The story isn't particularly inventive nor does it pretend to be but it's a movie that's visually pleasing, I was particularly pleased by the color palette.
Spoilers for ending: I really, really loved the ending of this movie. At a certain point, it seems like the amphibian man might heal Elisa, but she pulls away. It's something you're kind of waiting for - for the man to bring Elisa's voice back. Then, in the very end, he does heal her - but for him, and for his powers, the point of healing is not to close the gap between her and what is normal, but rather to close the gap between her and what she needs to be. I found it a very moving interpretation of disability and of our relationship with our bodies.
I completely agree with just about everything you said, with the exception that i didn't leave it quite as unsatisfied. I haven't seen any of del Toro's work besides Pan's Labyrinth, so I didn't have too many expectations, and while it certainly didn't beat out PL, I still felt very satisfied. Sure, the characters could have used more development, but I wound up caring for them all the same. Love your reviews, btw! I really appreciate critics like you who make honest and thoughtful analysis and post it all for free for us heathens on youtube, lol.
I very much enjoyed how calm this movie felt. The palette and the sets were just lovely and so fun to take in. I absolutely agree that it could've had more going on emotionally. We definitely needed more interactions and bonding between Elisa and the Fish Man. And the ableism that coursed throughout it (both in the writing and the casting) certainly contributed to some of that dullness in the emotional arc for me personally. -S
The impression I got from this movie seems quit different from everyone else's. in that after seeing it I thought of the Russian scientist as the real protagonist, protecting a mythical wonder of the world he was privileged to witness, sacrificing himself for it at the hand of everyone he was working under for the sake of something he considered a greater cause. Since that concept (or the character's physical type) doesn't seem likely to attract a wide audience, I wonder if del Toro and his team ended up pulling off a major show of misdirection to be able to tell that story, creating a parallel outrageous story of a woman falling in love and consummating a relationship with the fishman (a very different kind of positive relationship, but one that historically has clicked better with wider audiences, as in the likes of Beauty & the Beast), something that would raise eyebrows and put butts in seats out of sheer curiosity, and executing it beautifully on many fronts, while approaching other kinds of topics with parallels in the narrative presented in the movie's promotional material, like sexuality. Then again, I tend to see a lot of art, especially that meant for a wide audience, to often be composed of two major aspects: its "bait", the superficially appealing aspects that'll bring an audience to it, and its "heart", the core aspects underlying much of it which may not be necessarily obvious but inform many of the decisions in the work. I could be wrong, of course - maybe the movie's story could be told without a Russian faction and its scientist facilitating the escape by the end, but I figure the romance could be left out and you'd still get an interesting tense story where other parties (people from the creature's region of origin or their descendants, for example) could have helped free the fishman by the end without any of it involving sex with him in an unlikely flooded bathroom or the miracle shenanigans by the ending. I mean, by the end Demitri suffered more than most, but he sacrificed to achieve what he wanted to accomplish, quite selflessly at that, and there's no shortage of good movies out there with that kind of bittersweet happy ending.
Murdock Files if I'd had this channel when The World's End came out I would have made a 10 min review screaming about how happy I was haha. I'd have more 100% positive reviews if I saw more movies I guess but I don't want to charge patrons for a million 5 min videos a month
It's all good, I'm just surprised! I respect the opinions of others, and I have friends who like these films even less than you. Still love your content, and thanks for replying!
Murdock Files Ha no problem!! Also worth noting I thought mother! and Little Evil SUUUCKED but I liked the other films I've reviewed and found a lot of good in them. I just didn't get the experience I look for when I am watching a great movie if that makes sense I have two reviews coming up soon and one is very positive and one is very negative lol
Hi! I like your videos! Unfortunately there is a sleight error: Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain is not a Guillermo del Toro film, it is directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (whom you should definitely check out).
Which films, aside from Pan's Labyrinth, what would you describe as among Del Toro's best work? I generally see PL as being exceptionally high-quality compared to GDT's other output. Since you frame TSoW in reference to his other films a lot, I can't quite understand where this review coming from without a clearer understanding of your opinions about his other work.
I honestly haven't seen too many of his films. But Pacific Rim and Pan's Labyrinth are my favorites, I forgot most of Hellboy, and I forgot I even watched Crimson Peak/thought it was boring lol
StrucciMovies have you seen Hellboy 2? It's completely different to the first one, and the world it builds is... the surreal parts of Pan taken up to 11, gorgeous and unique.
I haven't seen it yet, but is there any chance it takes more than one viewing to fully appreciate? I was pretty young the first time I saw Pan's Labyrinth, but I most definitely needed to watch that one two or three times to get as much out of it as I have by now. But I wouldn't expect such a complicated film to do as well with modern audiences as this seems to be doing, so I guess that would be surprising. I dunno! Looking forward to it!
I haven't seen it yet but i know what you mean when you say you bring him to a high standard. He's probably the only director that no matter what, I know on some level I'm going to enjoy whatever he brings out. That comes with a caveat though, despite a few constant things (his patented Del Toro aesthetic, creatures, Ron Perlman) I really don't know what to expect from his movies anymore and that goes for the general quality as well. I think the shape of water is gonna look much better compared to the movies released this year than to his own work though I can't wait to see if she ducks that fish
(I apologize for the length in advance) I have to say that I strangely felt dissatisfied after seeing this movie. A part of me knows this is mostly my own fault because I had set such high expectations for it but the movie itself was lacking in pretty crucial areas. I felt the romance was kind of underdeveloped despite the wonderful performances of both Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones and although he is a fine actor, Michael Shannon's character came across as overly cartoony and honestly quite silly to me. A majority of his dialogue was just him outright stating his motivations. And I understand that simplicity is inherent to the fairy tale genre but I just wish the movie had been less predictable/familiar in some areas. Especially when Pan's Labyrinth handled similar themes with such dexterity. I agree with you that although it is a good movie, it is disappointingly an underwhelming one. And consequently kinda frustrating.
Yes, exactly. Most of the dialogue was so blunt and I think it would've worked in its favor if it been less direct and instead more fluid/poetic in its approach.
Well, that's the challenge that every "real" actor expects ... And that's exactly what makes Sally's performance so great and special. By the way, her character is mute. ;)
Ah, that's different, though I cannot say what someone who's mute would think of a non-mute actor playing them or their take on the identity. This gets away from the subject of the film itself, but the challenge of a "real" hearing actor playing a Deaf person, that's another subject. Disability is often treated as a character trait - and that's *yet* another conversation on its own -, usually a flaw, but Deafness is absolutely its own complex linguistic minority culture, one that hearing people very rarely understand or portray accurately. And when they are accurate (not that I've ever seen that), there are plenty of Deaf actors who would understand and inhabit the roles better than a hearing actor ever could. I imagine that'd be true for mute actors as well, but, again, I don't know what they think of Sally Hawkins in that role. I know this sounds like an overly strong, overwrought response. This is neither a personal attack on you nor am I that offended. I'm only bringing this up because when the subject of the "challenge of the actor" in relation to disability or Deafness comes up, it's a point that people usually overlook - and will continue to overlook if this is not discussed. I did like and appreciate your review.
Btw the person who replied to you wasn't me, they didn't make the review haha. I purposefully avoided that in the review because I am not deaf or mute and felt like it wasn't my place to comment in a 5 min review.
No problem! If I think something is super egregious or on the other hand a really accurate/great representation I comment on it but if I feel I don't have a good enough standing/haven't done enough research (ex on how people how are mute, deaf, etc feel about this film) then I don't mention it
The story isn't particularly inventive nor does it pretend to be but it's a movie that's visually pleasing, I was particularly pleased by the color palette.
Spoilers for ending:
I really, really loved the ending of this movie. At a certain point, it seems like the amphibian man might heal Elisa, but she pulls away. It's something you're kind of waiting for - for the man to bring Elisa's voice back. Then, in the very end, he does heal her - but for him, and for his powers, the point of healing is not to close the gap between her and what is normal, but rather to close the gap between her and what she needs to be. I found it a very moving interpretation of disability and of our relationship with our bodies.
I completely agree with just about everything you said, with the exception that i didn't leave it quite as unsatisfied. I haven't seen any of del Toro's work besides Pan's Labyrinth, so I didn't have too many expectations, and while it certainly didn't beat out PL, I still felt very satisfied. Sure, the characters could have used more development, but I wound up caring for them all the same.
Love your reviews, btw! I really appreciate critics like you who make honest and thoughtful analysis and post it all for free for us heathens on youtube, lol.
Ha thanks! I do get paid via Patreon which helps haha
I very much enjoyed how calm this movie felt. The palette and the sets were just lovely and so fun to take in. I absolutely agree that it could've had more going on emotionally. We definitely needed more interactions and bonding between Elisa and the Fish Man. And the ableism that coursed throughout it (both in the writing and the casting) certainly contributed to some of that dullness in the emotional arc for me personally. -S
The impression I got from this movie seems quit different from everyone else's. in that after seeing it I thought of the Russian scientist as the real protagonist, protecting a mythical wonder of the world he was privileged to witness, sacrificing himself for it at the hand of everyone he was working under for the sake of something he considered a greater cause.
Since that concept (or the character's physical type) doesn't seem likely to attract a wide audience, I wonder if del Toro and his team ended up pulling off a major show of misdirection to be able to tell that story, creating a parallel outrageous story of a woman falling in love and consummating a relationship with the fishman (a very different kind of positive relationship, but one that historically has clicked better with wider audiences, as in the likes of Beauty & the Beast), something that would raise eyebrows and put butts in seats out of sheer curiosity, and executing it beautifully on many fronts, while approaching other kinds of topics with parallels in the narrative presented in the movie's promotional material, like sexuality.
Then again, I tend to see a lot of art, especially that meant for a wide audience, to often be composed of two major aspects: its "bait", the superficially appealing aspects that'll bring an audience to it, and its "heart", the core aspects underlying much of it which may not be necessarily obvious but inform many of the decisions in the work.
I could be wrong, of course - maybe the movie's story could be told without a Russian faction and its scientist facilitating the escape by the end, but I figure the romance could be left out and you'd still get an interesting tense story where other parties (people from the creature's region of origin or their descendants, for example) could have helped free the fishman by the end without any of it involving sex with him in an unlikely flooded bathroom or the miracle shenanigans by the ending.
I mean, by the end Demitri suffered more than most, but he sacrificed to achieve what he wanted to accomplish, quite selflessly at that, and there's no shortage of good movies out there with that kind of bittersweet happy ending.
Disappointed with Baby Driver, Okja, and Shape of Water. Oof!
Murdock Files if I'd had this channel when The World's End came out I would have made a 10 min review screaming about how happy I was haha. I'd have more 100% positive reviews if I saw more movies I guess but I don't want to charge patrons for a million 5 min videos a month
It's all good, I'm just surprised! I respect the opinions of others, and I have friends who like these films even less than you. Still love your content, and thanks for replying!
Murdock Files Ha no problem!! Also worth noting I thought mother! and Little Evil SUUUCKED but I liked the other films I've reviewed and found a lot of good in them. I just didn't get the experience I look for when I am watching a great movie if that makes sense
I have two reviews coming up soon and one is very positive and one is very negative lol
I kind of hated the ending
I’m glad I didn’t watch any trailers because what you said about predictability did not come to my mind at all. Heehee
Hi! I like your videos! Unfortunately there is a sleight error: Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain is not a Guillermo del Toro film, it is directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (whom you should definitely check out).
Which films, aside from Pan's Labyrinth, what would you describe as among Del Toro's best work? I generally see PL as being exceptionally high-quality compared to GDT's other output. Since you frame TSoW in reference to his other films a lot, I can't quite understand where this review coming from without a clearer understanding of your opinions about his other work.
I would recommend The Devil's Backbone. It's probably my second favorite GDT film
I honestly haven't seen too many of his films. But Pacific Rim and Pan's Labyrinth are my favorites, I forgot most of Hellboy, and I forgot I even watched Crimson Peak/thought it was boring lol
StrucciMovies have you seen Hellboy 2? It's completely different to the first one, and the world it builds is... the surreal parts of Pan taken up to 11, gorgeous and unique.
I haven't seen it yet, but is there any chance it takes more than one viewing to fully appreciate? I was pretty young the first time I saw Pan's Labyrinth, but I most definitely needed to watch that one two or three times to get as much out of it as I have by now. But I wouldn't expect such a complicated film to do as well with modern audiences as this seems to be doing, so I guess that would be surprising. I dunno! Looking forward to it!
looking forward to seeing this
Eric Thompson it's gorgeous! And parts are fun
I loved this movie. It's easily my top 5 of all time. And definitely my number 1 of 2017.
I haven't seen it yet but i know what you mean when you say you bring him to a high standard.
He's probably the only director that no matter what, I know on some level I'm going to enjoy whatever he brings out.
That comes with a caveat though, despite a few constant things (his patented Del Toro aesthetic, creatures, Ron Perlman) I really don't know what to expect from his movies anymore and that goes for the general quality as well.
I think the shape of water is gonna look much better compared to the movies released this year than to his own work though
I can't wait to see if she ducks that fish
I honestly forgot Crimson Peak even happened and I saw it in theaters. Can't think of a bigger insult to a film like that than "I forgot about it" lol
(I apologize for the length in advance)
I have to say that I strangely felt dissatisfied after seeing this movie. A part of me knows this is mostly my own fault because I had set such high expectations for it but the movie itself was lacking in pretty crucial areas. I felt the romance was kind of underdeveloped despite the wonderful performances of both Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones and although he is a fine actor, Michael Shannon's character came across as overly cartoony and honestly quite silly to me. A majority of his dialogue was just him outright stating his motivations. And I understand that simplicity is inherent to the fairy tale genre but I just wish the movie had been less predictable/familiar in some areas. Especially when Pan's Labyrinth handled similar themes with such dexterity. I agree with you that although it is a good movie, it is disappointingly an underwhelming one. And consequently kinda frustrating.
I get what you mean. I guess it would have been better if he made the dialogue more surreal and dreamlike vs simplistic fairytale?
Yes, exactly. Most of the dialogue was so blunt and I think it would've worked in its favor if it been less direct and instead more fluid/poetic in its approach.
"This could've been written by someone else" Oh hindsight
How'd they portray the Deaf character? I'm a little disappointed that they cast a hearing actor.
Well, that's the challenge that every "real" actor expects ...
And that's exactly what makes Sally's performance so great and special.
By the way, her character is mute. ;)
Ah, that's different, though I cannot say what someone who's mute would think of a non-mute actor playing them or their take on the identity.
This gets away from the subject of the film itself, but the challenge of a "real" hearing actor playing a Deaf person, that's another subject. Disability is often treated as a character trait - and that's *yet* another conversation on its own -, usually a flaw, but Deafness is absolutely its own complex linguistic minority culture, one that hearing people very rarely understand or portray accurately. And when they are accurate (not that I've ever seen that), there are plenty of Deaf actors who would understand and inhabit the roles better than a hearing actor ever could. I imagine that'd be true for mute actors as well, but, again, I don't know what they think of Sally Hawkins in that role.
I know this sounds like an overly strong, overwrought response. This is neither a personal attack on you nor am I that offended. I'm only bringing this up because when the subject of the "challenge of the actor" in relation to disability or Deafness comes up, it's a point that people usually overlook - and will continue to overlook if this is not discussed.
I did like and appreciate your review.
Btw the person who replied to you wasn't me, they didn't make the review haha. I purposefully avoided that in the review because I am not deaf or mute and felt like it wasn't my place to comment in a 5 min review.
Oh whoops, I can't believe I didn't notice that! Sorry.
And that makes sense. Thanks for responding.
No problem! If I think something is super egregious or on the other hand a really accurate/great representation I comment on it but if I feel I don't have a good enough standing/haven't done enough research (ex on how people how are mute, deaf, etc feel about this film) then I don't mention it
First