like the kid in The Emperors New Clothes...when I say,- this movie, isn't very good. So sorry, to House of Pancakes....for a rant about a movie, but I'd be curious as to whether anyone strongly disagrees with me...which is perfectly OK...I realize I must be in the minority, or whether anyone agrees with me. I rarely feel the picture of the year, is the film I enjoy most. But usually, the picture of the year is a film I feel is at least "good". I would rank this, as the most overrated piece of work I've ever seen. Even if that makes me a drip.
SF movies have not done well with Oscars. At least a few really should have won. This movie is probably not among those. Maybe having broken through means the next truly excellent SF movie will have a better chance. But stiffing 2001: A Space Odyssey can never be undone.
Thanks for the review, reinforces my decision to not see the movie. there's not been anything made in the last few years that I want to see, either seem to be agenda driven or glorifying one illegal invasion or another.
Birdman and The Shape Of Water both didn't appeal to me for the same sort of reasons - both struck me as clever-clever Oscar bait without much real substance, designed for critics rather than ordinary viewers. But Arrival would be my film of the last couple of years. I loved that. Also, Zootopia, which I wasn't expecting to like as much as I did.
I've learned to ignore the professional movie reviewers. Instead, I thoroughly research movies, read many different opinions from various movie review sites, then finally decide to chance the loss of 90-180 minutes of my life. My regrets tend to be minimal, but still occur. There are very few movies I've truly loved, and even less that I would watch more than once. Thanks for your thorough and detailed review.
It's odd - it sounds brilliant, but it didn't get a theatrical release outside of the US - something to do with the studio having a crisis of confidence because it's got women in it, shock horror. It came out on Netflix in Australia last night. Next time I have a couple of hours to myself, I'll definitely watch it.
As a linguist and SF nerd, it really ticked all the boxes for me. The premise is someone doing what's pretty much my dream job (the other would be Hoshi Sato in Star Trek Enterprise). But it was also a brilliantly-told story.
One unimpressed by jazz music might allow Birdman's drum score to distract from joy of 'unreal' story telling. As a (much less skilled) percussionist, I found it great.
shape of water, meh. i'm done with award winning movies. need to find a better way to spend 10 dollars.
That's clear enough. But have you never seen a movie that substantially modified your view of the world or of other people in it? Those are the keepers; worth a sawbuck or maybe more. People who make movies see themselves as brain changers (in the best sense). Or less loftily, just financial. There was a time when we sat around fires with story tellers. There was a time when we read books that moved our minds. Now, cinematic tools gain brain access via additional pathways. But all is for nought unless they get you. And change you. For me, best of craft create a new world for you to inhabit briefly. Still remember Z (1969 film) - Wikipedia Which was subtitled but exiting theatre* I did not realize it was subtitled. I was just 'in'.
a new idea is usually interesting. takeoffs from the new idea are less. most good ideas come from writers, not hollywood.
Guess I'll have to wait till it comes on Sky TV or Amazon Prime. Movie theatres are anathema to me. Too loud and I'm half deaf.
