MovieChat Forums > The Shape of Water (2017) Discussion > One of the stupidest movies I've ever se...

One of the stupidest movies I've ever seen! (Spoilers galore!)



I only went to see this turd because two web sites mentioned it as a possible nominee for Best Picture Oscar. WOW! Was I ever misled! I give it a 3/10, and I'm being generous. That's two hours of my life I'll never get back again.

Where do I begin? First the total lack of originality. This is nothing more than a ridiculous mashup of The Creature From the Black Lagoon and Splash. But at least in Splash Tom Hanks fell in love with Daryl Hannah. Here Hawkins falls in love with a hideous gill creature. Not only that, it's implied that they have sex! Eeeeeuuuwww! GROSS! Bestiality! YUCK! That is some sick and disgusting stuff there! 😣 And it was obvious that is was just a man in a rubber suit.
I don't like CGI, but maybe they should have used some in this bomb.

Now the stupidity:

1. In a top secret government lab, they let the cleaning women have pretty much total access to the room where they're storing a valuable "asset".

2. Hawkins' character Eliza and her fellow cleaning woman are instructed to clean up the room after a bloody attack on Michael Shannon's character. Huh? Security?? Secrecy??

3. Michael Shannon's character Strickland is a cardboard cartoon villain. He's mean just for the sake of being mean. And the government allows him to abuse this valuable "asset"?? PUH-lease! And did I mention that Shannon chews the scenery something fierce?

4. Then Eliza is able to just waltz into the room and have lunch with the creature, multiple times! And then play music for it?? Are you friggin' kidding me?? Who the hell is in charge of security here? Mickey Mouse??

5. Eliza and her co-conspirators are able to get into a top secret lab and make off with the creature?? What??

6. Eliza moves one of the security cameras, and nobody notices?? Yikes!!

7. The government is so possessive of this valuable asset. But what do they plan to do with it?
Kill it! Are you kidding? Even the government is not that stupid, except in this turd.

8. She fills the bathroom with water (to make love with the creature YUCK!) which leaks into the cinema below, and nobody calls the cops? Or at least a plumber? Right!

9. Strickland sees the words rain/canal and knows exactly where to find the lovers?? Yeah right!

10. Instead of diving into the canal to be free, the creature stops to say goodbye which allows Strickland to shoot him and Eliza? Holy cliche, Batman!

OH THE HUMANITY! This film was STUPID STUPID STUPID! I'm never going to pay attention to that web site again!

Bottom Line: Do NOT waste your time and money on this monstrosity. Go see "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri" instead. Now there's a good film!



😎

reply

11. Eliza starts to profess her love for him but all he can think about is eggs!

reply


Yes! No. 11!


😎

reply

12. Eliza is horny as hell. Could she and the old man not have worked out a bang arrangement seeing as they both were struggling to score on Grindr

reply

This is funny. Sometimes the points you've mention would make me hate a movie as much as you hated TSOW. I don't know why but other times I completely ignore plot holes and absurdities if a movie has something else to offer. This one certainly has. It's very unique. It's beautiful. It's green. And I think it's consistent - it never tries to be serious.

I was confused after watching it. But the more I think of it, the more I like it. You just have to treat it as a fairy-tale. At Golden Globes it was nominated in the Drama category which is in my opinion totally wrong. If they didn't show tits and [SPOILER AHEAD] a cat without its head, it could have been a pretty good family movie.

reply

I have to agree man, I was looking forward to this movie and it opens with a flat hand masturbation, then I knew I was in trouble.

I felt this was some sort of masturbation movie after a while and then bestiality or something.

That said, the movie itself is well done and I can see why the critics would go nuts but for me a regular joe sjmoe, I will say hard pass.

What the hell is up with that rubber suit?

reply

I too thought it was shit.

The cat didn't need to die either... totally unnecessary.

reply

Alright MovieMan let's do this.
I was "forced" to watch this film. It would not have been my first choice.
Not because of the movie but I'm either hit or miss on Guillermo del Toro.
After seeing it I'm extremely glad I did.

You said lack of originality. Have you ever seen this kind of movie before?
It was a shout out to "old Hollywood." If it reminded you of Creature From the Black Lagoon---good. It was supposed to.
It was a love story. You say bestiality. Why is it bestiality? He was half man half fish. Why do we choose to
pick the "animal" side of it? 50% of him was human. Why not pick this half ?

This is a fantasy movie. This "gill man" doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist how can you say it's not right.
I like the fact that he doesn't use much GGI. Like I said it was a throw back to the days when that didn't exist.
For me it was kind of a melding of past and present effects.

The story was secondary for me. I truly appreciated the cinematography and sequences in this film.
They were beautifully shot and a great music to accompany it.

Does it make any kind of sense. NO. Of course it doesn't. It's a fantasy movie. That's the magic of it.
If you want reality then don't watch these types of movies or just watch the news.

Shannon was perfect. He played the prototypical bad guy. Yes he did. He was supposed to.
Again this is a throwback to movies from that era. Not every bad guy has to be Hannibal Lecter.
They certainly weren't back in those days. He did however have a modern day edge to him.

I thought the casting was perfect. Each actor portrayed the character the way it was meant to be.

For me it was like a spell that took me back to my childhood watching old sci-fi movies.
Only a little more twisted.

I'm not saying it's perfect.
I loved Jenkins character. He made me laugh. I sometimes got the impression that they made his character
gay for the sake of being gay. I'm trying to figure out if he wasn't gay would it have changed the movie.

I'm not a fan of movies or shows that do this.
If you want a gay character then great. I'm all for it.
Just not to have a gay character though.

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed it .





reply


Did I mention that it was one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen?


😎

reply

Oh shit , I must have missed that part.

Where did you say that?????

reply


Keep the day job, Schecky.


😎

reply

This is my day job. So I will keep it.

Thanks for tip, Soupy.

reply


You're welcome, Skippy.


😎

reply

It's like a group of messed in the head liberals got together and told each of other their fetishes and slapped it in the script about top secret military project.

reply


Yeah, that sounds like a pretty accurate description to me.


😎

reply

This movie sounds just as good as Twilight.

reply


LOL! Yes!


😎

reply

"In a top secret government lab, they let the cleaning women have pretty much total access to the room where they're storing a valuable "asset"."

Even today, security can be rather sloppy. There are always cases of top secret info leaking, whistleblowing, deliberate leaks. I've known people that worked in intelligence and they were fucking sloppy.

"Eliza moves one of the security cameras, and nobody notices??"

Dimitri notices when he is in Stricklands office. If the only feeds are in his office then it is small wonder no one notices as no one is monitoring.

reply