- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Shape Of Water
Posted on 1/24/18 at 8:04 pm to LuckyTiger
Posted on 1/24/18 at 8:04 pm to LuckyTiger
Bump because whoo boy, this movie was a trip. Don’t think this is spoily, since the jist of the plot is pretty well known.
There were parts - one big one being Alexandre Desplat’s whimsical score - that almost felt like a Tim Burton joint, and I don’t mean that in a bad way.
I liked that Del Toro hit the ground running on establishing Elisa’s sympathetic and passionate character, it helped to somewhat buy in on the quick (and weirdly graphic) love affair that bloomed with her & the “Asset”.
Del Toro seems to like casting real life physically imposing folks like Elba and Pearlman to walk amongst his monsters and Shannon works expectedly great in this role.
Creature-wise, and this isn’t a sizzling hot take, the creature was visually pretty much the egg-craving Abe Sapien and I wasn’t blown away - but Guillermo set some crazy high standards.
As an overall movie, not my favorite Del Toro, but again, he set some crazy high standards.
* actual kind of spoilers on the ending
I liked the twist. The film kind of preps you to believe anything & everything by that point, and it was a nice long play setup. imo
There were parts - one big one being Alexandre Desplat’s whimsical score - that almost felt like a Tim Burton joint, and I don’t mean that in a bad way.
I liked that Del Toro hit the ground running on establishing Elisa’s sympathetic and passionate character, it helped to somewhat buy in on the quick (and weirdly graphic) love affair that bloomed with her & the “Asset”.
Del Toro seems to like casting real life physically imposing folks like Elba and Pearlman to walk amongst his monsters and Shannon works expectedly great in this role.
Creature-wise, and this isn’t a sizzling hot take, the creature was visually pretty much the egg-craving Abe Sapien and I wasn’t blown away - but Guillermo set some crazy high standards.
As an overall movie, not my favorite Del Toro, but again, he set some crazy high standards.
* actual kind of spoilers on the ending
I liked the twist. The film kind of preps you to believe anything & everything by that point, and it was a nice long play setup. imo
This post was edited on 1/24/18 at 8:49 pm
1
Posted on 1/25/18 at 12:24 pm to Backinthe615
I was underwhelmed. I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I don't think it is as great as del Toro's top tier stuff like Pan's Labyrinth or Hellboy. I felt most of the movie was just playing homage to other movies, which is cool, but didn't blow me away.
Michael Shannon was great, as always, but it wasn't anything we haven't seen from him before. The script was almost "Let Michael Shannon do Michael Shannon things". The sea monster felt like a rehash of Abe Sapien. And really, it felt somewhat like The Little Mermaid with the roles reversed.
I thought Richard Jenkins was the best thing about the movies, as he found new ways to be a loser throughout. Even his triumphant moments were punctuated with failure. Just a wonderful sad sack character. "I'm not very good at this!"
It was a pretty film and had a great score, so I can see what a lot of people see in it. Also, it's a love letter to old films, which is the best way to an Oscar voter's heart. I didn't dislike it, but I just wasn't as enamored as others.
I think its because I never really connected with the monster. He doesn't have that moment where he connects with the audience and we see what she sees in him. We're told what she sees, but he doesn't really DO much other than eat some eggs.
Michael Shannon was great, as always, but it wasn't anything we haven't seen from him before. The script was almost "Let Michael Shannon do Michael Shannon things". The sea monster felt like a rehash of Abe Sapien. And really, it felt somewhat like The Little Mermaid with the roles reversed.
I thought Richard Jenkins was the best thing about the movies, as he found new ways to be a loser throughout. Even his triumphant moments were punctuated with failure. Just a wonderful sad sack character. "I'm not very good at this!"
It was a pretty film and had a great score, so I can see what a lot of people see in it. Also, it's a love letter to old films, which is the best way to an Oscar voter's heart. I didn't dislike it, but I just wasn't as enamored as others.
I think its because I never really connected with the monster. He doesn't have that moment where he connects with the audience and we see what she sees in him. We're told what she sees, but he doesn't really DO much other than eat some eggs.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News