Fox Searchlight Pictures | Release Date: December 1, 2017
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 962 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
674
Mixed:
153
Negative:
135
Watch Now
Buy On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
cibreoFeb 12, 2018
Pretentious twaddle. A ridiculously overblown and ultimately empty muddle. Great actors wasted: Michael Shannon reprising Boardwalk Empire and Octavia Spencer in danger of being stuck doing The Help and Hidden Figures for life. Two stars forPretentious twaddle. A ridiculously overblown and ultimately empty muddle. Great actors wasted: Michael Shannon reprising Boardwalk Empire and Octavia Spencer in danger of being stuck doing The Help and Hidden Figures for life. Two stars for the design - putting glitter on a tu*d. Expand
15 of 17 users found this helpful152
All this user's reviews
2
PJPazJan 24, 2018
Amélie meets The Beast. It's the La-La Land of 2017: tedious, overrated, bloated, fatuous and cliché-ridden. We've seen this film - done better - before. A waste of good acting talent. Run away.
19 of 25 users found this helpful196
All this user's reviews
0
FilmLover83Jan 12, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I adore fantasy, monster movies, unusual and different stories. I HATED this movie. I created this account to review this movie. In 'Splash' Tom Hanks - your everyman guy gets the stunning mermaid. It's cute, fun and doesn't take itself too seriously. In this film, the ordinary girl gets a slimy cat-eating creature from the Black Lagoon (or rather, he gets her) and it takes itself very seriously in some artsy intensely annoying self-indulgent way which absolutely misses the mark. Guillermo del Toro pounds us over the head with his water theme (we get it already) and creates a female lead without understanding anything about women. She's childlike and annoying as hell, skipping down the corridor like a giddy child, implausibly falling for a monster not long after mopping up blood after he bites off and spits out human fingers (their 'falling in love' montage *could* possibly have been made believable, but absolutely was not), masturbating in the bath every morning (sorry guys - sure women masturbate, but not in the bath to an egg timer - del Toro put this in to heavy-handedly enforce his water theme and that's absolutely how it came across. She can do NOTHING without the help of every male character around her and is quite pathetic when she *could* have had an arc (the shy cleaner falls in love and rises in confidence, orchestrating and pulling off a rescue mission. But oh no, childlike and helpless she achieves nothing and the men around her have to save her mission at every turn). The film plods on forever with a second and third act that left me squirming in my seat and desperate to leave and finally ends anti-climatically and predictably. It didn't surprise me when Guillermo del Toro came out afterwards (this was an industry screening) and talked for 2 hours about his masterpiece and how profound it was, and how he dreamt it up as a child, because every boy without a girlfriend wants to imagine that even if he as an ugly amphibious monster, he could still score sex with a willing female with a size zero figure. Whatever!! It felt like sexist tripe from a self-indulgent man with no clue about women.
One of the worst films I have ever seen, made so much worse by how much it takes itself seriously. Classic Emperor's New Clothes situation here.
Expand
23 of 39 users found this helpful2316
All this user's reviews
1
nj06Dec 23, 2017
DO NOT BE FOOLED. This is a dreadful movie, that you will regret wasting your time on (as I am regretting it right now). I loved "Pan's Labyrinth" and I can not believe that the same person directed this delusional self-congratulatoryDO NOT BE FOOLED. This is a dreadful movie, that you will regret wasting your time on (as I am regretting it right now). I loved "Pan's Labyrinth" and I can not believe that the same person directed this delusional self-congratulatory unwatchable mess. In addition to being somehow both irritatingly stupid and seriously boring at same time, other problems with this movie are..., never mind, stupid and boring is enough to describe it, so I will leave it at that. Expand
24 of 43 users found this helpful2419
All this user's reviews
1
marco34laDec 16, 2017
This movie was awful. How much did the studios pay the critics on this one. It's an absolute ridiculous BORE. 3 people walked out and i soon followed.
21 of 53 users found this helpful2132
All this user's reviews
10
PAYAMFURYDec 3, 2017
گیلرمو دل تورو کارگردان توتنمند و عالی این روز های سینما است.او از وقتی که پسر جهنمی رو ساخت مشهور شد و این فیلم رومنس و هیجان انگیز عالی که با بازی عالی مایکل شنون است فیلم شهکاری رو ارائه میدهد.گیلرمو دل تورو کارگردان توتنمند و عالی این روز های سینما است.او از وقتی که پسر جهنمی رو ساخت مشهور شد و این فیلم رومنس و هیجان انگیز عالی که با بازی عالی مایکل شنون است فیلم شهکاری رو ارائه میدهد.
20 of 61 users found this helpful2041
All this user's reviews
2
robtoMar 12, 2018
This is pretty much every creature movie ever. Misunderstood creature with magical healing powers befriended by a powerless woman who tries to help him escape - has been done much better in Frankenstein, King Kong, ET, etc. In case you didn'tThis is pretty much every creature movie ever. Misunderstood creature with magical healing powers befriended by a powerless woman who tries to help him escape - has been done much better in Frankenstein, King Kong, ET, etc. In case you didn't get the point, let's make the powerless woman mute and throw in some other powerless outcasts: a gay man (this is the 1960's) and an African-American woman. A cartoonishly bad bad guy - haven't we gotten tired of the evil scientist cliche? - some cartoonish Russians, complete with bungled silly passwords ("The eagle takes the pigeon for its prey"), and a creature that looks like a guy in a rubber mask. Lord of the Rings had plenty of guys in rubber masks, but they had actors that could turn them into believably alien creatures. Here it just looks like a guy in a rubber mask. And don't get me started on all the plot absurdities (cleaning women allowed free run of a room with a secret and dangerous creature, for example). With all the hype and awards, I expected much, much more. Expand
5 of 5 users found this helpful50
All this user's reviews
0
budokaiMar 26, 2018
Aside from looking good, this movie feels incomplete, the narratives feel forced and the characters are underdeveloped. So here we are again, yet ANOTHER high profile movie that wants to beat us over the head with self-righteous platitudesAside from looking good, this movie feels incomplete, the narratives feel forced and the characters are underdeveloped. So here we are again, yet ANOTHER high profile movie that wants to beat us over the head with self-righteous platitudes about how white men are responsible for all evils. I mean, was there ANY other morale to be taken away from this story? It's a sad, sad day when a great, original filmmaker like GUILLERMO DEL TORO succumbs the current day groupthink that has contaminated and ruined so many movies that have had such great potential. Instead, we get this regurgitation of pop culture, progressive rhetoric designed to brainwash the masses against actually forming opinions based on empirical evidence and independent thought. Expand
4 of 4 users found this helpful40
All this user's reviews
5
BikerjamesApr 23, 2018
Nobody who lives in a second floor apartment building would intentionally flood their building with a room full of water. You cannot fill a bathroom entirely with water by sticking a towel under the door. When the creature eats her catNobody who lives in a second floor apartment building would intentionally flood their building with a room full of water. You cannot fill a bathroom entirely with water by sticking a towel under the door. When the creature eats her cat alive she is not even emotional when told. She doesn't seem to care. Nobody would have the kind of access she had to a top secret room where they kept the creature like she did. There were so many unbelievable moments to this film I was just rolling my eyes most of the time. I just couldn't let my common sense go and get into the love story. Disappointing. Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
0
FranKenweenieMay 29, 2018
okay first of all i give the point for the visual effect but how the f... you made fast paced movie and boring at same time, the nude scenes was cringey the main character not just mute she is also stupid this is not just "fantasy" its alsookay first of all i give the point for the visual effect but how the f... you made fast paced movie and boring at same time, the nude scenes was cringey the main character not just mute she is also stupid this is not just "fantasy" its also beyond unrealistic Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
6
d0vla11Jan 2, 2019
What the hell have I just watched? This movie won 4 Oscars (the best Oscars actually), are you kidding me? Can't say the acting was bad and all, but everything else was **** and not developed enough, even the plot was so predictable from theWhat the hell have I just watched? This movie won 4 Oscars (the best Oscars actually), are you kidding me? Can't say the acting was bad and all, but everything else was **** and not developed enough, even the plot was so predictable from the very beginning. Oscars really have become a one big **** Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
5
AscosporeMar 18, 2018
How did this film win the Academy award for best picture? Was it an inside joke by Del Toro; to include every genre he could think of and rip off Jeunet's unmistakable style - just to see if he could get away with it? How old and blind areHow did this film win the Academy award for best picture? Was it an inside joke by Del Toro; to include every genre he could think of and rip off Jeunet's unmistakable style - just to see if he could get away with it? How old and blind are these voting members? This is the most overrated film since Get Out. Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful30
All this user's reviews
1
ElthorNov 4, 2018
This movie is seriously overrated.
There is no denying the striking visuals. From dingy apartments to dream-like underwater scenes, the cinematography is beautiful. That gets the movie a 1.
Unfortunately, the plot is thin as water and the
This movie is seriously overrated.
There is no denying the striking visuals. From dingy apartments to dream-like underwater scenes, the cinematography is beautiful. That gets the movie a 1.

Unfortunately, the plot is thin as water and the pace is leaden. The length of the film is twice as long as this short story full of caricatures requires.

The movie's biggest flaw is that we are supposed to feel something for the fishman because he is 'intelligent'. Instead he is portrayed as feral with a smaller vocabulary than Koko the gorilla or your family dog... neither one of which should you want to see anyone have sex with.

The romance is imaginary and one sided. Towards the end we see Elisa pour her heart out to fishman who doesn't stop eating to even pay attention.

This movie is for really lonely women who may find it moving. I found it as romantic as a woman with box of frozen fishsticks and want my two hours back.
Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
JParisiDec 8, 2018
Liking this film depends on your ability to 'hear' the love story at its center. I didn't. If the artistry of the visuals was complemented by a better story and supporting cast it would have been better.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
5
CirceApr 22, 2018
Beautiful cinematography, but stilted characters and utterly predictable, not terribly compelling story.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
1
MoeLesterJrApr 17, 2018
Total garbage! I gave it 1 because of the masturbation scenes. I'm sorry Mr Del Toro , this movie sucks!
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
DevlindJan 14, 2018
I really tried to like this movie, but in the end it was in vain. Of course, I'm no expert, but I trust in my good taste in story telling. As some people commented, finding things just for the sake to be original isn't really necessary toI really tried to like this movie, but in the end it was in vain. Of course, I'm no expert, but I trust in my good taste in story telling. As some people commented, finding things just for the sake to be original isn't really necessary to effectively tell a good story. This romantic version of "Free Willy" is just an example. Just to start, both the protagonist and the sidekick are an utter pain. They barely had any dimension, how are we as spectators supposed to feel invested in their goals like that? How can we root for them? The pacing is awkward and unnecessarily long. A lot of things are just there for plot convenience. Subplots are thrown into the mix only to be forgotten immediately without any consequence. Even with Alexandre Desplat, the music is forgetable. The ending is abrupt and we are left with a lot of stuff still hanging.

Of course, there's good stuff in the movie too. The acting was good (although a little unrealistic at times), Octavia's and Michael characters were enjoyable and the main plot (when we got that on screen) was on point and that's why this movie is just average to me. It does really good in one side, but what it does wrong, it does it really wrong (sometimes cringe worthy).

If you have an open mind and you just want to watch something without thinking about it too much and just drift with it, go ahead and give it a go. With any luck, you'll enjoy it or even like it. I tried and it was definitely an experience.


Not watching it again though.
Expand
9 of 10 users found this helpful91
All this user's reviews
6
zapVJan 26, 2018
It’s beautiful shot and atmospheric fairy tale intended for adults. The problem is that other than explicit scenes of violence and sex everything in this movie from characters to theme development stays on a level of a children’s story.
10 of 12 users found this helpful102
All this user's reviews
2
travis_flFeb 22, 2018
Damaged heroes, cartoon villains: derivative and cliched at every level. Dead last on my Oscar list.
10 of 12 users found this helpful102
All this user's reviews
4
LetMeInPleaseJan 26, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Technically competent movie with god tier music and good performances but to me it almost fell apart for one simple reason, I couldn't buy this love story at all. It sounds good on paper, two "freaks of nature" falling in love with each other, but its execution is so ridiculously contrived it sucks out all the potential enjoyment. Why such an advanced facility doesn't have cameras in the place it needs them the most? Why simple janitor can on her own easily access classified compartments of said facility and for what reason? Main heroine's motivation is really hard to swallow throughout the whole movie. It seems like it misses a good 20 minute chunk where the bonding between 2 lovers would be properly established.
Also on a side note, I understand that it's supposed to be like a fairy tale for adults, or whatever you wanna call it, but the main villain is such a one-note, so cartoonishly evil. Even for this format you gotta have more nuance than that
Expand
12 of 15 users found this helpful123
All this user's reviews
4
phillyjeffFeb 23, 2018
Probably one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. It's impossible to make a bathroom into a pool with sticking a towel under the door.
8 of 10 users found this helpful82
All this user's reviews
5
EPMDJan 21, 2018
A human falls in love with a monster. I guess that can be a good movie if you really need to escape reality, but I just couldn't buy the premise. The sets are really well done, though. It's a professional movie, but the story is just not my thing.
8 of 10 users found this helpful82
All this user's reviews
6
moviecritic68Jan 24, 2018
I read this movie will be up for the 2nd highest number of awards at the oscars. What this tells me is there were few films to compete last year. Although this film had some above average attributes I have a very hard time placing it in suchI read this movie will be up for the 2nd highest number of awards at the oscars. What this tells me is there were few films to compete last year. Although this film had some above average attributes I have a very hard time placing it in such high esteem. Yes it was well done but a far cry from previous oscar winners. Sorry critics ... the user composite score is much more in line than your ratings Expand
7 of 9 users found this helpful72
All this user's reviews
3
GittoploFeb 7, 2018
Poor script, rubbish plot bad actors and poor acting. Boring, lacklustre, insipid and on and on. I am surprised Mark Kermode liked it. In the same category as Get Out - absolute modern day rubbish.

For true cinema lovers, I strongly
Poor script, rubbish plot bad actors and poor acting. Boring, lacklustre, insipid and on and on. I am surprised Mark Kermode liked it. In the same category as Get Out - absolute modern day rubbish.

For true cinema lovers, I strongly recommend the following hidden gem: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055844/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Watch and compare. Taste the difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf5HA6GIJQI
Expand
10 of 13 users found this helpful103
All this user's reviews
4
JNOTRFeb 6, 2018
It's a rare movie, that's why I find it difficult to analyze it. From the technical point of view it is excellent: cinematography, production design, makeup, soundtrack and the atmosphere of the 50's. But as for the script and theIt's a rare movie, that's why I find it difficult to analyze it. From the technical point of view it is excellent: cinematography, production design, makeup, soundtrack and the atmosphere of the 50's. But as for the script and the performances, I thought it was bad. The script, at first is too slow and takes time to establish the main plot, but at the end (in the last 15 minutes) everything is solved fast and forced. The only act that I came to like was that of Sally Hawkins; Octavia Spencer makes the same character that she always does, nothing special and Richard Jenkins too.
Personally I did not like it. I hope he does not take the Oscar for Best Movie.
Expand
9 of 12 users found this helpful93
All this user's reviews
5
MurrayTJan 24, 2018
Great visually and great acting, which is great if you're interested in movie making. The story is a different story. It starts out good, but then gets more and more ridiculous until it gets to the point where I'm saying, "Seriously?"
9 of 12 users found this helpful93
All this user's reviews
6
aussiedude98May 12, 2018
I found the movie to be interesting - with some memorable scenes and visuals.
However it didn't really work for me - didn't hit me emotionally at all.
My expectations were probably set too high - knowing that it was highly rated and won an Oscar.
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
0
IVMFeb 19, 2018
It was horrible.
A total waste of money and time.
I hated it. It was a struggle to finish watching that awful movie. Seriously, I am not a troll. I never write reviews. But this one was so awful that I had to do it..
11 of 15 users found this helpful114
All this user's reviews
3
AkumaJackFeb 14, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Elisa have sex with a fish.
She has sex with a fish. That's disgusting. That overshadows everything else. Disgusting and gross.
Expand
8 of 11 users found this helpful83
All this user's reviews
6
thedaywalkerJan 21, 2018
It is a nice movie technically, the intensity of the scenes and the performances of the cast are what kept me in the movie until the end. Octavia Spencer and Richard Jenkins were great and Michael Shannon was fantastic. But there one majorIt is a nice movie technically, the intensity of the scenes and the performances of the cast are what kept me in the movie until the end. Octavia Spencer and Richard Jenkins were great and Michael Shannon was fantastic. But there one major flaw for me personally that made me enjoy the movie way less... I did not believe in their love, The main character and the humanoid amphibians loved is basically just based in their difficulty in communication, because that what they showed us, so it seems really shallow, so i think that took the magic of what could have been a fantastic movie. Expand
5 of 7 users found this helpful52
All this user's reviews
0
pdw123Feb 7, 2018
Biggest disappointment of the oscar season, by far! Del Toro is truly becoming lamestream/mainstream like other directors have o'er the years, take the money and run.
Doug Jones just playing the same typecasted character and one of the worst
Biggest disappointment of the oscar season, by far! Del Toro is truly becoming lamestream/mainstream like other directors have o'er the years, take the money and run.
Doug Jones just playing the same typecasted character and one of the worst Michael Shannon films to date. Too bad, since Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth had plots and storylines that were original, and used WWII historical references that were involving and meaningful. These cold war references weren't even utilized well, although it is a style vs. substance film that critics often fawn over, or are obviously being bribed for. And, for icing on this crap cake (have to call a spade a spade here and just like I see it and have seen the film), Richard Jenkins---another incredible actor--delivers one of the worst lines I've ever heard. "I wish I would've f###ked more in my earlier life." Oh please, in America, the land of sexual harassment and Tronald Dump we don't need that also. Another flippant sexual reference in a film about love and depth that really wasn't that at all, enough!! "I Tonya" and "3 billboards..." made their grades and thensome, but this film overhyped as hell....
Expand
12 of 17 users found this helpful125
All this user's reviews
1
iseenthefutureJan 27, 2018
This movie was awful. How much did the studios pay the critics on this one. It's an absolute ridiculous BORE. 3 people walked out and i soon followed.
13 of 19 users found this helpful136
All this user's reviews
4
RidgeamordeJan 5, 2018
I'm sorry but this movie is just not as good as people would make it out to be. There were some good parts but overall I'd say it's too stupid, unrealistic, and just overall bad. I could already tell what was going to happen at the end beforeI'm sorry but this movie is just not as good as people would make it out to be. There were some good parts but overall I'd say it's too stupid, unrealistic, and just overall bad. I could already tell what was going to happen at the end before the movie hit the halfway mark. The actors, while skilled, were held back the the horrendous script that was completely irrational. Maybe I just don't get it or something, but it seems like it's trying too hard. I think it deserves a four. I would definitely not see it again. Expand
10 of 15 users found this helpful105
All this user's reviews
1
Ave8Feb 22, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was bored out of my mind, unimpressed by lackluster visuals and incredibly repetitive scenes. But most of all I felt no "magic" at all, which was supposed to be the whole point of the movie. The gigantic plot holes (how can a cleaning lady access the most prized asset of a top secret facility at will, by just opening the door?), the cliché characters (the bad general, the helping friend, ...), and the overall uninteresting story made sure that any ounce of poetry was nipped in the bud as soon as it peeked.
How this movie gathered more awards than the master piece that was Dunkirk is beyond me. Surely the professional critics know something I don't. Or do they? Maybe they just have a tendency to get overly excited as soon as anything original pops up, because they're so tired (aren't we all) of seeing the same things over and over again.
Expand
6 of 9 users found this helpful63
All this user's reviews
0
MikefromAngusMar 19, 2018
What an awful movie! Predictable, boring, with unrealistic under developed characters.
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
5
AppetipsDec 26, 2017
Lovely at times, and breathtakingly beautiful throughout, but very uneven in pacing and direction. I wanted it to be so much scarier in the scary parts, so much more romantic in the tender moments. Sally Hawkins is very, very good, andLovely at times, and breathtakingly beautiful throughout, but very uneven in pacing and direction. I wanted it to be so much scarier in the scary parts, so much more romantic in the tender moments. Sally Hawkins is very, very good, and Michael Shannon is fabulously menacing. I wanted more from the score too, as Alexandre Desplat usually creates more memorable music than this. Just one opinion, and I am definitely a del Toro fan, but I enjoyed Devils Backbone and Pans Labyrinth much more than this film. Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
3
cjhjFeb 27, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I don't usually write movie reviews, but I was 'inspired' to do so because of how disappointed I was by this movie. It's not that it's bad -- it's OK, in my opinion -- but for the life of me, I cannot understand why it was nominated for a best picture Oscar (which was the whole reason I saw it in the first place -- damn you, Oscars!).

I'm not really familiar with the director's other films, but based on what I read about them, I was expecting something dark, quirky and mysterious. For me, this movie was none of those things. It was bland and predictable (overall). I mean, there were some nice moments (yeah, I laughed at a few of those jokes and felt sorry for the water-man) and some solid 'mise-en-scène' elements (as we used to say in film class). But I found the story to be somewhat simplistic and childlike, which -- in my opinion -- lead directly to the entirely predictable and 'perfect' ending. (Or perhaps the director was going for a childlike fairy-tale type story? Possible, but there's a lot of 'reality' in there too [i.e., graphic sex & violence], so difficult to make that case). Also -- as some other viewers may have noticed -- the tone of the movie seems off in some parts. Like the people in the audience cracked up sometimes when it seemed to be a serious moment, which was confusing. (I should also add that I laughed out loud on three separate occasions during the movie, while some in the audience did so about 10 more times than that, further adding to my confusion.) To be honest, the story seemed to drag through much of the film. Like, it was interesting and I didn't mind watching it (although I did check my watch a couple times), but I wasn't exactly on the edge of my seat or running as fast as I could back from the bathroom, if you know what I mean. Which brings me back to the beginning of this. Why is this movie being touted as the front runner for the best picture Oscar?! Mysterious indeed. I mean I could see this coming on TV in a few years and someone thinking, 'Wow, weird flick about a woman falling in love with a fish-man, but I've got some other things to do' -- CLICK. I've seen Lady Bird, Phantom Thread, The Florida Project and Darkest Hour recently, and I can understand why they've been nominated for various awards, but I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around this one ... oh well, I guess differences of opinion make the world go round.
Expand
4 of 6 users found this helpful42
All this user's reviews
3
RealMuthaFMar 11, 2018
To be honest, the whole premise of a love story between a woman and some weird merman seemed unattractive to me to begin with, but the Oscars did their advertising job in the end. And my intuition did not fail, Shape of Water is boring,To be honest, the whole premise of a love story between a woman and some weird merman seemed unattractive to me to begin with, but the Oscars did their advertising job in the end. And my intuition did not fail, Shape of Water is boring, weird, and overly-sweet all at the same time.

To start with the good things - visually it's well-filmed and the 60's are stylishly presented. It's nothing ground-breaking, but overall solid. The second good aspect are the actors, everyone plays their roles convincingly. I would point out Michael Shannon in particular, he proved that he can be a great antagonist before, and he's done it again, I was actually rooting for his character throughout.

However, the story is a dull bizarre mess. To begin with, it is overwhelmingly unoriginal - the sheepish sugar-sweet lonely protagonist, the captive creature that is tortured instead of being communicated with, the army man antagonist. The movie is just a drag, and everything is as predictable as it can be.

Now I can buy the ancient overused trope about the protagonist empathizing to some captive intelligent creature, but explicitly having sex with it? And yeah, there's actually plenty of unnecessary nudity (Shannon shags his wife. Ok.) and allusions to the creature's penis. Well, whatever gets you that Oscar, I guess. I mean I'm no prune, but in my opinion nudity is justified when it helps to convey some point and flesh out the story. But this, this just looks like Del Toro's sick creepy sexual fantasies brought to life. Sorry, but my suspension of disbelief just doesn't cover the "woman gets turned on by slippery scaly aquatic monster" thing. What's your next move, Del Toro, a movie about furries?

To add to that, there's an absolutely redundant meaningless side plot about a gay old man failing to hook up with another guy, and couple of scenes dedicated to showing that Shannon's character has a sexual fetish for silence. That's when you thought this movie couldn' get any more creepy.

And since we're at it, I would really question how realistic it is that some random cleaners are allowed access to classified assets in a top-secret research facility. There's also an uncomfortably stereotypical black woman who overcompensates for the muteness of the main character, never managing to finally shut the hell up. Also at one point the movie has a musical number in it, like in some Disney flick. That was also the moment when my facepalm intensity peaked. Yeah, and isn't this merman's design very reminiscent of some sidekick of Hellboy in Del Toro's own movie? Pathetic.

So, as they say, best movie my ass. I've recently also watched "Three Billboards...", and it's miles ahead than this trash.
Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
1
RickBellMar 27, 2018
So creepy and weird. Very contrived and unrealistic in so many ways, even if you try your best to suspend your disbelief. Gratuitous unnecessary nudity that is off-putting. Hard to believe that this movie won an Oscar.
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
3
JudMar 23, 2018
This movie has a magical opening that made me want to believe in it so much but then it constantly assaults us with ridiculous plot twists and characterizations that I just couldn't relate to or believe, mo matter how much I wanted to. ThisThis movie has a magical opening that made me want to believe in it so much but then it constantly assaults us with ridiculous plot twists and characterizations that I just couldn't relate to or believe, mo matter how much I wanted to. This is not a Best Picture, not even close. No wonder more and more people are panning the Academy Awards each year. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
10
DiogoOliveiraFeb 5, 2018
Atemporal, não encontro palavras para descrever essa obra prima, estou emocionando, lindo, poético, verdadeiro, único, 13 indicações ao Oscar é o bastante para descrever? não é, vejo filmes como Lady Bird, ou ate mesmo Call Me by your NameAtemporal, não encontro palavras para descrever essa obra prima, estou emocionando, lindo, poético, verdadeiro, único, 13 indicações ao Oscar é o bastante para descrever? não é, vejo filmes como Lady Bird, ou ate mesmo Call Me by your Name com notas acima de 90 que não da a metade da qualidade de shape of water. apenas por ser dirigido por um Mexicano. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
3
ajukeoJan 31, 2018
As a massive fan of Guillermo Del Toro, I was eagerly looking forward to seeing another of his magical yet unusual creations with great characters and compelling story but that was not what I found.

From the unnecessary opening to the
As a massive fan of Guillermo Del Toro, I was eagerly looking forward to seeing another of his magical yet unusual creations with great characters and compelling story but that was not what I found.

From the unnecessary opening to the bizarre and out of place scenes, this movie felt like Del Toro just went with every first idea that came to his head and didn't think of where it would lead. Each scene was disjointed and the characters were not compelling in the slightest, I have never left the cinema so speechless in trying to describe what I had just witnessed.
Expand
13 of 20 users found this helpful137
All this user's reviews
1
sightseeJan 25, 2018
What a mess--slow moving, poor dialogue, dreadful editing. The story has been told before and trying to cobble together 60's America, dancing with the Beast, racism, love, hackneyed politics (Russians so stereotypical it's laughable),What a mess--slow moving, poor dialogue, dreadful editing. The story has been told before and trying to cobble together 60's America, dancing with the Beast, racism, love, hackneyed politics (Russians so stereotypical it's laughable), etc.,etc. into one movie just doesnt work. Jenkins, a marvelous actor, says his lines without being there. The villian is at least a villian. The mute, well, gee, she doesnt talk. That leaves little else and the 60's aura and cool special effects don't save this rambling mess. Expand
11 of 17 users found this helpful116
All this user's reviews
0
locusmaximusFeb 21, 2018
I am not mute like the main character, but after watching this film a few minutes, I wished I would be blind and deaf. The main protagonist works as a cleaner and her daily schedule is to eat something, then masturbate in the bathtube. AfterI am not mute like the main character, but after watching this film a few minutes, I wished I would be blind and deaf. The main protagonist works as a cleaner and her daily schedule is to eat something, then masturbate in the bathtube. After that she is going to work. There is a non specified fishman, both fall in "love" with each other. In her own words: "because he is like me". Yeah, handicapped and mentally retarded. That is the true definition of love in this movie. I give him eggs and later I spread my legs. So instead of masturbating, she uses her fishman as a lover. They don't have any topics to talk about, since they can't talk. lol. So there is not a big deal of a consitent story here. The fishman eats the head of the cat of the gay "friend" of the mute retard,but he quotes: "Well, he is like he is. It's not his fault." Cool comment, bra! This film is just rubbish, don't waste your time and money on this pervert, mad film. You'll find a lot of good movies about love......elsewhere Expand
7 of 11 users found this helpful74
All this user's reviews
0
LudwigvanFeb 4, 2018
liberal garbage. The cast is a Democratic party coalition-of-the-fringes against a generic evil white man. Generic evil white man prevents alien "other" from screwing a white woman. Democratic party coalition-of-the-fringes gangs up on evilliberal garbage. The cast is a Democratic party coalition-of-the-fringes against a generic evil white man. Generic evil white man prevents alien "other" from screwing a white woman. Democratic party coalition-of-the-fringes gangs up on evil white man to save the day for miscegenation. That is literally what this movie is about, pure political propaganda. Expand
8 of 13 users found this helpful85
All this user's reviews
6
RatedRexDec 28, 2017
Sometimes they just try too hard to be original. This is one of those times. The story makes no sense. Even fairy-tales must have plausibility. I wanted to like "The Shape of Water". But in the end, it was just another example of HollywoodSometimes they just try too hard to be original. This is one of those times. The story makes no sense. Even fairy-tales must have plausibility. I wanted to like "The Shape of Water". But in the end, it was just another example of Hollywood types letting their imagination get out of hand. Expand
11 of 18 users found this helpful117
All this user's reviews
0
jonnajonnaFeb 22, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It would have been a pretty good movie if it didn't have any of the following.
- Showing the naked body in a bath scene is always unnecessary. We all have an imagination and I would rather use mine. -I don't think it's at all interesting or necessary to show someone masturbating. If they had left that out, the whole love scene with the creature would have been less gross and disgusting. And more innocent and beautiful. This backfired of them. - The animal cruelty. I cannot believe that they got away with having the creature eat the cat. And that they showed the cat's half eaten body. This was just wrong. Why couldn't they have stopped the creature before the cat got attacked?? Once again cruelty and images that were simply UNNECESSARY. - The way the sex scene with the security guy and his wife was filmed was also just really pointless. They couldn't have been under the blanket? Come on!

It's always sad to see how all of the things that made the movie rated R, also ruined the whole experience. Because of the things I mentioned above, the movie lost its beauty. Nothing was even as funny as it could have been. I was just waiting for the movie to be over so I could find out how it ends. But it was NOT worth it.
Expand
6 of 10 users found this helpful64
All this user's reviews
1
zerosubstanceFeb 26, 2018
I experienced this film as a tedious, plodding, infuriating endurance course of "lush visuals" and precious whimsy. The critics suckered me into seeing "Pan's Labyrinth," and as with that movie, "The Shape of Water" is blunt in its insistenceI experienced this film as a tedious, plodding, infuriating endurance course of "lush visuals" and precious whimsy. The critics suckered me into seeing "Pan's Labyrinth," and as with that movie, "The Shape of Water" is blunt in its insistence that tinkly fantasy interspersed with jarring scenes of gore is refreshing and significant.

No spoilers here, but it wouldn't matter; there are no surprises. I won't fault a film for lack of originality if it's otherwise rewarding to watch. This was not. By the predictable end, contrivances and pacing had worn away whatever sympathy I'd felt obliged as an audience member to try to feel for the characters.

I made the mistake of reading reviews, hoping to find some insight into why movies like these are so celebrated critically. But professional critics, in real publications, seem unable to write positively of these sorts of movies in anything other than a prose matching the grandeur of the "lush visuals" therein. It's as though a sea creature's spiny appendage pierced through their skulls and deposited a sense not only of the film's significance, but of their own.

I'd give it a zero, but some acknowledgement will go to the effort put into the stagnant, boring visual compositions that critics love (and which I don't care about, but take skill to achieve, I would assume), and to the actors for keeping a straight face.
Expand
6 of 10 users found this helpful64
All this user's reviews
0
DancukaApr 28, 2018
The worst movie I have seen in years. Incredibly predictable, boring and filled with plotholes. Shallow characters and rushed pacing with cringy dialogue. Did not care about the fish-dude at all. I felt like they didn't even try to make itThe worst movie I have seen in years. Incredibly predictable, boring and filled with plotholes. Shallow characters and rushed pacing with cringy dialogue. Did not care about the fish-dude at all. I felt like they didn't even try to make it relatable in any way. There was nothing even shown from his perspective. The movie is also extremely saturated with political and liberal propaganda in the most blatant way possible. Its not even trying to be subtle or clever about it. Its like they had a checklist while writing the script. "First of all, lets bash Christian values every chance we get. Lets make the "villains" quote the Bible cus that's edgy right? Also lets clearly show that bible-movies suck with empty theaters showing them.. (whut why?) Moving on: Lets have the girl masturbate a couple of time on screen cus its also super edgy. Make sure the nipples are on screen: Check. We need some unnecessary sex scenes ofc here and there: Check. Oh, we can not forget the obligatory gay-character with a tragic story: check. While at it, lets have some racial themes mixed in too. Make sure we have the stereotypical sassy black-woman act going on. And finally to top it off, we need to have FISHSEX. Oh yeah baby, they are gonna love it. Bestiality, hell yeah right? They are gonna eat it up and win us the Oscar." I want my 2 hours back please. I don't even care that much about the propaganda, but this movie just sucked so hard I cant believe I watched it all the way till the end. And nudity? Sure whatever, if it fits with the context no problem. Might even make the movie better. Here it's totally unnecessary and just feels weird. I have lost all respect for Del Toro with this crap. He is the most overrated director of our time. This movie should have bombed so hard. Can't believe how brainwashed critics are these days. Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
6
VancomycinFeb 3, 2018
Oppressively dark with lots of sex-stuff, Guillermo really put the "adult" in adult fairy tale on this one.
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
3
LaineyFeb 28, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is a beautiful paradox --- a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I adore Guillermo del Toro's work, but it appears in this case as he is writer/story creator/director, that his angers have melted his own fabric.


Parts of this movie are really mind-blowingly beautiful ---

The intro (wow what imagery!!!) whether-or-not you think it works, the lady's complexity, her buddy, and the monster's skin and movements ( and breathing in that suit... which doesn't look like a suit to me ), the art throughout the movie in drawings // cinematography // set dressing ... leaves me breathless, the acting and care to echo the look of the original monster... Or to be more exact: Doug Jones acting as the monster, Sally Hawkins soulful mute, Octavia Spencer's perfectly timed humor, Michael Stuhlbarg's subtle inner conflictions ... Richard Jenkins, well, I just love watching his acting ....

.. the love. Two people - beings - getting together because they get each other.


BUT : and it's a big but :

[ spoiler alert ]

Del Toro writes-in such a livid attack on America ( the US ) and the American Military, along with questionable points of view -- RE: the sex scenes on mental desire for rape (and actual minutes of burning film with its play-reenactment), and through-out the film specifically outlining the American military and all white Americans as cruel, unjust, and selfish, to the tenth power/squared/cubed... !!!!!!


Yes - there was sexism, racism, and a whole bunch of bad stuff ( mafia... ) - there still is in this world.

Google "racism in Mexico". Try "white Irish treated as apes in America 1800s".

Even Malcolm X noted racism is the black-white issue in the US - but religion was the culprit of overseas (reference Alex Haley's "Malcolm X").


But it was highlighted as the *only* way of life for these 2-3 people - it was the gay man, the mute girl, and the black community, against the selfish white American Military and ignorant white American store keeper.


This is a fable, "the creature from the black lagoon" -- not : the creature vs selfish white United States.

It just slowly twists and twists that point --- and leaves me with a what-the-heck-is-this-film-about bad taste after viewing.

So gorgeous -- and so .... eeeech ....

Ummmm.... what does that have to do with the creature from the lagoon?

And okay -- you want to deal with the racism at the time -- show it in all its colors (pun intended) : the Irish being treated as apes and not given jobs, the "whites" who did stand up for equality and weren't gay or mute, the Military people that fought for our country to be what it is: free, so we can then duke out the further freedoms of the present day for women's rights, men's rights, animal/land/building rights and you name it....

HE is allowed to do films here -- because it's America !!!


Del Toro has a lot of anger spatting out in this film, in one sided ways.

I wish there were ways to click and say "here here!!" to Rex Reed's review... I saw the movie and a dear friend and I can totally understand what he is talking about. Unfortunately he might be so overwhelmed with its problems (been there myself if that is the case) that some points which make this movie a miss are not noted as well as some points which make it a win, perhaps under Reed's shock and questioning of how so many adore.

I can see why people love this -- what a gorgeous film... What a beautiful joining and complexity of mutual love.

But a political hatred spews forth.. the wolf in sheep's clothing, melting a gem.
Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
3
yosemiteJan 2, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film is the standard bearer for inaccurate movie reviews. The artsy crafty Harvard Square crowd rate it 80-85 or 90 approval rating. Its the type of film making they dissected in college. As for the real world, it sucks ! Let me make a profitable movie. I'll start with a plain looking mute who supports herself scrubbing floors. Although she frequently masterbates, she has a heart of gold. She feels badly for a Black Lagoon look a like who is being held captive by the U.S. military. She arranges for the creature to escape. I could go on but its rubbish. If you want to drop $8-12 dollars and pretend you are an intellectual, go for it . Another choice is take that $$$ , but yourself a sub sandwich and watch the Breaking Bad marathon on AMC Expand
12 of 21 users found this helpful129
All this user's reviews
0
JPTJan 28, 2018
If you would like to see a soft porn musical, with a touch bestiality, this movie is for you! Whatever drugs the creator /script writer/director/producers etc. took before taking on this project, I want some!
10 of 18 users found this helpful108
All this user's reviews
0
yatesyMar 4, 2018
The only film that I've paid to watch where I walked out halfway through to my dismay. After hearing The Shape of Water won Best Picture at the Oscars I felt compelled to leave a short review about this "film". I like Del Toro's work, butThe only film that I've paid to watch where I walked out halfway through to my dismay. After hearing The Shape of Water won Best Picture at the Oscars I felt compelled to leave a short review about this "film". I like Del Toro's work, but words can't do justice just how awful this film was. Truly in every sense of the word the plot is bizarre and not in a good why like 'Pans Labyrinth' it was BAD, BAD, BAD! Troll 2 was a better piece of film making - I'm not even joking. Avoid at all costs. Expand
5 of 9 users found this helpful54
All this user's reviews
6
chesaroJan 15, 2018
This is at best a good movie, because it lack an original story, after around half an hour of watching it, you already know what is going to happen almost to the point that you don't need to get an explanaiton to some of the "misteries" ofThis is at best a good movie, because it lack an original story, after around half an hour of watching it, you already know what is going to happen almost to the point that you don't need to get an explanaiton to some of the "misteries" of the movie, i don't think it is a bad movie, but the praise it has gathered made me question what is considered a relevant movie in this days. Expand
5 of 9 users found this helpful54
All this user's reviews
3
AxeTJan 12, 2018
All of the season's fare is sickeningly over-rated by the critics herd to a level that's become ridiculous, and somehow this is even worse than expected and maybe less deserving than the rest in that absurd over-praise. There's no setup,All of the season's fare is sickeningly over-rated by the critics herd to a level that's become ridiculous, and somehow this is even worse than expected and maybe less deserving than the rest in that absurd over-praise. There's no setup, tone is wrong, music is wrong (that it's won some awards is just further proof) and most annoyingly the understood to be silly story is simply a strange foreign nerd's contrived excuse for childishly overt social sentiments instead of an actual thoughtful movie, and let me just say: I myself am a romantic and longtime monster movie fan! Expand
12 of 22 users found this helpful1210
All this user's reviews
8
ffejeryDec 17, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It was a smart fairy tale. It's a collage of things we've already seen but put together in a unique way. Sally Hawkins' conveys so much emotion without saying a word. The supporting cast is great too. The 60's sets are cool and the cinematography is beautiful. The water motif is consistent through out. That being said allow me to switch into a Jungian analysis of the story in the context of the 1960's sexual revolution:

I thought the sea creature symbolized feeling shame for sexual desire. Under water represents the subconscious. She masturbates under water in the bathtub and the creature comes from under water. Then she boils eggs while masturbating and uses the eggs in the lab to lure the creature up from under water at the lab. Later they have sex in the bath tub. I think the movie is set in the 1960's to coincide with the sexual revolution. Thanks to the pill, more women were able to have sex for pleasure. Society had to reconcile that with more established conservative beliefs. This is the symbolism of the creature being smuggled out of the lab and into society. That was an interesting digression. At any rate, it's worth checking out. It's not a gangster movie even though the main character does end up sleeping with the fishes.
Expand
6 of 11 users found this helpful65
All this user's reviews
6
BHBarryDec 15, 2017
“The Shape of Water” is a film conceived and directed by Guillermo del Toro and stars Sally Hawkins, Michael Stuhlbarg, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spenser .This is a difficult film to review and rate because it requires the“The Shape of Water” is a film conceived and directed by Guillermo del Toro and stars Sally Hawkins, Michael Stuhlbarg, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spenser .This is a difficult film to review and rate because it requires the viewer to make a huge leap of faith and to “just go with it” even though the plot and some of the scenes defy reality. Although Mr. del Toro may have had a strong message to deliver, this cold war version of the lighter film “Splash” (with Tom Hanks and Darryl Hannah) doesn’t communicate it well. I found it difficult for the audience to get lost in it and truly believe what is occurring on the screen. The film is over 2 hours in length and even though I never looked at my watch, I was very conscious of its duration. I give the film a 6.0 rating with special acknowledgment to Mr. Jenkins who can’t perform badly, regardless of the vehicle he is in. Expand
7 of 13 users found this helpful76
All this user's reviews
0
DOUGKJan 30, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is one of the worst movies ever. I hate to agree with Rex Reed but this is a ridiculous story from start to finish. Everything about it -- the monster, the evil villain, all of the good people, the Russians, the situation, the plot -- ridiculous in the extreme. I am not pro military but when you make military people arbitrarily evil for no possible reason, you go beyond all rational and believable positions. The monster looks like he was designed by a 5 year old. The fact that this film is winning many awards shows that we have fallen into cultural decay. Lady Bird was horrible, this was worse. Expand
7 of 13 users found this helpful76
All this user's reviews
2
candycamalDec 30, 2017
Visuals are evocative & nicely moody - settled in thinking I'd love this movie, but ugh... was primarily shameless emotional manipulation. I liked Sally Hawkins, no complaint there, but nothing was subtle or interesting - flat - everyVisuals are evocative & nicely moody - settled in thinking I'd love this movie, but ugh... was primarily shameless emotional manipulation. I liked Sally Hawkins, no complaint there, but nothing was subtle or interesting - flat - every character: 'Good' / 'Bad'. As Rex Reed noted - villains were straight from central casting. Octavia Spencer: convenient 'prop'; someone had to translate mute woman's sign language. Magical realism: kinda, but not quite. Gratuitous female masterbation scenes. Sledge hammer subtlety illustrating sad, sympathetic, sweet, old, insecure gay man encountering a young, ugly, ignorant homophobe. And romance where a big, very manly monster from the deep and sweet, silent, delicate & damaged little woman find each other - ah geez - it was all just too painfully predictable. Then... to end with a classic chase scene & shoot out. Nope. Didn't much care for this movie. Expand
8 of 15 users found this helpful87
All this user's reviews
8
zarrah28Dec 12, 2017
A beautiful & romantic story led by the wonderful Sally Hawkins who plays a hearing-impaired government worker. Octavia Spencer & Michael Shannon are fantastic as back-up. Beautiful art direction. One of del Toro's finest.
7 of 14 users found this helpful77
All this user's reviews
8
ozymandias79Jan 8, 2018
A quality film. Simple plot. Good acting. Great production design. Definitely has a "Rapture" feel. It's very unfortunate that project wasn't green lit for Del Toro. Although, maybe The Shape of Water will have some executives re-thinking.A quality film. Simple plot. Good acting. Great production design. Definitely has a "Rapture" feel. It's very unfortunate that project wasn't green lit for Del Toro. Although, maybe The Shape of Water will have some executives re-thinking.

Best film at the oscars! Come on, greenlight Bioshock!!!
Expand
5 of 10 users found this helpful55
All this user's reviews
0
UlldieMar 7, 2018
Worse film I have ever went.
I must say the actors were ok. Image was ok...
But the story was so flat... Also the rasism problem, homosexual and a sex with fish?! Srsly.... I thought it is a fantasy movie not a propaganda story... Sorry not
Worse film I have ever went.
I must say the actors were ok. Image was ok...
But the story was so flat...
Also the rasism problem, homosexual and a sex with fish?! Srsly....
I thought it is a fantasy movie not a propaganda story...
Sorry not for my. Waste of time and money.
Expand
5 of 10 users found this helpful55
All this user's reviews
6
Tony1984Mar 5, 2018
On the positive side I really like the retro noir style. It felt like the Biosphere game in non animated form. Technically this movie is very good. Costume , makeup, design etc are excellent. Sally Hawkins is an outstanding lead. This couldOn the positive side I really like the retro noir style. It felt like the Biosphere game in non animated form. Technically this movie is very good. Costume , makeup, design etc are excellent. Sally Hawkins is an outstanding lead. This could have been a great love story in the French style. It could even have been a classic up there with ET but it is not. It handicapped itself with political correctness. The villain is a ham fisted crude clumsy caricature that is so crass it's embarrassing. Michael Shannon just reprises the role he had in Boardwalk empire as the immoral horrible white straight Christian American ( By inference, all WSCA are horrible and immoral which is plain bigotry in a movie supposedly battling prejudice). And the good guys are gay, black, disabled and a communist. That's just too propagandist for me. Too alienating. Too much Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
7
DubeauMar 4, 2018
This a love movie, but also an allegory about isolation and loneliness. The story has one fantastic element, but apart that everything feels almost grounded. Really love the actors in this movie. They were amazing. The creature effects areThis a love movie, but also an allegory about isolation and loneliness. The story has one fantastic element, but apart that everything feels almost grounded. Really love the actors in this movie. They were amazing. The creature effects are spot on. Now for the parts I didn't like...the creature felt like recycling the idea of Abe in Hellboy. At least it's in another context and time frame. The pace of the movie is slow, so I got really bored in the middle of the movie and I skipped a lot after that. I think the editing and the length could have been a bit more dynamic. The music is also an era style of music that were found in old musical movies. I wasn't very found of it, but that depends of your taste in the genre. Still, it was an interesting movie and a very nice tale. I give it a 75%. Go see it for the actors and their skills in that movie. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
10
Shlomo3006Feb 28, 2018
Just beautiful and intense. One of the best films of the year, and the best movie of Guillermo del Toro, besides Pan's Laberynth.
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
3
ryecaMar 11, 2018
Not very good. Cliche story, boring, one-dimensional characters, cartoonish acting. Also, aren't we past the whole steam-punk, Bioshock aesthetic yet? Here is every Guillermo Del Toro movie that gets acclaim: Female protagonist faces typicalNot very good. Cliche story, boring, one-dimensional characters, cartoonish acting. Also, aren't we past the whole steam-punk, Bioshock aesthetic yet? Here is every Guillermo Del Toro movie that gets acclaim: Female protagonist faces typical evil in a fantasy world punctuated by moments of gore. Also, the attempts at humor are lame. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
ianglaucoFeb 22, 2018
las escenas que no combinan, el sexo y los desnudos con un monstruo fantasioso no combina, la critica al capitalismo en el calidac, con un musiucal, y los ideales de igualdad con un final que separa a la gente normal de la anormal. quizas sealas escenas que no combinan, el sexo y los desnudos con un monstruo fantasioso no combina, la critica al capitalismo en el calidac, con un musiucal, y los ideales de igualdad con un final que separa a la gente normal de la anormal. quizas sea una linda y cursi historia de amor libre, pero no totalmente poser y kitch Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
1
donatellaguyMar 11, 2018
A woman falls in love with a monster. This is not romantic at all I don't know what is wrong with people... Heterosexuals are like "Oh two guys in love it's immoral" and they did this weird human - monster sex movie. Oh and just because theA woman falls in love with a monster. This is not romantic at all I don't know what is wrong with people... Heterosexuals are like "Oh two guys in love it's immoral" and they did this weird human - monster sex movie. Oh and just because the woman is disabled it doesn't make the movie unique and totally unnecessary themes in it like Russians, communism etc. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
fiabegJan 9, 2018
There are many people who suffers from sexism, racism, homophobia or a disability. On the other hand there are people who behave as white male supremacists. Del Toro shows us some of these two different groups of people, how they live theirThere are many people who suffers from sexism, racism, homophobia or a disability. On the other hand there are people who behave as white male supremacists. Del Toro shows us some of these two different groups of people, how they live their different situations and how they deal with them.

But Del Toro goes beyond. He ads a third category, a non human creature. And show us the different way the two groups relate with this creature. The result is the confrontation of values like compassion, solidarity and love vs oppression, brutality and sense of superiority.

This is a wonderful movie. Sally Hawkins acting is extraordinary. Don’t miss it, you will enjoy it very much.
Expand
11 of 23 users found this helpful1112
All this user's reviews
9
StevieGJDDec 9, 2017
What a beautiful and romantic movie. The visual aesthetic of this film is so captivating. The varied green tones embedded in every scene are lovely. The art direction is astonishing. This looks like the early 60s. The acting isWhat a beautiful and romantic movie. The visual aesthetic of this film is so captivating. The varied green tones embedded in every scene are lovely. The art direction is astonishing. This looks like the early 60s. The acting is universally great. Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spencer are simply perfect in their roles. Michael Shannon is the bad guy (perhaps too bad) and he is up to the task as well. The movie is about how we tend to view those of different races, genders, cultures, nations, and species as "the other" and this "other" needs to be blamed for our lot and hated for its existence. The greater meaning of this allegory is too sad to contemplate. Only those whose hearts are open, will understand "The Shape of Water". Expand
8 of 17 users found this helpful89
All this user's reviews
0
Idiota150Mar 3, 2018
Silly story about sex-deprived mute woman who can only be pleasured by a fish. Not fun, just sick.
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
9
NightReviewsDec 18, 2017
If I told you about The Shape of Water, what would I tell you? I wonder?

Well, for starters, I don’t think that anyone would have predicted that we would have gotten two adaptations of the classic “Beauty and the Beast” story arc in 2017.
If I told you about The Shape of Water, what would I tell you? I wonder?


Well, for starters, I don’t think that anyone would have predicted that we would have gotten two adaptations of the classic “Beauty and the Beast” story arc in 2017. While one was a literal Disney re-imagining, following the animated classic almost frame-for-frame, Disney’s March hit Beauty and the Beast was a huge success at the box office and with critics alike. While our second interpretation, The Shape of Water, the film is more of a…lets say, unconventional take on the classic narrative archetype; complete with full frontal nudity, scenes of masterbation, feline decapitation and of course (as with any del Toro film) good ol’ bloody violence, our second interpretation is defiantly a more imaginative and adult directed adaptation.



Yet, the sex, blood, violence, gore and nudity aren’t the things we remember most from The Shape of Water. Instead, we focus on the lucid use of luminous night colours, the amazing characters and all of their flaws, feats and challenges, and most of all, the beauty of such a taboo love story, between two very misunderstood individuals from different worlds.

While del Toro may very well NOT be remembered as a director and writer who flourished making intoxicating love stories, The Shape of Water will surely be a film that challenges that notion greatly.



Set in 1962, del Toro’s newest is an interesting yet ironically reflective film that romanticizes the past with great style. While the past that del Toro is passionate about, his narratives always seem to use the past as a tool that presents an idealized and passionate and very forward way of thinking. In doing so, del Toro uses the past as a reference point of so many of society’s mistakes about women, visible minorities and of course, a repressed society without a voice, hence, why our story centres around a princess without a voice.

Our princess here, Elisa (Sally Hawkins), is an uninteresting mute who, in the first five minutes, establishes her daily routine of her home life, work life and social life in very quick and easy to understand order of routine. Elisa, who works for a highly classified government research facility in Baltimore, has seen many things. Among one of the newest secrets to be housed in the facility, is their most sensitive assets to-date; an aquatic creature that was captured in South America by the highly violent and blue-collard, religious American patriot Strickland (Michael Shannon). Along with her best Zelda (Octavio Spencer), Elisa and Zelda are tasked with cleaning the facility that houses the highly sensitive and elaborate creature from the South American lagoon, with out course keeping in mind that Elisa’s muteness adds to the sense of secrecy. With each passing day and intrigue to blame, Elisa becomes more and more transfixed with the two-legged, finned man-fish who is never given a name but played by the del Toro staple Doug Jones. Clearly, Elisa begins to fall in love with the creature that eats the hard boiled eggs. As each passing night brings the beast and beauty together, Elisa begins smuggling in record players, vinyls and experiences for the creature that begins to humanize him. Sharing her nightly work experiences with her best friend and neighbour Giles (Richard Jenkins), Elisa finds comfort in the unordinary romance with the “thing” that has captivates her heart, as well as ours.



It would be hard to argue the vision of the passionate and such artful director Guillermo del Toro, especially since his masterwork Pan’s Labyrinth. While Water may not be that films successor, it surely will be remembered along side it for many years to come. A man whose fascination with the gothic and horror elements of storytelling are visibly seen in almost all his works, del Toro has been known for focus on action and the very violent side of story-telling. With The Shape of Water, del Toro places violence and gore aside, alongside with his co-writer Vanessa Taylor, who decide to focus on their shared voice of telling the story, the very contemporary and relevant social commentary, as well as the love story between a woman and a creature who feels and is made to feel, that they do not belong.



The theme of oppression is soaked within each and every frame of The Shape of Water. By choosing on having the main couple in love both mute, the two main voices of the film are Zelda (a black working class woman) and Giles (an artistic, flamboyant artist), two very specific caricatures of people who may have suffered the most amount of oppression and suppression in the United States in the 1960’s. Yet, in a world where Russians and Americans are in a race to superiorly outwit one another, del Toro’s world in the film, doesn’t seem too far from the America we know and despise today.
Expand
7 of 16 users found this helpful79
All this user's reviews
10
GinaKDec 18, 2017
I have seen most of the films Del Toro has directed, especially his very early films like Cronos and The Devil’s Backbone. I consider him a great and very interesting director, and I think this film is a wonderful achievement, one that isI have seen most of the films Del Toro has directed, especially his very early films like Cronos and The Devil’s Backbone. I consider him a great and very interesting director, and I think this film is a wonderful achievement, one that is both lyrical and romantic. Somehow, even though the villain is completely evil and the heroine thoroughly good, the film works and is both riveting and very, very sad. To make a film like this believable, every performance has to be strong and all are, but especially Sally Hawkins, who is sympathetic as a mute without ever being pathetic, and Doug Jones, who does an incredible job making you believe that the Amphibian Man has feelings regardless of how weird he looks. Although hateful in the film, Michael Shannon does a great job as the villain and Octavia Spencer is wonderful too. Overall, a very strong cast in a beautifully directed film. One of the best films I have seen this year. Expand
6 of 14 users found this helpful68
All this user's reviews
9
Brent_MarchantDec 9, 2017
Though at times a little predictable, this inventive fantasy/fairy tale delivers the goods with superb special effects, gentle humor, heartwarming sincerity, and a host of excellent performances, especially by Sally Hawkins, Octavia SpencerThough at times a little predictable, this inventive fantasy/fairy tale delivers the goods with superb special effects, gentle humor, heartwarming sincerity, and a host of excellent performances, especially by Sally Hawkins, Octavia Spencer and Richard Jenkins. Think "Beauty and the Beast" meets "E.T.," and you've got a good idea what's going on here. It's so satisfying to see a film that truly lives up to its pre-release hype. Expand
6 of 14 users found this helpful68
All this user's reviews
9
FlexedacornDec 21, 2017
Guillermo Del Toro is back in form. This was a very welcome surprise for me after being let down by his last film “Crimson Peak”. I would say this is his best film right after Pans Labyrinth. The tone, atmosphere and practical effects allGuillermo Del Toro is back in form. This was a very welcome surprise for me after being let down by his last film “Crimson Peak”. I would say this is his best film right after Pans Labyrinth. The tone, atmosphere and practical effects all played nicely into making this bizarre film believable. It was more of a contained story complimented by some of the best acting I have seen in a while. I have to give nods to almost all the main characters. Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Octavia Spencer and Michael Stuhlbarg all gave wonderful performances. There is one scene between Sally Harkins and Richard Jenkins that should give her an Oscar Nomination. If you like bizarre films or just want a nice original screen play, I highly recommend the shape of water. Just be forewarned there are scenes that are very unorthodox, so you have to keep an open mind throughout. Expand
6 of 14 users found this helpful68
All this user's reviews
0
thotJan 12, 2018
My dearest and most loveliest of **** I watched this movie under the guise that I, personally, would witness actual human-on-fish person sex. I am disappointed to report that not such thing happened. Sure, they had sex. Sure, the leadingMy dearest and most loveliest of **** I watched this movie under the guise that I, personally, would witness actual human-on-fish person sex. I am disappointed to report that not such thing happened. Sure, they had sex. Sure, the leading protagonist was naked. But did we ever see the Fishs Dick? Nope! We saw that horrible government dude raw his wife, but we didnt get to see Elisa get dicked down by a fish? Despicable! The only thing, in my ope-pinion, that was worse than the lies, was the poor cats death. I expected more from a supposed 'R' movie. Del Toro Resign **** Expand
8 of 19 users found this helpful811
All this user's reviews
8
TVJerryDec 22, 2017
Sally Hawkins brings her natural inner beauty and sensitive charms to this role as a mute cleaning lady. She and Octavia Spencer (who adds her brand of spunk) work at a high security government facility. When she discovers an amphibiousSally Hawkins brings her natural inner beauty and sensitive charms to this role as a mute cleaning lady. She and Octavia Spencer (who adds her brand of spunk) work at a high security government facility. When she discovers an amphibious man-like creature, her curiosity and longing for love disrupt the lab and set the narrative in motion. Obviously, this is science fiction, but more importantly, it's a romantic fantasy. Even though it's based in '60s Baltimore, the slightly surreal style and bigger-than-life imagery lend it a wondrously eccentric edge. This makes sense, considering it comes from the highly creative mind of writer/director Guillermo del Toro. His masterful style and the elevated emotions make the film a slightly bizarre, sometimes melodramatic, yet still sweetly human encounter. Expand
5 of 12 users found this helpful57
All this user's reviews
9
misterpDec 17, 2017
The Shape Of Water is well done. It has especially good acting by Sally Hawkins. Although we have seen the frame work of this story before this movie has fresh dilogue, well developed lead characters and a uniqueness of it's own. PerhapsThe Shape Of Water is well done. It has especially good acting by Sally Hawkins. Although we have seen the frame work of this story before this movie has fresh dilogue, well developed lead characters and a uniqueness of it's own. Perhaps more could have been done to develop the monster character. Expand
5 of 12 users found this helpful57
All this user's reviews
10
Willyam_CarrJan 8, 2018
This is possibly the most beautiful love story put to the screen, and it is about a woman falling for a fish-man.
5 of 12 users found this helpful57
All this user's reviews
9
zorraDec 12, 2017
Superb art direction & effects. This beautiful fantasy-fairy tale lives up to the hype. It's led its humor & sincerity. Fantastic performances by Sally Hawkins & cast. del Toro has made a masterpiece.
5 of 12 users found this helpful57
All this user's reviews
0
jenhadFeb 7, 2018
Worse move I have ever seen, and that is saying a lot. I'm very upset that I wasted my time and money on this trash. I guess you would like it if you are into fish/human love stories. that sing and dance scene was hilarious.
5 of 12 users found this helpful57
All this user's reviews
9
GreatMartinDec 19, 2017
There is so much to love—and hate—about “The Shape of Water” but there is one thing everyone has to agree upon and that is the illuminating performance by Sally Hawkins. I have seen her in some movies but never remembered her, or was thatThere is so much to love—and hate—about “The Shape of Water” but there is one thing everyone has to agree upon and that is the illuminating performance by Sally Hawkins. I have seen her in some movies but never remembered her, or was that impressed by her, until earlier this year when I saw “Maudie” and flipped over her performance which she outdoes in this movie.

A lot goes on in this movie, which starts off slowly, but never feels rushed or ‘off’ including the love story. People who are looking for fantasy will find it and believe the make-believe is real while those looking for a villain will not find anyone more ‘hissable’ than Michael Shannon nor some violent scenes while not lasting long will be remembered long after. There are Russian spies like Michael Stuhlbarg playing a scientist with secrets of his own, a gay friend/neighbor Richard Jenkins who has a refrigerator filled with slices of pies that he buys from the counter server, Morgan Kelly, who he has a crush on. There is the 5-star general who take no for an answer and there is Octavia Spencer who everyone should have as a friend.

There is frontal and rear nudity by both men and women along with, literally, finger crunching scenes, cattle prod hits and then there is the “Asset”, the sea creature which the story revolves around affecting everyone in the movie. He is played by Doug Jones and, considering that he and Sally Hawkins have a believable love story with neither being able to speak, is one of the best love stories in movies in a long time. You know he is a ‘creature from the Black Lagoon’ but you forget that and root for him and Elisa (Hawkins) to have a happy ending.

I am not a fan of director Guillermo del Toro’s previous movies but he does a beautiful job of directing here along with writing the screenplay, with Vanessa Taylor and producing, with J. Miles Dale, a first-rate production in every aspect of the movie.

For old car lovers there is the first teal colored Cadillac, for old movie fans there is Alice Faye, Carmen Miranda and a salute to Fred and Ginger and for the music lovers some big band and jazz music along with “You’ll Never Know How Much I Love”.

Along with touching upon many movie genres, the casting couldn’t have been better and I would be hard pressed as to whether Sally Hawkins should get an Oscar nomination for this or “Maudie” since according to the rules actresses aren’t allowed to be nominated for 2 different pictures.

“The Shape of Water” is not an easy film to get into and at times to watch but it is definitely a film to see.
Expand
6 of 15 users found this helpful69
All this user's reviews
9
PrettyGoodDec 13, 2017
Beautiful, heartwarming and pleasing. A touching love story. The visuals and the art direction are perfect. Del Toro made a perfectly packaged fairy tale. A little predictable, but still one of the best movies of the year.
6 of 15 users found this helpful69
All this user's reviews
6
netflicDec 18, 2017
This latest movie from director Guillermo Del Toro is creating a lot of buzz. It has been nominated for Golden Globe in 7 categories and expected to win it's main prize. No doubt that it will be in the Oscar's list as well.

The movie is
This latest movie from director Guillermo Del Toro is creating a lot of buzz. It has been nominated for Golden Globe in 7 categories and expected to win it's main prize. No doubt that it will be in the Oscar's list as well.

The movie is listed as a mixture of 5 different genres but I would describe it as a pseudo-realistic fairy tale for adults.

It is a love story between a mute woman who cleans a high-security government institution and a semi-human, semi-amphibian creature that US Army caught in an ocean for research.

This artsy film recreates an atmosphere of Cold-War-era America with enchanting visuals and music and it is pleasant to watch most of the time.
So I understand why so many people praise it. On the other hand, in my opinion, the hype is not justified. The movie is not targeted to children. Yet all characters are caricaturish: either all-out villains or all-out do-gooders.

There are many annoying details that scream of poor directing. And don't even get me started about cliches: you can hardly find one that is missing here.

There are three superb actors that have almost nothing to play due to a primitive script. But they still manage to impress.

So, after all, I am glad that I saw it. It *is* charming, but your mileage might vary.
Expand
4 of 10 users found this helpful46
All this user's reviews
7
RtheomJan 14, 2018
This is basically "Beauty and the Beast" with del Toro visuals. Overall a very enjoyable movie although at bit too long. There are a number of scenes that are absolutely unnecessary, but absolutely del Toro. If you're the kind of person thatThis is basically "Beauty and the Beast" with del Toro visuals. Overall a very enjoyable movie although at bit too long. There are a number of scenes that are absolutely unnecessary, but absolutely del Toro. If you're the kind of person that likes his more artistic movies and watches them specifically for the visuals, you'll love this. If you find his movies enjoyable, but not magical, you'll still enjoy this, but wish it was shorter, like me. I'd place Pan's Labyrinth higher than this, but it's a close second to that and feels nearly the same. A solid 8 as far as acting, visuals and direction goes, but -1 point down to a 7 for the length. Expand
4 of 10 users found this helpful46
All this user's reviews
8
KeithDowDec 22, 2017
The Shape of Water stands out for the way Guillermo del Toro is able to give this fantasy-laden film such a distinct time and place, in this case a military research facility set in the 1960’s, which highlights del Toro’s masterfulThe Shape of Water stands out for the way Guillermo del Toro is able to give this fantasy-laden film such a distinct time and place, in this case a military research facility set in the 1960’s, which highlights del Toro’s masterful screenwriting ability. The writing is further gilded by its intellectual depth, with characters remarking about the origin of certain words and names, or drawing on biblical references to better frame the predicaments they’re in. And if del Toro only wrote the screenplay, he’d still be receiving acclaim, yet this entire production is his. All told, he’s credited as the writer, director, and producer.

The film exhibits an alluring, Amelie-like color profile, with water motifs throughout, featuring a career-making performance by Sally Hawkins. The selective use of nudity and sexuality adds a real sense of depth and fullness to her role, making the character seem that much more lifelike, and Hawkins certainly makes the most of it.

Her performance is quite simply magnanimous. She’s outwardly tender and sweet, with an inner strength and resolve that manifests itself whenever the occasion calls. It’s a combination of perfect casting and the actress rising to the occasion that, in my estimation, places her as the odds on favorite to win the Golden Globe for Best Performance by an actress in a drama, for which she’s currently nominated, and the Academy Award in the same category, for which she most certainly will be nominated.
Expand
4 of 10 users found this helpful46
All this user's reviews
8
dharmaJan 27, 2018
Del Toro is back on track and as of writing, has received 13 Oscars nominations for his work on this flick. Give him a too much 'money', and he will focus too much on the production design. When he has a limited budget, that's when he madeDel Toro is back on track and as of writing, has received 13 Oscars nominations for his work on this flick. Give him a too much 'money', and he will focus too much on the production design. When he has a limited budget, that's when he made some of his best work. The Shape of Water is essentially an 'odd' romantic film, between a 'fish man' and a mute woman. On paper, it's as weird as it sounds, but on screen, it is again another classic from the director. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
9
temptershellJan 27, 2018
I waited for this film for a very long time. Not necessarily for this title but in this form because Tim Burton's latest productions did not delight as much as any del Toro project and that's why The Shape of Water is a production for me.I waited for this film for a very long time. Not necessarily for this title but in this form because Tim Burton's latest productions did not delight as much as any del Toro project and that's why The Shape of Water is a production for me. Honestly, I was hoping for something darker but the convention of delicate urban fantasy also appealed to me. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
9
Jess_HillJan 21, 2018
A sublime experience, this otherworldly fairytale is beautiful to watch, with exquisite performances and superb creature design allowing you to become entranced by this romantic story. As the compelling narrative unfolds, the delightfulA sublime experience, this otherworldly fairytale is beautiful to watch, with exquisite performances and superb creature design allowing you to become entranced by this romantic story. As the compelling narrative unfolds, the delightful soundtrack and detailed set design ground the storyline in the era, and combined with careful pacing and stunning cinematography, this becomes an enchanting experience that keeps you enthralled by this moving and melancholy tale. A film for the mature and discerning viewer, this is an exploration of intimacy and connection that is well worth your time. 9.12/10 Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
8
TrevorsViewDec 22, 2017
Here it is! My absolute favorite movie of 2017! While Star Wars: The Last Jedi comes in close at second, I still had issues about it that grew over time. Yet for The Shape of Water, it’s the opposite: the more I think about it, the more IHere it is! My absolute favorite movie of 2017! While Star Wars: The Last Jedi comes in close at second, I still had issues about it that grew over time. Yet for The Shape of Water, it’s the opposite: the more I think about it, the more I love it!

Found in the river as a baby—abandoned by her parents, Elisa, a mute, keeps a specific daily routine in her home over Baltimore’s grand Orpheum theater. In the morning, she masturbates in the bath and hard-boils eggs; then she commutes to work, her cap used to cushion her cheek on the bus window, often mesmerized by water droplets dancing across the glass; then over the next eight hours she puts on her janitor apron to swab up a government-funded facility. So sure enough, Elisa finds a ripple to disrupt her calm life once she meets the Amazonian man-shaped fish, essentially The Creature from the Black Lagoon in design, imprisoned in the facility. The two instantly discover the great sense they have in common, since neither one of them can speak.

Even if they lack the decisive intelligence of humans, God’s animals somehow can see your true self better than people, as the anthropomorphic denizen from below does upon meeting Elisa. She shares one of her hardboiled eggs, teaching him to say “egg” in American Sign Language, like the “Project Nim” study at Columbia University. Over time, their nonverbal connection grows into something unimaginably intimate for Elisa’s inner Mary Magdalene.

Director Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth) sustains aquatic turquoise hues to delight his gothic, fantasized 1960s recreation, practically a giant rustic French painting. From the key lime tinted diner to a shiny new teal Cadillac, waves of despair swirl about inside what almost resembles the nearest abandoned cathedral after a flood destroyed its inner form; an immersive feel of swimming through the sets miraculously keeps itself going.

Del Toro commands your thirst without crossing into arthouse cinema mode, he just tells a straightforward story under the necessary creative choices in sound design. The beautiful sounds include the musical score’s orchestrated beauty creeping from beneath, thanks to eight-time Oscar nominee Alexandre Desplat (Argo, The Grand Budapest Hotel). The harsher sounds include the thump-squeak-thump of sex transitioned into the pulse of the facility’s prison chamber run to the same beat, as if lust is the true fuel for the drowned organization.

Everyone in the plotline whirlpool, such as some communists after the new discovery, lives a personal objectional truth about who to worship, with bits of your own identity projected upon every individual on the seafoam tinted screen. Richard Jenkins (The Visitor) portrays Elisa’s besieged artist neighbor like a spirit progressively decaying by the scenery no matter how high he tries to keep it up. Octavia Spencer (The Help, Hidden Figures) likewise highlights her subtle racial empowerment to convey a fear of racist attacks on her work ethic in an all-White facility. Although no one in the talented cast brought out the film’s aura as well as Sally Hawkins (Blue Jasmine) in the main role, commanding a quiet nature, secretly strong inside despite her weak façade.

While a few smaller actors did fail to leave a durable impression, it barely affected much beyond missed chances. Speaking of missed chances, the government’s involvement in the fishy situation could’ve been tightened up a bit to create deeper political arguments, rather than the shallow Democratic stand the script ends up taking.

Now look back at the big picture, particularly the way it channels old social issues into the US today. A rather impactful detail includes a point when Blacks in the city are refused a seat at public eateries, alongside presumed homosexuals. It reminds about the dark side of the plastered 1950’s American dream all men at the time craved to perfect. The villain in particular follows the universal dream by joyfully shocking the man-shaped thing he claimed as his trophy. According to science, no animals can ever smile or cry, so such a prize ought to be head monkey of the circus put on by US Government. This beast’s resemblance to Jesus Christ, alongside his child’s curiosity, represents Blacks, homosexuals—anyone outside the societal bubble. The real monster isn’t the hideous blue freak, but the bleach-washed success-crazed humans destined for the fate of Jonah.

Therefore, please go hear Fox Searchlight’s tale of the unbelievable romance, one which uses the supposed lies to warn you about the truth.
Expand
5 of 13 users found this helpful58
All this user's reviews
0
PoldekFeb 21, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The climate of the film is interesting, but the message is empty, and the sex scene with the lizard is already some kind of cretinism. Certainly crazy feminists had to be charmed. Once they applauded when a white woman gave herself to a Negro or gay love. Today they excite when a woman has sex with an alien. Then all the senses tremble. I'm sorry, this is not a movie for healthy people on the mind. Expand
5 of 13 users found this helpful58
All this user's reviews
10
The3AcademySinsDec 13, 2017
The Shape of Water might be Guillermo Del Toro's best movie yet, and THAT is saying something. This film is an incredibly timely (and timeless!) ensemble-driven romance that takes place in such a fantastical world, but then you realize it isThe Shape of Water might be Guillermo Del Toro's best movie yet, and THAT is saying something. This film is an incredibly timely (and timeless!) ensemble-driven romance that takes place in such a fantastical world, but then you realize it is our world. The performances are strong across the board with Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Doug Jones, Octavia Spencer, Michael Sthulbarg, and Richard Jenkins really shining. The score is incredible. The motiffs and themes and shots are so incredibly layered that you will find new things with this movie every time you watch it. The Shape of Water is a must-see for film goers, a must-own for Del Toro fans, and a very strong Oscar Contender for 2017. Expand
6 of 16 users found this helpful610
All this user's reviews
8
CineAutoctonoJan 20, 2018
"The Shape of Water" was a surprising and spectacular film, both the characters and the story were spectacular. Guillermo del Toro did a great work again from "Pan's Labyrinth" fascinating and spectacular. A surprising fable.
3 of 8 users found this helpful35
All this user's reviews
9
Compi24Dec 26, 2017
"The Shape Of Water" is a film that's about as difficult of an undertaking for a director as possible. It's a Cold War era fantasy/sci-fi thriller with fairy tale elements, a very frank sense of sexuality, and a whole heap-load of gore. Oh,"The Shape Of Water" is a film that's about as difficult of an undertaking for a director as possible. It's a Cold War era fantasy/sci-fi thriller with fairy tale elements, a very frank sense of sexuality, and a whole heap-load of gore. Oh, also it's a movie that has to successfully sell a woman/fish-man romance in just about 2 hours. Good luck, am I right? Well, Del Toro has proven time and time again that luck doesn't necessarily factor into auteuristic filmmaking. The man's ability to craft and sell a world in no time flat is simply astounding. And if there was ever a movie that could perfectly embody the phrase "poetry in motion," Guillermo Del Toro just made it. From the first shot of the film, you're sucked in to the lyrical nature of the cinematography, and held tightly in your seat by the simply masterful performance work from - quite literally - every actor onscreen. Sally Hawkins, Doug Jones, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Octavia Spencer, Michael Stuhlbarg, etc. They all deliver some their best work. Unquestionably one of the most meaningful, original, powerful, and well-made films of the year. Expand
4 of 11 users found this helpful47
All this user's reviews
9
NBFCJan 17, 2018
“Water is like love, it has no shape. It takes the shape of whatever it inhabits. It’s the most powerful element in the universe. It’s gentle, flexible, but breaks through every barrier.”-Guillermo del Toro

Despite del Toro’s love for
“Water is like love, it has no shape. It takes the shape of whatever it inhabits. It’s the most powerful element in the universe. It’s gentle, flexible, but breaks through every barrier.”-Guillermo del Toro

Despite del Toro’s love for comics, gothic visuals, giant mechs, and practical monster effects; the famous Spanish director has always been a bit of a romantic at heart as demonstrated by the above quote.

From his more artsy Spanish films (Devil’s Backbone, Pan’s Labyrinth) to the more mainstream efforts (Hellboy and Pacific Rim), there is a touching reoccurring theme concerning the idea of societal outsiders and marginalized individuals finding solace within each other’s company.

With his fascination with fairy tales, it seemed only a matter of time before del Toro took a stab at creating a straight-out romance tale, which comes in the form of his latest feature that gives a great twist to the “Beauty and the Beast” concept.

What makes TSOW probably one of del Toro’s best films since The Devil’s Backbone is that taken on a pure conceptual level, the inter-species romance angle could have easily been awkward and almost kitschy if done by lesser hands. But del Toro’s mathematical but delicate storytelling, impressive set designs, and the incredibly layered performances from the silent Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones, despite wearing a thick rubber monster costume, turns TSOW into one of the most touching and honest romance tales in quite a while.

The performances in general are incredible across the board, arguably the best when it comes to del Toro’s English-language movie canon. Hawkins is obviously magnetic in the lead but Michael Shannon as the openly racist research team leader Richard Strickland easily joins the canon of Jacinto (The Devil’s Backbone) and Captain Vidal (Pan’s Labyrinth) in del Toro’s brand of genuinely terrifying but tragic human villains.

But the person that I feel really stole the show was Richard Jenkins, playing Elisa’s down-on-his-luck friend/neighbor and closeted commercial artist Giles. Giles by far feels like the most down-to-earth character in this fantastical tale and you really do feel sorry for his plight in life. For most of the movie Giles and Elisa’s coworker Zelda (Octavia Spencer) have to verbalize the mute Elisa’s sign language; giving way to some unique interactions. Giles also provides some great subtle moments of comic relief.

Praise should also be level at the spell-binding score by Alexandre Desplat (The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game, Argo), giving a film with admittedly strange subject manner a timeless classy atmosphere that further contributes to the fairy tale quality. The accordion and whistle-heavy music that plays over the film’s mesmerizing opening underwater dream sequence was the first sign that I was watching something truly special.

The movie on the whole has a magical Old Hollywood feel to the whole thing, which is something different compared to del Toro’s previous efforts. It’s not the type of Old Hollywood tribute that feels pandering either (Ex. La La Land), it all feels born out of genuine affection and is completely at the service of painting the film’s intoxicating atmosphere.

TSOW on the whole is a pretty unconventional movie that is hard to pigeonhole into a single genre.

It’s part “Beauty Meets Beast” romance, part creature-feature, part period piece, part fairy tale, part science fiction and part spy thriller. There is also the fact that this is an R-rated del Toro flick and while it’s not nearly as violent as Pan’s Labyrinth, there are a few scenes that will make you wince or shiver in uncomfortableness.

Even with the trailers it’s obvious the distributor’s Fox Searchlight Pictures could not crack the egg on how to market the movie. Hopefully it will continue to get more attention due to it’s appearance on many critic’s “best of” lists and with award season underway; but regardless del Toro’s latest masterwork is one of the 2017’s best.
Expand
4 of 11 users found this helpful47
All this user's reviews
9
UltimatmovieguyDec 23, 2017
Guillermo Del Toro is back in this under water romance drama. After years of not writing any origional material and staying strictly to directing, he has immerged from the depths of the ocean and arose with a near masterpiece. The plot beingGuillermo Del Toro is back in this under water romance drama. After years of not writing any origional material and staying strictly to directing, he has immerged from the depths of the ocean and arose with a near masterpiece. The plot being set to a 1960's era with its dark and bleak surroundings is filled with a glimmer of hope everytime Sally Hawkins, Elisa, appears on screen. With the main character being a mute it adds to the whole film with its unique characters and twisty plot. Shot with reportily less than $20 million dollars as well. This movie is beautiful. Octavia Spencer, gives a great minor performance as a more moral guide for Hawkins and a comic relief in some of its most tense scenes. Michael Shannon is amazing as the films antagonist and it's moral split on what he wants. And Richard Jenkins is amazing as Hawkins friend who supports her in her decisions in unique ways. And not to forget about the amazing performance by Doug Jones as the amphibian man is amazing. With such a low budget it doesn't show with its beautifully design sets and props along side with minor special effects and CGI used to accent this movies beauty. Between being in the underground of the lab to the bus rides to looking out Elisa's window to watch the rain and dark city light up. It's underwater scenes are equally as beautiful as we watch the slow romance build. The only complaint I have on the movie is I wish we got a little more in-depth explanation of a few character's backgrounds and some of their understandings as why they do what they did in the film. But besides that it's a near flawless movie that's entertaining as hell. Leaving you happy and wanting more from Del Toro. Expand
4 of 11 users found this helpful47
All this user's reviews
0
SambadJan 24, 2018
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Pure propaganda can never be considered art. And it's very difficult to discern this from anything else. The 'characters' are one dimensional at best, and the supposed theme of the film takes a complete backseat to the neo-liberal propaganda the film crams into it's 2 hour running time with all the subtlety of a dead seal in a maternity ward.
Suspicion sets in just at looking at the glut of sycophantic and gushing reviews from once respected publications like The Guardian, who now seem to specialise in pro-war, anti-family radical feminist indoctrination. This one could forgive, if the film was even remotely competent or well made, which it isn't. Guillermo Del Toro is a hugely overrated director anyway, Pan's Labyrinth seeming to be a one-off fluke of a good film. But this execrable and charmless mess is his lowest moment.
Let's take the characters. The 'star' is a deaf woman (played with twee sanctimonious abandon by Sally Hawkins) who cleans a government facility with a black woman (played likeably by Octavia Spencer) who's near every line is about how her no-good husband is bone idle and she has to do everything. These are the first hints of propaganda. Every white man in this film is depicted negatively, except for two, the reasons for these being, one is homosexual, and the other is Russian, but going against his Soviet paymasters. Before going any further, assurances need to be made to the reader that this review is not written by a Trump supporter or alt right activist. But neither is it written by a neo-liberal Soros supporter and thought police advocater. Both the Republican and Democrat party are rotten to the core, but the mainstream media bias and trumpeting of a completely fabricated Russiagate narrative, as well as pro-regime change and deceptively divisive identity politics, make propaganda films like this so difficult to digest. The sympathetic Russian of course dies, he is Russian after all. I'm not 'spoilering' here, everything that happens in this film is as derivative and predictable as the latest known wolf 'Islamist' false flag attack. The biggest bile however is reserved for a character played by the usually good actor Michael Shannon. He is here just a walking epitome of evil, white, straight, 'toxic' family man (by the way, aren't phrases like 'toxic masculinity', and 'smash the patriarchy' genuine hate speech? Are women beyond 'toxicity'? If so, why are 50% of cases of child abuse perpetrated by women? And how come sociopathic mass murderers like Hillary Clinton are held up as virtuous paragons?). With every scene, this guy somehow gets more and more evil, making Skeletor seem more nuanced and subtle. He has a phallic baton he carries around. He doesn't listen to his wonderful wife and covers her mouth when they have sex. Every other line he drops a new racist bombshell, including 'you people' (this script, such originality, such bravery!). I can't begin to think about covering the whole of this embodiment of white male wickedness here, as like the rest of the film, it's relentless. Oh yeah, he believes in God too, so of course this is retrograde and unacceptable, especially to people who believe in nothing deeper than the identity politics that Buzzfeed (a fake alternative news site owned by NBC) tells them to base their lives on. Possibly the most unintentionally hilarious part of the film occurs when the gay character played by Richard Jenkins, comes on to an 'up till now' friendly barman, who suddenly recoils and then goes over and tells a black couple walking into the diner that their kind isn't welcome. Complete character shift due to not wanting to accept advances from an old man. It's hard to imagine actual adults came up with any of this stuff, one imagines it was more likely written by coked up blue haired middle class teenagers who scream 'misogynist' at anyone who uses the term 'he'.
I haven't even touched on the 'story' of a captured amphibian man that the deaf character falls in love with, but this is because it counts for around 7 minutes of the film. Watch Creature From the Black Lagoon instead, who's monster suit this film rips off, badly. The dozens of moronic critics who gave this film 100% have described it as strange (it is if your sole diet of media and literature consists of Simon Cowell and JK Rowling) and warm. This film has no warmth, heart or soul, because the characters are cardboard stereotypes, and the most innovative idea is that everything is 'green' (which actually makes the film look as revolting as it feels). Some films contain elements of state propaganda, or advertising, and can still be deemed with artistic merit. But this is just one long, tedious exercise in social engineering. Shame on everyone involved. You want actual 'social justice'? Watch the badly rated Pirates of Somalia instead. You want anti-Trumpism even? Watch Machete. This puddle of vomit doesn't even make for good hate-watching.
Expand
6 of 17 users found this helpful611
All this user's reviews
0
WildsongMar 24, 2018
Can't Believe The Greatest Showman Lost to "Splash" feat. ABE SAPIEN... Seriouly the whole movies I had that feeling of Deja Vu. and the Main Character is Dumb as hell. I like Guillermo del Toro movies but this one is not original at all. AndCan't Believe The Greatest Showman Lost to "Splash" feat. ABE SAPIEN... Seriouly the whole movies I had that feeling of Deja Vu. and the Main Character is Dumb as hell. I like Guillermo del Toro movies but this one is not original at all. And don't deserve the biggest prize. Expand
4 of 12 users found this helpful48
All this user's reviews
6
namelessJan 3, 2018
This is such an individual film that I could have rated it green just as easly. The problem is that it is a Hollywood film for the first hour and then transforms into an Art film for the second hour. Art Films are fine but we all know thatThis is such an individual film that I could have rated it green just as easly. The problem is that it is a Hollywood film for the first hour and then transforms into an Art film for the second hour. Art Films are fine but we all know that Art Films are as formulaic as Hollywood films. There are some incredible scenes but the film really is a bunch of incredible scenes, it isn't a sum of its parts. Yes, her acting supports the film, she will be nomiated because she carries the film. It is a passion film of Del Toro but lacks the cohesiveness of Pan's Labyrinth. I'm waiting for the next Pacific Rim. Expand
3 of 9 users found this helpful36
All this user's reviews