The Shape of Water, where to begin. Again we were lucky enough to catch this early at an Odeon Screen Unsceen a few weeks ago. A Del Toro picture about a mute woman that forms a relationship with an otherworldly creature kept in a research facility in the 50's. When this first got a bit of buzz all I remember hearing was, a woman has sex with a fish man. That is a bit odd right? We'll get back to that but it's Del Toro so get over it.
Guillermo del Toro is known for his fantasy characters and settings and his peculiar stories. As per usual he has a story which embellishes the use of intricate costume and make up. And this is no exception.
The 1950's setting is pretty perfect for the story, though we were given odd reminders. It's an interesting take that in the 50's two of the characters that have the most dialogue are a closeted gay man and a black woman. But in return the film handles the stigma towards each of them in an odd rashness that just isn't necessary to the narrative. Yes it happened and yes it should be accurate but was less than subtle on occasion and felt out of place at times.
Now Oscar nominated Sally Hawkins plays our mute leading lady Elisa Esposito. She comes across quiet, not just because she can't talk but because she lets others do the talking. She has a routine and as we find out, a tragic backstory. She's quite quirky and has long accepted she can't speak but not quite accepted that people treat her differently. My gal Octavia Spencer is of course nominated for Best Support as Zelda, one of Elisa's two friends. Used to having a silent friend she does a great job in talking to herself and reacting to Elisa's lack of vocal reaction. Her other best friend relies on Elisa more than he realises, Giles, who lives next door though it may as well be together. Again Oscar nominated, are you sensing a theme? Richard Jenkins plays an older man who is struggling to get back into selling his art to advertisers. Struggling to be true to himself he, like Elisa, sees a part of him in the Amphibian Man and his treatment. Michael Stuhlbarg is fantastic, plays a character with a developed backstory and earns his likeability. Feels like he's the only aspect of the film to not get recognised by the academy, which is a shame as he really was great to watch. Michael Shannon is pretty damn engaging. He's pretty awful, pretty extra. Great character, power hunger aggressor in and out of work. Being the person that captured the Amphibian man he holds a level of possessiveness.
The amphibian man, who is never named (not even when Elisa brings him home) is played by Doug Jones. At this point Doug must be bessie mates with Guillermo, his most well-known parts include, Abe Sapien from Hellboy (2008) and Fauno/Pale Man from Pan's Labyrinth (2006). Outside of Del Toro's work he's played a lot of roles which are alien or monster or mutant, I hope he doesn't take that personally. But he's good at it. The creature begins just that, a creature, an animal, regardless of its potential intelligence we can't communicate. After Elisa begins to teach him basic sign language we see that he is capable of learning and remembers the humane habits she keeps. That's kind of the extent of his character development, anything further than that is more Elisa's feelings projected onto him.
The relationship between Elisa and the creature is okay, you don't entirely buy into it but you kinda do. She has a thing for water so connecting that to sex isn't a great leap for her somehow. The distance put between her and most people due to her muteness isn't there with him as he's in the same position. And regards to the sex thing she very briefly discusses how it works, only see lady body parts I'm afraid. Though we see their relationship we see a biased version from her perspective and don't get to see how he feels throughout. But that's likely the point.
Racking up 13 academy award nominations the costume and makeup have got to get some attention. Both work well with the environment, Del Toro's use of practical effects comes as authentic and true. The artistic element to it is emphasised with the music and score, rightly so, has received many nominations. Beautifully fitting to the narrative and each scene, the highlight of the movie for me personally.
I thought the ending was fitting. I felt oddly satisfied when the credits rolled which is all I want from a film. It is a good film, maybe a great film but 13 nominations feels almost excessive for something that isn’t quite timeless yet, but hey time will tell. Beautiful film worth a watch 7.5/10
CIINEMATES - A
You might have read other reviews where I've mentioned Odeon Screen Unseen, but let me remind you. Once every month or two Odeon previews a film at a discounted rate. For the second time this year they had Scream Unseen, a preview of a horror movie. That is how I saw The Ritual, completely blind, no trailer, no idea.
I think that made it better, watching the trailers now it feels a little try hard. So the story follows 4 friends camping in Sweden as a send off to the 5th friend who was killed before the trip was booked. British lads, British film, European location, our man Andy Serkis producing this adapted novel by Adam Nevill.
If you can, go in without seeing anything. The murder of one of the friends happens almost immediately and is just the crutch to start the journey. That scene was jarring, maybe more so to me because the trailers hadn't ruined the visuals for me. But it was abrupt in a normal everyday setting and I think the contrast is a bit shocking. Soon after we're thrust into the woods. And it's the best part of the film. The first and second act are captivating. Then like many horrors, especially ones with a hidden monster when the monster is revealed it goes downhill a little.
Cinematography was what it needed to be. The shots made me nervous. The gorgeous woods with long thin trees covering darkness. It slowly zooms as if to direct your eyes to something hidden, you find that you brace yourself, getting tense about something you may or may not even see. The aesthetic is somewhat interesting with the heavy use of wood and folklore. The main character Luke, has dreams mixing the woods with his memory of his deceased friend. We get some great images of a convenience store dripping into the woods, fluorescent lights against the natural woods, the tiled floors with the dirt on the ground. Quite interesting to see, great symbolism for Lukes growing guilt with his increasing fear.
The cast is great, natural as mates, Luke played by Rafe Spall, is the protagonist. I feel he has a good balance of showing his guilt and not wanting to admit there's a reason to be guilty in the first place. He remains somewhat level headed as things get stressful. There's a creepy scene in which each of the characters wake up all of which in peculiar ways and they each deal with it differently. Poses the question of, how would you deal with this, how would I deal with this situation? Good British ensemble, can't say how it relates to the book, whether the characters are brought out well enough, whether they match how they're written.
The tag line 'they should have gone to Vegas' seems an odd tone to me, the film is funny, but not overtly. It's an odd angle to sell as it's definitely not prominent in the story. It does have it's scares, it does get uneasy. The sound helps this, as you can imagine in a forest lush with trees and a possible monster the silence was imposing. Nothing but cracked sticks under feet and grown men chatting. Both the shots and the sound leave empty space and let you build your own expectations as to what may fill it.
As I mentioned before the first two acts are very good, the final act is kinda whatever. Once the mystery is gone it's kinda meh. The risk is a little less though a they try to have little moments of what's next but it doesn't have the same oomph. And the end is also rather lackluster, though I will say it's a beautiful shot though abrupt.
Good film, worth a watch but it feels as if the small marketing matches the quality, can't decide how funny to be but the cast are natural together 6/10
Lucky enough to catch one of Odeons Screen Unseen premieres this week, where you buy a ticket for a fiver and you don't know what it's going to be. Previous films this year have been Get Out and Baby Driver. Both films Odeon deemed to be potential classics, so we had high hopes for what we were about to see. It was The Big Sick and it didn't disappointment.
The Big Sick is about a couple that deals with their cultural differences as their relationship develops. This is based on real couple writer and actor Kumail Nanjiani and his wife, fellow writer, Emily V. Gordon. Nanjiani, brown, from Pakistani, trying to rebuff every advance for arranged marriage his mum pushes. Emily, white, American, didn't really want a relationship but that Kumail man is pretty charming. Nanjiani is a stand up comedian who is trying to make his way forward and get acknowledged and Emily is finishing her degree and looking to become a psychiatrist. They don't really deal with their differences until they become a problem, because if it ain't broke, you know? There's a break up due to culture clashing and thoughts of deception but before we have a good chance to deal with this Emily gets sick. She gets the big sick. After being taken into hospital Kumail goes to look after her and meets her parents for the first time. This moment is almost when the film really begins. I think how we are shown each character and their family is pretty great. We see only see Nanjiani's family when they are with him. Whereas in contrast we only see Emily's family when she isn't there. This changes towards the end of the film, where people start to intertwine as they should, but it's still quite a strong choice. It's Kumail with both sides, with both cultures.
The cast was great, Nanjiani is funny and charming as he is in most things including Silicon Valley. He's sweet and genuine and even when Emily finds reason to dislike him, as an audience you don't. Emily is played by Zoe Kazan, wonderfully cast, I think personally because she hasn't been in too many big things. So it was even easier to just see her as the character. That and the fact that half the film we're told what she's like from other people and not from her. It's like she exists. Her parents are played by Holly Hunter and Ray Romano. Hunter is a strong mother in this as she is as Elastigirl in The Incredibles (2004), in case you're wondering why she sounded familiar. It was great to see Romano as someone new, he was great, funny and again genuine, this film has such fresh performances from the cast.
Now Judd Apatow produced this, and not directed, and you can tell because the film isn't 40 minute too long like most of his directed features. It had some of the same humour but you could definitely tell it was written by Nanjiani and that it was written by a couple. It did really well to have genuine stand up moments, being awkward and not completely funny. As if they knew they wanted the stand up to be funny but not as funny as the real life happening around it. Some of the stand up I recognised from Nanjiani, his own works and interviews. The interactions between him/his character and Emily are real, they don't feel forced. That was something that was written and cast well. His family were well written as to use cultural differences to add comedy but not as the butt of the joke. Race jokes were of course there and there is a particular 9/11 joke that had the entire audience cackling. As much as race and culture were involved in the comedy it wasn't there just as a punchline.
Very sweet film, only a slight bit too long I'd say. Lots of laughs, and a good amount of tears too, if you're into romantic comedies this might be a tad bit heavier than you expected but definitely worth the watch. A refreshing 7.5/10
CINEMATES - A
