God what a predictable piece of shit this movie was

God what a predictable piece of shit this movie was

>Not liking interspecies relationships.
What are you, a bigot?

I thought it was really good
Sally Hawkins a qt

Wow youre so cool OP. I love contrarian opinions, they make you look so cool and edgy.

It’s ok to become a deep one. Don’t you know lovecraft was racist stop reading his problematic stories

wtf I hate fish now!

Calling something "predictable" isn't a valid criticism.

I predicted the musical bit like a hour before it occurred. I almost walked out the theater when it happened.

>I predicted the musical bit
No you didn't

>Almost walked out
No you didn't. You're too much of a pussy, you dont want people to notice you.

>IT WUZ PREDICTUHBUH

what he really means is
>WTF WHY DIDN'T SHE GET WITH A WHITE GUY LIKE ME!!!!! FUCKING LIBS THIS IS WHY I'M SINGLE!

Fantastic production values, solid (if borderline nostalgic-fetishistic) atmosphere, good performance from Hawkins, and its score actually deserved that Golden Globe.

But the story is just middling. Michael Shannon is such an over-the-top Saturday morning cartoon villain that it's impossible to find him threatening. All of the characters fit that mold, being broad caricatures or archetypes rather than real people (the twee and lovable innocent young woman, the sassy black lady assistant, the fabulous gay artist). I suppose the point was that it's a "fairy tale" so it's okay for everything to be detached from reality - which is true to an extent, as Pan's Labyrinth did the same shtick. Except Pan's Labyrinth was from the PERSPECTIVE of a child, so the childish world was an extension of that. Here it's a bit murkier.

The real meat of the story is the romance - but it's so goddamn dry. Everyone was losing it over the fish thing, but it's like, that's literally all there is to it. It even feels a little accidentally rape-y, because we never see Fish-Man as anything but either a victim getting bullied by Shannon, or a sex object for Hawkins. He's just a glorified mcguffin.

Genuinely beautiful movie in terms of visuals and music though.

>more contrarian-posting

It's all so tiresome.

>go to see this the week before Christmas
>all I want is a fun -monste rmovie with muppets
>instead I get a morality play about how even monsters who bite the heads of kittens deserve to have sex more than white males

YOU'RE DEAD TO ME YOU FAT MEXICAN HACK I'M NEVER DEFENDING PACIFIC RIM TO NORMIES AGAIN

how was it predictable

Well, if that's what he meant then I actually agree with him that inter-species romance is fucking bizarre.

It was a story about how people look for fulfillment in things like relationships/work and often don't find it but sometimes someone does and it's magical.

i don't find her attractive or unattractive
but her acting was spot-on
deserves a best actress nod

presumably he predicted some elements of the narrative

Thanks for making this explicit. It was actually one of the best full feature Lovecraftian-themed movies ever.

What a Del Toro movie it was, you mean?

Dagon did it better.

agree on the score
i didn't find the romance dry, however
the movie had a fairytale mood to satisfy

/pol, can you not

oh, okay
i mean, i enjoyed seeing how Del Toro put the pieces together to make it work

>THE CAR OF THE FUTURE, FOR YOU, THE MAN OF THE FUTURE
>(Geddit, audience? He's a straight white male, unlike the female and gay protagonists! He is NOT the future, but the past, which is why his home is portrayed as outlandishly old-fashioned! Nudge nudge! Wink wink!)

It's not even subtext anymore

dagon was not a good movie

do fish have bb peepees?

I liked what del toro said after the awards that it's essentially beauty and the beast but the beast stays a beast because love isn't about needing to transform someone or yourself it's about understanding

>love isn't about needing to transform someone or yourself
>girl literally gets transformed into a fish for the ending

???

i found the movie to be more about incongruencies that exist in the routine reality, and the brutality concealed behind the well-polished happy scenes of life; people idolize the 50's and pre-woodstock 60s, but it wasn't all that it was advertised as

i didn't get the idea that it was anti-white

Does not-Abe Sapien die?

>outlandishly old fashioned
what? his house fit the era just fine

i got a bit of the cinderella myth also
very well crafted
crafted with love...
love-crafted...

As one who knew back in 1977 that Close Encounters of the Third Kind was cinematically superior to Star Wars, I remain unmoved by new iterations of George Lucas’s blockbuster. But the generations whose attention spans have been altered by this most vaunted of all film series should still appreciate how Rian Johnson’s geek loyalty surpasses that of Guillermo del Toro’s sci-fi political fantasy The Shape of Water.

>Mexican del Toro ignores the politics of his own nation. It’s the same career strategy as that followed by Alfonso Cuarón and Alejandro González Iñárritu (they brand themselves “The Three Amigos”), seeking the easy approval and esteem of those who enjoy seeing American political problems trivialized as escapist fantasy — as also done in Gravity and The Revenant. Del Toro fails to give his Creature from the Black Lagoon/Swamp Thing thing any characterization. It’s just a repugnantly eroticized figure of chain immigration.

>The Shape of Water hasn’t yet inspired opportunistic political interpretations like the 2005 Star Wars: Revenge of the Siths. (“So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause” a silly aphorism that actually presaged the Obama era.) This film’s fish-and-female premise merely combines sexual masochism with political self-righteousness and cinematic cluelessness (Del Toro’s movie references include a dismal Astaire and Rogers musical homage). To think this movie is just fantasy is to drown in stupidity.

getting me all wet just thinking about when the real demons will start showing up

no

Then I'll be downloading as soon as possible. Thanks.

I would almost respect Almond Black's incessant cynicism if he didn't also champion truly shit films like Transformers 2.

>To think this movie is just fantasy is to drown in stupidity.
EVERYTHING IS POLITICS AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!

armond white is too focused on his own agenda
the sees the world from only one perspective, which is absurd for an arts critic

she still looked pretty human to me user, just you know with some gills

Women fucking fish is "predictable"? Where do you live, man? Fucking third worlders.

On that note, what are some other Lovecraftian kinos?

>no qt mute autistic gf

It was either poorly written or overly cut, but overall it felt way too rushed
and yes I agree, a lot of it was very predictable

Give me ONE reason why I should tolerate the fishman/woman relationship. They literally found the thing in a swamp. It's "communication" is essentially that of a child's. There is NO evidence they are genetically compatible, and an extremely high risk of exposure to some horrifying STD. My suspension of disbelief stops when you have other species fucking you. That's just too far.

that one with the detective played by Fred Ward,
the ipswich horror
and hellboy, of course, has parts

so he wasnt dagon all along?
into the trash it goes.

>put living fish on flick
>that'll be kino, sir

shadow over innsmouth

Lovecraft provides a description of the Deep Ones in "The Shadow Over Innsmouth":

I think their predominant color was a greyish-green, though they had white bellies. They were mostly shiny and slippery, but the ridges of their backs were scaly. Their forms vaguely suggested the anthropoid, while their heads were the heads of fish, with prodigious bulging eyes that never closed. At the sides of their necks were palpitating gills, and their long paws were webbed. They hopped irregularly, sometimes on two legs and sometimes on four. I was somehow glad that they had no more than four limbs. Their croaking, baying voices, clearly used for articulate speech, held all the dark shades of expression which their staring faces lacked ... They were the blasphemous fish-frogs of the nameless design - living and horrible.

Lovecraft describes the Deep Ones as a race of undersea-dwelling humanoids whose preferred habitat is deep in the ocean (hence their name). However, despite being primarily marine creatures, they can come to the surface, and can survive on land for extended periods of time. All Deep Ones are immortal; none die except by accident or violence. They are said to serve the beings known as Father Dagon and Mother Hydra, as well as Cthulhu.[2] They are opposed by mysterious beings known as the Old Gods, whose powerful magic can keep them in check. This detail is one of the vestigial hints that August Derleth developed as the mostly unnamed Elder Gods.

lovecraft was a mistake

Totally unoriginal is more accurate

isn't this literally an abe sapiens origin story?
is this set in the hellboy universe?

No just Taco continuing his habbit of making all his creatures look the same. Part of the problem was getting the same fucking actor in practically the same fucking fish man outfit

You should watch Mr. Nobody for further wastes of time

>There is NO evidence they are genetically compatible, and an extremely high risk of exposure to some horrifying STD.
If they're not compatible enough to have a kid they probably can't share many diseases either