You’re worried about the fact that there are some big gaping holes in the plot logic? That’s pretty common. I don’t worry so much about films (like this one) which don’t pretend to be anything close to scientifically accurate. I’m more bothered by all the films based on true stories which are wildly different than that true story.
Saw it the other night. I wanted to like it more and appreciate the love story in it but didn’t really find much there. In fact I found Eliza to be the least interesting character and rather immature. She didn’t come off as “lonely” but rather just “really, really horny”.
I thought Russian mole was the more sympathetic character and had a more interesting story to tell. Richard Jenkin’s character was also interesting and again more sympathetic. Same with Octavia Spencer.
Michael Shannon was a bit over the top but at least they didn’t make him a prick at home also. His wife was really into him and the kids liked him. Having him under the heavy thimb of the general also showed some of his motivations.
She’s not deaf.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I really enjoyed this movie. Not sure if it should have won Best Picture, but it did. I thought part of Strickland’s problem, besides the aforementioned pressure from the General, was all the painkillers he was slamming. He was still a huge dick, but not entirely his fault. (90%?)
Another thing that make me chuckle when I thought of it, she sure boiled a lot of eggs before the end!
Just saw the film on video.
Agree with all of this. The Michael Shannon character was way over the top, and cartoonish.
Another problem for me was the Hoffstetler character (Russian spy). The murkiness of his motivations bugged me.
Having said all that, I’d give the film a positive review. Perhaps three stars out of four. The performances were good, and the visuals were fabulous. Just didn’t live up to all the hype for me.
Nevertheless,
It was weird, worth watching once I guess. I’ll never see it again. And I sure as hell don’t know how it won an Oscar.
I agree that it’s strange and surprising that it won, but although I didn’t think it was the best movie of the year I do think it was more deserving than the other nominees and a better choice then we get most years.
So what did you think was the best film of the year?
Glad you asked! 
Here are my top 10:
Loving Vincent
Blade Runner 2049
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
The Shape of Water
Phantom Thread
Spider-Man: Homecoming
Downsizing
Call Me by Your Name
The Killing of a Sacred Deer
Battle of the Sexes
So I believe “Call Me” is the only other one on that list that was even nominated.
ETA: Or was “Phantom Thread” also nominated? That’s a close call, so I would have been happy with it winning as well.
The Shape of Water, Call Me by Your Name, and Phantom Thread were all nominated.
I finally saw it a couple days ago, and the best way I can describe it is “Wow - what a trip!” I enjoyed it, although I probably won’t see it again. The whole thing was an exercise in credulity-straining from start to finish, and that’s OK by me.
The opening scenes show us gliding through a ship at the bottom of the ocean, eventually reaching Elisa, who is asleep and alone. The rest of the movie that follows shows how she got there. Maybe the point of the movie is not about a developing love story, but about Elisa’s journey “home” (which was Dorothy’s motivation in The Wizard of Oz). Note that as Elisa was passing a store on her way out, she stopped for a moment to peer longingly at a pair of red slippers.
That’s not a ship. Although we enter through an underwater cave or opening, that’s Elisa’s hallway and then her apartment. Look at the windows and the furniture. She’s “home,” but it’s now underwater.
Just finished watching it and boy that was a weird movie. I loved it though.
I have a question for people who watched the movie:
I found the novelization of TSoW in the library a few months ago, and checked it out. And, like, ninety percent of Strickland’s (that was his name, right?) characterization was internal. Take away all the stuff going on in his head, and you’ve pretty much got nothing left. Just a bland, boring cardboard cutout of a bad guy.
How did the movie handle this? How did it show his inner turmoil, the slow dissolution of his civilized persona? Did it include the motif of screaming monkeys from the book? I hope it showed something, anyway.
In the movie Michael Shannon played him as semi-psychotic and very very scary. His inner turmoil was shown as outer turmoil. His slow dissolution was symbolized by the fact that his re-attached fingers (that the monster had bitten off) slowly rotted and became gangrenous. Not at all subtle. No screaming monkeys were necessary.
Yeah, one of my many criticisms of the movie is that Michael Shannon’s character was just way too over the top unhinged. There’s a right way to demonstrate a psycho antagonist (Anton Chigurh) and there’s a wrong way and of course a lot in between. I felt this was definitely on the wrong end of the spectrum.
I thought the film was thought-provoking on many levels. The Amazonian fish man had a very innocent type of soul. Lonely, tortured, far away from the only home he knew, confused, and marked for death.
Man’s inhumanity to man is sometimes best shown on a non-human.
Sally Hawkins performance was excellent. For openers, the most established actress won’t do fully nude scenes let alone play a mute but there was something extra about her character that requires connecting the dots. Her neck looks like once had gills, and she was very relaxed in a screen that was a near drowning in the bathroom, so perhaps it was fate that both the two together, allowing the Amazonian fish man to use his innate power for healing and give her gills on the spot in which they looked to have belonged.