Reply to All
Show messages
Messages
Inbox
Search
Login
1–10
11–17
Shape of Water
From: Laurence Burke (LAURENCE_BURKE)
17 Jan 2018 09:09
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)
7 of 17
42097.7
In reply to
42097.6
I also like his silliness to friend.
APPROVED: 17 Jan 2018 12:02 by MILKO
From: william (WILLIAMA)
1 Jul 2018 11:20
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)
8 of 17
42097.8
In reply to
42097.1
Finally saw it. Feeling a bit ambivalent really. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but at the same time I felt a bit 'is that all there is?' at the end. All of the performances were good, especially Sally Hawkins, but apart from her they didn't break a sweat fitting (albeit very well) into well-worn character roles. I felt the fish-man was underdone to the point where I longed for something to make me care about his fate, or think of him as anything other than a bloke in a fish costume. There was a kind of polished reproduction-world thing going on: the feeling that the world where the film was staged was an immense and detailed museum. Films that do this kind of things , for instance Amelie, the Grand Budapest Hotel, Hugo and probably several others, usually use the style to showcase fast-moving, complex plots. The plot here is as simple as it gets and the result is that although it looks gorgeous, it also looks (imho) a tad thin.
A few reviewers have said that it's his best film. For me it isn't quite up there with Cronos, the Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth.
From: Austin (COREY_AUSTIN)
3 Jul 2018 11:26
To: ALL
9 of 17
42097.9
Hi friends does anyone watch Shape of Water movie is it really good movie? any suggestion
APPROVED: 5 Jul 2018 17:50 by MATT
From: william (WILLIAMA)
5 Jul 2018 13:37
To: ALL
10 of 17
42097.10
Can I assume that 42097.9 concerns 'Secrets of Netflix' or 'Grow an extra willy in 3 easy steps' or are all the mods off enjoying the exceptional UK sunshine?
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)
5 Jul 2018 16:29
To: william (WILLIAMA)
11 of 17
42097.11
In reply to
42097.10
Perhaps another non sequitur like 42097.7?
From: william (WILLIAMA)
5 Jul 2018 21:22
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)
12 of 17
42097.12
In reply to
42097.11
Quite likely. There's another post awaiting moderation somewhere. I can't remember which thread.
Edit: Oh, right. I see. And the other one as well.
EDITED: 5 Jul 2018 21:23 by WILLIAMA
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)
6 Jul 2018 13:53
To: william (WILLIAMA)
13 of 17
42097.13
In reply to
42097.12
Speaks bottish...
From: Manthorp
8 Jul 2018 13:12
To: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)
14 of 17
42097.14
In reply to
42097.1
I loved it. My mum - a discerning art house-filmgoer at 84 - hated it for the violence, which she always hates.
It was one of those classic recursive paeons of love to cinema by a director utterly consumed by the form. The attention to period art direction was meticulous, even if the script & acting didn't quite follow suit. The ending was inevitable from within the first hour.
FWR: Free Willy with willy.
From: william (WILLIAMA)
8 Jul 2018 15:05
To: Manthorp
15 of 17
42097.15
In reply to
42097.14
I kind of agree. My issue is that I think that in his consumption of and by the form, he lost track of the script and acting far too much.
From: CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)
9 Jul 2018 13:40
To: Manthorp
16 of 17
42097.16
In reply to
42097.14
I thought the ending revelation
where, it transpired, the heroine has gills, which she herself hadn't known
was masterfully subtle.