Just saw it and it was OK. This and Crimson Peak were both about equal for me. OK, not great, just movies that I will not retain huge memories of.
It felt overly long to me. I thought it was going to be about 90-100 minutes, tops, considering the story. This would have been better if edited down a bit.
Hellboy 2 and Pan’s Labyrinth are the best Del Toro movies I’ve seen.
I have to add that Doug Jones, the actor in the fish-dude suit, was Charlie Cardinal at BSU back around '80-81.
Saw it, though it was pretty good, but for me it didn’t quite click fully - the buildup to the romance seemed plot-driven, and it seemed to go from scary-mysterious-creature-in-a-tank to poolside-picnics-and-hey-let’s-fuck in a few too few beats.
And I can’t shake the feeling that this movie originated from Del Toro looking at Abe Sapien and thinking, “Hey, he’s kinda sexy. What if…”
The creature was beautiful, though. Kinda sexy. What if…
I read a feature piece on the movie, and the reporter asked Del Toro why he was so interested in monsters. He responded with an ascending whistle and slowly raising one finger erect. So I think you’re not far off.
I think the antagonist was the weakest part of the movie. He was just sadistic for no reason - yet so duty-bound he was willing to fulfill his mission even though he was dying from untreated gangrene.
Thing is, he wasn’t really very interesting. He’s just there to have an American 50s Straight White Repressed Asshole to Hate.
This presentation seriously lowered the enjoyment of the movie for me. If they could have made the villain as interesting as the other characters, it would have been better.
Agree with all this. Though I thought the romance wasn’t fleshed out enough. They went from ‘wow, we can communicate through sign language’ to ‘let’s have sex!’ really quickly.
I assumed he was fired Because of a drinking problem - but I could be wrong.
I don’t think there’s going to be many “haven’t seen it yet” folk reading this thread, but to them I want to make a key point.
This type of movie really isn’t Mrs. FtG’s cup of tea. But she loved it. That’s how well it was done.
We saw Sallie Hawkins in Maudie recently. Also an amazing job there.
While I love Michael Shannon, he’s basically repeating himself now. This is too much like his Boardwalk Empire character and such.
Speaking of repeating. I kept noticing how similar AM is to Abe Sapien in Hellboy (aside from not sounding like Niles Crane, of course). Looked it up. Oh, that’s why.
So many questions about the flooding the bathroom scene (what was she going to do with the water afterwards?), but got to let them go.
Too bad about the cat.
Between this and Stranger Things, it’s not a good time for cats. And hey, Cats on Broadway just closed (again)! But I digress.
I’ve never seen a del Toro movie, and if I’m being honest, before it started I asked my wife if he was the weird-looking guy from the beer commercials. Having said that, I did not like this film. The leading lady was very charming and did a great job with no dialogue, but Jenkins to me seemed out of place, and the creature was hard not to laugh at. Shannon was fine, but with no motivation he came across as two-dimensional. Octavia Spencer did the best she could with her facial expressions but even they were cartoony.
Obviously it’s doing well; maybe it’s just me. But come Oscar time I will definitely be rooting for something else.
(Saw the movie today.) Except he wasn’t just a communist, but a Soviet mole. But, yes, I did notice that the conspirators were all outsiders, or had something to hide.
And the score seemed to involve the melody of the song Smile. Was I just hearing things?
The IMDb score page doesn’t list it. Perhaps you’re thinking of You’ll Never Know. Fairly similar song and used quite a bit in the background.
Several posts referred to this as a film about the 1950’s. It’s actually set in 1962. There are various references to current movies and TV shows in it that locate it in that year. I can’t find a website that collects everything which points to that year, but that’s what most websites say.
It’s also explicitly shown in the film as being 1962. I forget exactly how, maybe a newspaper headline, but that date is shown as being the current year.
For one thing, the Cadillac cars in the dealership are labeled as 1962 models. I think there’s also a reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I agree entirely with this. Overall, I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but Strickland was way too cartoon villain for me. I get that he represents all the negative things about American exceptionalism, but maybe he could have at least loved his children, for example? If there had been something about him or his life that he actually loved, I think it would have been a stronger motivator for him and would have added some much-needed nuance.
It’s particularly noticeable since the other performances were so strong and we’re watching for facial cues and body language sharply due to Elisa. His performance stuck out like a [del]sore[/del] severed thumb.
I agree. I also never got the sense that “Charlie” was anything more than a human-shaped Dolphin…so their relationship was a woman having sex with something slightly more than a pet.
I think you are absolutely right. He lost his job and probably his relationship with Bernie(?) because of the drinking.
Damn, exactly right. You articulated why it bothered me - the contrast with the other performances was so extreme.
It isn’t I think the fault of the actor - it seems that’s just how his part was written.
As a white male Republican, I just take off for granted that nearly every movie or TV show will make conservative white makes the villains.
Funny thing is, Guilermo del Toro is much whiter than I am!
That’s nice. Do you have anything to say about the movie that is the subject of this thread?
I agree with both of these and think solving both problems could happen at the same time. We could have used about 20 minutes less of Richard Jenkins’ character’s story and shifted that time to more…
…of showing the romance between Sally Hawkins and Charlie. I may have to watch it again, but the more I sit back and think of it, the more I don’t really see an actual love between the characters. I mostly see it as quite one-sided. Charlie was more interested in her as a new thing (he was keen to explore the world after all) more so than as someone he’s falling in love with.
I thought it was a good movie overall, but it could have been more and that’s making me wish there was.
Chirp Chirp!
I usually like del Toro movies but this one was too predictable and frankly boring. It’s basically a different take on Creature From The Black Lagoon with the creature getting the girl. The undertones of bestiality didn’t do much for me either, the heroine is basically screwing a fish. The film just didn’t work for me.
That’s exactly what it is. From an interview with the director in The Los Angeles Times: