The Shape of Water, by Guillermo del Toro

Saw the film today, very much felt like a hybridization of Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy. I liked it for the most part, it's definitely Del Toro doing what he does best, but I don't think it is quite as good as Pans Labyrinth. I think it's mostly because I got distracted by the more esoteric scenes in the second half of the film, mostly the Hollywood musical bit and flooding the bathroom. On top of that, after retrieving the Asset they made a big deal about waiting for the rainy season and the docks to flood before letting him go, which wasn't made especially clear WHY it had to go down like that. It made that portion of the film narrative stall before the climax kicked in.

I do think that overall the film's emotional anchor is, ironically, Strickland because of just how magnetic Michael Shannon's performance is. He drives everything in the story. When Elisa and the Asset first meet I was thinking how her peaceful behavior must seem the complete opposite of it's interactions with Strickland, meaning his influence on the plot is still vital to that story. It really made me think how Shannon has just a perfect villain look and voice, but not in a simplistic way. Strickland is evil because he falls into a weird middle ground between having selfish goals and believing in a higher cause, making his behavior not easily explained by either.

I think because of how odd the "fish-man romance" story was I ended up becoming more invested in Strickland's descent into madness and the "Bob" Dimitri story. But all in all, a very fascinating film regardless. Bare minimum, the set design and creature effects were spectacular.

It's because the canal will open into the sea.

edited 14th Mar '18 10:03:18 AM by Zanthype

"In 900 years of time and space I've never met anyone who wasn't important."

I got that, but it seemed like the actual ocean was just a hundred meters away from the dry dock. Like I said, why did it have to be THAT specific location?

I also profoundly reject any claims of bestiality in the Asset. He’s self-aware, intelligent, able to communicate, and he has a moral sense. He's not an animal.

Yes but to human levels ?

If so it wasn’t fully communicated . Though as I see it if he is a wild God, it makes some sense for him to be inhuman as he is.

I mean, yes. The Asset isn't human, but he's absolutely a being as sentient and intelligent as humans, with a moral center. The worst thing he does is eat a cat and it's a bit hard to blame him for that on as he had no idea it wasn't for him to eat.

Depends on your jurisdiction. I happen to be interested in stories and art like this, so I looked. There are heavily conservative jurisdictions where fucking ELVES trigger bestiality laws. So, unfortunately, bestiality's strictly on the surface, not about anything deeper. If it looks inhuman at all, it's considered a beast by law.

I just finished watching the film, and yeah, all of this is true. In the beginning it felt kind of iffy to me but as the film goes on the Asset's intelligence becomes more and more obvious.

By the way this is definitely Del Toro's best film since Pan's Labyrinth. Definitely much better than Crimson Peak. I noticed a lot of similarities to Pan's in particular, mostly with Stickland to Vidal as villainous, vulgar patriarchal figures.

Saw it yesterday, liked it, especially the parts where the escape/kill plans collide and join up.

I think it's because the rest of the docks are more closely watched.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

I finally watched this and liked it quite a bit. It seems to be a not only a love letter to classics of The Golden Age of Hollywood with its romantic elements but also the b-movies of the time. There's the lovely added twist of giving the beast a happy ending.

"It's true that we had a gentleman's agreement, but unfortunately, I am no gentleman."