What did you think of The Shape of Water?

[Breathing]

I personally didn't like it much The special and practical effects to create the fish man were great. I was impressed by this character's look and presence. Elisa's morning routine did amuse me.
Overall though, the emotional tone of the movie seemed contrived. The cheesiness was strong throughout, and the dinner scene almost made me want crawl into the Earth's core and disintegrate. Also, there was no damn security in that facility lol. The characters (besides aqua man) came across a little flat. Or unrealistic? What really showed this was the scene when Elisa was talking to her friend Zelda about her affair with fish guy and she seemed pretty unfazed.
If you did like it, what did you like about it?
Tell me why if you didn't as well.
Overall it was erotic, silly, and kind of unfulfilling.

 

[Lark]

I thought it was great.

 

[Mal12345]

I thought it was great.

Why do you think it was great?

 

[Metis]

effects

Overall though, the emotional tone of the movie seemed contrived. The cheesiness was strong throughout

The characters (besides aqua man) came across a little flat. Or unrealistic?

This was how I felt when I saw previews of this movie, and that's part of why I didn't go see the movie itself. I also didn't care for Pan's Labyrinth or Cronos, both of which I saw when they came out on disk. So I wasn't expecting that I would like this one, and I don't plan on seeing it.

I've wondered about del Toro's movies in terms of MBTI, though. I had been thinking that they might appeal the most to ENFPs. That's based on several examples of performance art that I've disliked in a similar way and that were made by ENFPs.

 

[Breathing]

This was how I felt when I saw previews of this movie, and that's part of why I didn't go see the movie itself. I also didn't care for Pan's Labyrinth or Cronos, both of which I saw when they came out on disk. So I wasn't expecting that I would like this one, and I don't plan on seeing it.

I've wondered about del Toro's movies in terms of MBTI, though. I had been thinking that they might appeal the most to ENFPs. That's based on several examples of performance art that I've disliked in a similar way and that were made by ENFPs.

I've seen Pan's Labyrinth. Pan's Labyrinth's problems for me revolved around it dragging on. I distinctly remember being bored and wanting things to develop. Not as much cheese as The Shape of Water. Similar character development problems. Overall liked it though, at least conceptually. If only del Toro took the mystery and intensity of the scene with the pale man and spread that throughout the entire movie, I'd probably love it.

That's the thing with what I've seen from del Toro, I can get into the concept. The rest of the details going into the films miss the mark. I wonder if he is an ENFP himself, since this sounds somewhat like a problem one might have when creating a fantasy story. Got the wild, whimsical, feel-good, concept down, but the details need to be fleshed out. I don't know what exactly to say about ENFPs liking it though. Maybe drawn towards a more light and fun tone (not for all of course, I notice some xnfps can be into some dark media)? Their humor and presence can definitely be fun and light in general from what I've observed. Walt Disney is supposedly an ENFP. His work definitely portrayed a child-like and whimsical aesthetic. I think ENFPs maybe excel at this kind of aesthetic (which can come across cheesy if done a certain way) and can be drawn to it as well.
(maybe some INFPs have similar traits to their work and aesthetic as well)

Touching on MBTI again with The Shape of Water and Pan's Labyrinth: he placed what seemed to be stereotypically xnfp characters in the protagonist role and xstj characters in the antagonist role. I guess to show the strength of humility and sensitivity, or at least that is what I read from this. In The Shape of Water it really was like watching ridiculously boxed in types interact, which was amusing and a bit cringe-worthy....

 

[Totenkindly]

Pan's Labyrinth is my favorite del Toro movie, honestly. Also The Devil's Backbone has a lot going for it.

I liked The Shape of Water and I walked out of the theater finally feeling good about seeing a film on the big screen after so many films I had gone to the theater for in 2017 and coming out unimpressed. It had some magical elements that resonated, and the "imagined future" scene I think tops La La Land's. Sally Hawkins was just tremendous, Richard Jenkins also took a secondary part and made it unique and tangible; I'm glad he got a Supporting Actor nod although not a win (which Sam Rockwell understandably received).

Octavia Spencer and Michael Shannon were both solid but pretty much typecast, their roles weren't as interesting to me. They played out by rote. In fact, the story played out by rote. It was kind of predictable, and went where I thought it would, and seemed to be the weaker element. The creature (amazing makeup and performance by Doug Jones) really is just a foil for Sally Hawkins to respond to, she's the core of the film and was the most interesting performance in it.

I knew it would win Best Picture based on what it was competing with (because it had a feel-good vibe), although I think Three Billboards or Call Me By Your Name probably should have won instead. The academy didn't fail me. Again, not a bad film, and I felt good after watching it, but I felt like other del Toro films have had better stories and dialogue.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I thought this was a really good movie, although I didn't see any of the other best picture contenders. I liked the use of color and it was extremely visually interesting, which is something I always think movies should strive for as an amateur photographer. I also liked that it had a happy ending; I don't really think there's any ambiguity there like with Pan's Labyrinth. De Toro has a great eye for making things that are interesting to look it; Crimson Peak was gorgeous. I do think this was a better film than Pan's Labyrinth, which I didn't enjoy as much as I had hoped; I think it was perhaps overhyped at the time and I should probably give it another watch.

I think part of why I like this is that I watch a lot of B-movies, and I liked the way it inverted a 50s B-movie like Creature From the Black Lagoon (actually, I've only seen its sequel). Maybe that's not anything new in 2018, but I felt the creature was so well realized.

Watching this movie reminded of Blade Runner 2049 in a weird way in that I felt that it conjured up senses film doesn't even provide access to. I could smell (remember the red burning chocolate factory? I'm sure the use of red was deliberate), taste and touch scenes. I originally attributed that to the 3d effects of Blade Runner, but perhaps it's just something particularly skilled filmmakers can tap into.

I actually feel like 2017 (and 2018 so far) was a pretty good year for movies. I saw a lot of things in the theaters and I thought most of them were excellent for what they were trying to achieve. The only thing that fell short of this mark was It. I listened to a podcast where they made fun of the Tim Curry version, and said that the only good thing about it is Tim Curry. Maybe that's true, but while the 2017 It was entertaining, Tim Curry was much better as Pennywise. It wasn't a Heath Ledger Joker situation for me.... Tim Curry remains iconic in that role.

 

[Totenkindly]

I actually feel like 2017 (and 2018 so far) was a pretty good year for movies.

I think overall it ended up being pretty decent by the end. At least a number of the best picture contenders were actually good. my main disappointment were the genre movies, most of them didn't pan out as I had hoped, except for maybe Blade Runner 2049.

The way they backload the year, though, I end up scrambling to watch everything before the Oscars. This year I saw all the BP nominees except Call Me By Your Name, which I finally watched last week.

I saw a lot of things in the theaters and I thought most of them were excellent for what they were trying to achieve. The only thing that fell short of this mark was It. I listened to a podcast where they made fun of the Tim Curry version, and said that the only good thing about it is Tim Curry. Maybe that's true, but while the 2017 It was entertaining, Tim Curry was much better as Pennywise. It wasn't a Heath Ledger Joker situation for me.... Tim Curry remains iconic in that role.

Eh. They were two different versions of Pennywise. Curry was good but I can't really compare the two, because I also thought Skarsgaard was excellent. And the TV miniseries was SO terrible that it really pulls down the performance as well -- I mean, if you can't watch the TV miniseries because it's bad, what does it matter if there's a good performance? I mean, that's just my thought on it. They were just two appropriates takes on the same character.

IT was one of those films that I liked the first time (not LOVED, but liked) because it didn't totally suck which was my original fear -- but then on second viewing, I found myself more disappointed by it. It really is a work that needs to be done as a TV series with multiple seasons, which nowadays is actually feasible considering good series budgets + investments by studios.

 

[Beorn]

I couldn't make it past the first 20-30 minutes.

However...

PHANTOM THREAD WAS AMAZING!!!!!

 

[Totenkindly]

I couldn't make it past the first 20-30 minutes.

However...

PHANTOM THREAD WAS AMAZING!!!!!

Yeah, I watched that about a month ago finally. I had to make room in my best films of the year for it.

The music was absolutely gorgeous, I really think it was robbed of an Oscar -- the Shape of Water soundtrack wasn't nearly as good.