The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)

Summary:

A team of scientists, working with volatile material in a space station orbiting the Earth, performs an experiment that could potentially solve Earth’s energy crisis. But when the experiment goes awry, the scientists are put in a grave situation.

My Thoughts:

The original “Cloverfield” turns ten this year, and that film was fine. Not good. Not bad. Fine. Just fine.

There was nothing utterly remarkable about it, though it was a fun, albeit disorienting, found footage thriller. Perhaps the best thing about the first movie was probably it’s clandestine approach to marketing. Before “Cloverfield” was released, the only thing we knew about the movie was from the very vague teaser trailer and the poster featuring a headless Lady Liberty. When I first heard about the sequel, “10 Cloverfield Lane”, I believed it to be completely unnecessary, but upon seeing it, I was pleased to find it was superior to its predecessor. Ditching the found footage gimmick worked wonders for them, the script was tight and tense, and I thought John Goodman completely reinvented himself for his role in that film. The film had resuscitated a franchise that had lay cold and abandoned for the better part of a decade. So when I heard that they were doing a third Cloverfield movie, my ears perked up; I was intrigued. I wondered if they could top the second film, or if, perhaps, this film would be a sign that Hollywood should let this beast die in peace.

My verdict after watching: maybe let the franchise die. It deserves some dignity.

That is not to say that there isn’t some good here; there is. The special effects won’t win any awards, but they don’t look as bad as some things I’ve seen of late; the acting, done by an A- and B-list cast, is absolutely fine (there’s that word again: fine). Chris O'Dowd is the most likeable character, though his comic relief is frequently out of  place. That’s about the extent of the good, however. There are many, many problems with “Paradox”, but the biggest issues are the writing, which is repetitive and sophomoric, and the story, which is utterly ridiculous, and filled with plot and loopholes. I thought about tagging spoilers throughout, but really there are so many ludicrous twists that it’d be hard to write a review without spoiling some things. In lieu of spoiler tags, I’m just letting you know that spoilers follow. You’ve been warned.

Hamilton (Gugu Mbatha-Raw, “Beauty and the Beast (2017)”) and her husband Michael (Roger Davies) wait in a long line at a gas station. There is an energy crisis on earth, and several countries, specifically Russia and Germany, are on the brink of war. It’s revealed that Hamilton is going to head up into space to be part of a team that will experiment with the Sheppard Particle Accelerator, which, if successful, could provide energy for the world indefinitely. Flash forward two years, and Hamilton is up in the space station with other scientists, still trying to figure out how to make this particle accelerator work. Among the crew are Schmidt (Daniel Bruhl, “Captain America: Civil War”), Mundy (Chris O’Dowd, “Bridesmaids”), Kiel (David Oyelowo, “Gringo”), Volkov (Aksel Hennie, “The Martian”), and Monk (John Ortiz, “Kong: Skull Island”). Plenty of fodder for the slaughter to come…

Hamilton talks to her husband on Earth through a telecom channel, telling him they only have enough fuel for a few more tests. It’s a bittersweet predicament. Hamilton misses her husband, but knows the work they’re doing in space could be important. The crewmembers go about preparing the next experiment while the news plays in the background. A harbinger warns, in lengthy expositional dialogue, that the experiments could open portals to different dimensions. The man warns that aliens, monster, or demons could come through this portal, but it could also rupture the space-time continuum, meaning that what they’re doing could not only affect the present, but the past and future as well… Perhaps the greatest part of the Cloverfield franchise was that the origin of the creature was shrouded in secrecy. The beast was like Lovecraft’s Cthulhu and the Great Old Ones; terrifying because we could not truly grasp what they were. By explaining where the monster comes from, the creators of the monster have effectively killed that murky mythos, and they’ve done so in a way that makes the beast seem cheesy. This was also the first place I laughed out loud, but don’t worry, there are plenty of other far-fetched ideas to come.

They crew members start the experiment and the ship shudders as the particle accelerator actually begins to work, but then there is a surge of power and crew members have to rush around to put out fires. After this is done, the crewmembers try to get their bearings but are shocked to discover they are no longer orbiting Earth. They hear screaming coming from behind a wall, and without a logical explanation, they open the wall panel to reveal a woman (Elizabeth Debicki, “Widows”) trapped inside, skewered by the inner wires and metal workings. She looks directly at Hamilton and says her name; the delivery is dripping with melodrama, and instead of bringing tension it instead prompted more laughs from my roommates and myself.

Meanwhile, Hamilton’s husband Michael awakens back on Earth to an explosion. He checks his phone and realizes that something horrible has happened, but nobody has an explanation as to what it is specifically. He decides to go to help the victims. How is he going to help the victims? Why is he charging headfirst into a danger zone like a deranged Kenny Loggins? Who knows, but it progresses the plot, so who really cares, right? Michael’s subplot is crudely stitched in throughout the film; every time we break from the space station to rejoin him on Earth, the scenes feel completely unnecessary and out of place. His storyline added nothing, in my personal opinion; they could’ve cut twenty minutes from the film and saved us all some time.

Eventually we learn that the space station has been transported across the galaxy, and not only that, but they’re also, somehow, in an alternate dimension. Cool, thought I, drinking up this tiny bit of goodness like a forgotten houseplant that’s gotten its first taste of water in weeks. I wanted this movie to be good, or at least watchable, so I had retained a bit of hope throughout the first forty-five minutes. There haven’t been a ton of multiverse movies, and none of them have been very good. Maybe this could redeem the rest of the film. Nope. The way the writers approach multiverse theory is silly; even Adult Swim’s “Rick and Morty” provides a more compelling, comprehensive picture of the theory.

The characters in this story continuously make bad decisions for seemingly no reason throughout the film. Why? Because it puts the characters in peril and the producers seemed to want a body count. These people are supposed to be the best of the best; the scientists that all of Earth has put their trust in. Many of the choices they make don’t make any sense at all. It’s frustrating but also unintentionally hilarious. I can’t say I was bored during the movie, but I can also guarantee I’ll never watch it again.

Another major issue I had with the film was the unimaginative production design- particularly the interior of the ship. The set looked like it was a repurposed or forgotten “Alien” setpiece. The hallways were claustrophobic and cramped, the lighting, mostly florescent, made the characters look pale and gaunt. This film looked like any other space-travesty movie you’ve seen: “2001: A Space Odyssey”, “Sunshine”, “Solaris”, even “Event Horizon”… If you’ve seen any of those, then you know what to expect as far as design.

As real scientific theories are introduced and then wildly broken into mumbo-jumbo to fit the purpose film, people on the ship start to die or befall accidents in horrible, but (sometimes) funny ways; worms exploding from faces, arms disappearing through wormholes. During one scene, Chris O’Dowd’s character says that he “Doesn’t know the rules anymore.” Neither do we. There are no discernable rules. The writers seemed to enjoy making stuff up as they went in an attempt to keep the viewer off-guard. We’ll I was caught off-guard by what they had to offer, but it wasn’t in the way they’d have liked. I found myself laughing, rolling my eyes, and making jokes more and more frequently as the film went on. As the risible final shot came onscreen, I said that I prayed they wouldn’t make a fourth Cloverfield movie. But hey, there’s money to be made, and Netflix will apparently greenlight anything.

Verdict:

“10 Cloverfield Lane” is easily the best of the three Cloverfield movies, but the interesting thing about this franchise is that it is an anthology series; none of the characters from previous films appear in the others. Potentially, a fourth film could once again reinvigorate the franchise, but “Paradox” has created a multitude of problems for any future follow-ups in this universe. “Paradox” is not the worst movie I’ve seen this year, but it is a galaxy away from the best (at least it’s better than Netflix’s “Bright”). 2.5 stars out of 5 is the best rating that I can give it, and that’s being generous.

Edit: One day after posting this review I learned that Cloverfield 4 (AKA “Overlord”) is already in post production, and is expected to release later this year. This time, they're opting out of Netflix for a theatrical release. Apparently the film will be set during the WW2 era, so it will play off this film in that the spacetime continuum has been permanently ruptured. JJ Abrams, the producer, has apparently already seen the film, and been quoted saying that Overlord is a "Crazy movie." D-Day paratroopers will fight Nazi's allied with supernatural powers. Well... I can't say that doesn't pique my interest. Watch for my thoughts on that later this year. EDIT EDIT: The Cloverfield tie-in was scrapped, but “Overlord” was alright.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

MARY AND THE WITCH'S FLOWER (2018)

SUMMARY

Staying in the country with her Great Aunt in the country is boring little Mary to tears. With no one to play with really, she follows a couple of neighborhood cats into the woods and finds a blue flower and a broomstick. The rare flower Mary has found gives her magical powers and the broom whisks her off to a magical school with a magical and terrifying secret.

MY THOUGHTS

To be honest, I was i bit disappointed in this film. Maybe it's just that I have been spoiled by Studio Ghibli movies but this first offering from new Studio Ponoc felt like well trod territory to me. If you have never seen Studio Ghibli films like “Spirited Away,” then I suppose this movie would seem extremely innovative. However, I feel about this film the way I felt about Pixar’s “Good Dinosaur”. It’s alright. In fact for an extremely young child it would be preferable to “Spirited Away” since that film is more intense.

That is the problem though. This film seems like a movie a kid might outgrow and certainly I felt like an adult in a kid’s movie as I watched.

That being said, the animation is beautiful. On par with Studio Ghibli movies you can certainly see the roots of the director in that company. Some of the flying sequences are squeal worthy, they are so fun.

But that is really the extent of it. I felt it was too slow, especially when the characters are as simple as these are. Even the story seems very derivative of “Spirited Away,” Narnia, and Harry Potter. What a unique idea. A kid has magical powers and ends up going to a magic school where she finds out that she holds the secret to destroying some great darkness.

Yup. No big twists here guys.

VERDICT

The simplicity of this film is the simplicity of a children’s book. It isn’t bad and even, I think, has its place. If you have young kids and tire of the latest Dreamworks drek and cash grab, this film will be quite refreshing, but if you are just and adult fan of anime, you can probably skip this one.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

Dark City (1998)

Summary:

A man with no memory awakes in an apartment to find a murdered woman beside him. In an attempt to learn his identity and the truth about the city in which he resides, the man becomes caught up in a twisted game of cat and mouse, only to find things are not at all what they seem.

My Thoughts:

I wanted, so badly, to love this movie.

The first minutes of this film were tailor made for my tastes. From the incredibly bizarre opening scene featuring an Igor-esque scientist played by Kiefer Sutherland (“The Lost Boys”); to the creepy, pale, corpselike men going about the city in their peculiar ways; to the shadowy, noir-like cinematography- this movie had me- hook, line, and sinker. The film continues to inspire suspense and surprise as it goes on, but seems to really loose focus towards the third act. Still, while this movie is not perfect by any means, it’s unique aesthetic alone puts it miles ahead of your average, run-of-the-mill blockbuster.

Reader’s Note: Before I go too far, though, I want to say that this film is best seen without any prior knowledge. I went into this movie blind as Ray Charles; I knew only that it was a sci-fi mystery. There will inevitably be some (minor) spoilers peppered throughout this review, but I will shy away from any major plot twists.

A man without memory (Rufus Sewell, “A Knight’s Tale”) awakens in a dark apartment where he discovers a woman covered in blood; the blood, inexplicably patterned to look like inward spiraling swirls. Suddenly, pale strangers in long black trench coats appear at the door. The man, confused and frightened, flees the strangers, but as he does, he discovers that the white strangers in black cloaks have a sort of telekinetic power, and to his shock, he too seems to possess a small inkling of that same power. As the story progresses, the man discovers his name, John Murdoch, and that he is married to Emma Murdoch (Jennifer Connelly, “Phenomena”). John and Emma reunite. John is still without his memory, but he’s begun to piece together bits of his life; with Emma’s help, he hopes to find out what is happening on the streets of the mysterious city.

Meanwhile, Inspector Bumstead (William Hurt, “A.I. Artificial Intelligence”) makes an entrance at the apartment where Murdoch first awoke. (Side note: Hurt easily gives the best performance here- I’ve come to love Hurt for his characteristic subtlety and monotone mumbling; Bumstead’s character benefits immensely from Hurt’s portrayal.) He is charged with the investigation of the woman murdered. Bumstead, while searching the apartment, finds evidence of Murdoch at the scene of the crime. He goes to Emma, hoping to find John. Emma attempts to convince Bumstead that John is innocent, and that there is something much larger going on behind the scenes. For reasons he can’t quite understand himself, Bumstead believes her.

Meanwhile meanwhile, (a lot happens in this movie, which is surprisingly under two hours in length) Dr. Schreber (Sutherland), an enigmatic scientist, works on a secret project for the strange men in black cloaks. I won't go into what’s going on here; as to do so would be to give away some of the twists.

There’s so much going on in this movie. The three main storylines overlap and weave through each other, for the most part, seamlessly. There are problems, however, many of which come from the length of the film. Like Alice after ingesting the “Eat Me” cakes, the story was much too large for the room it was given. I think this movie could’ve been great- a true sci fi classic- if it had been allowed to breathe.

There are many things done very right in this story- first is the setting. In a good story, setting is just as much of a character as the actual humanoid characters; setting can be moody, murky and brooding or cheery, colorful and bubbly. Setting is the invisible character that provides mood, backstory and crisis by simply being there. In this story, the crepuscular city is a more interesting character than many that live within it.

The design of “Dark City” lends itself to the incredible- the buildings (minor spoilers) move and grow into themselves, morphing old brick and steel into new architecture. This, right here, gives the world of “Dark City” plenty of intrigue. Even from the beginning, we know something is amiss with this tenebrous town, and Murdoch seems to be the only one attuned to the amorphous nature of the city. The dated special effects, it must be noted, do take away from the film, and while they don’t look terrible, it is distracting. The effects crew had a hard job to pull off; in some scenes they succeeded admirably, and in other scenes, particularly the climax, they failed; but the effort is still quite admirable.

The Good:

Alex Proyas has created a nightmarish pseudo-bureaucratic dystopia that is even more interesting than the world in which he set “The Crow”, and that in it of itself, is rather impressive (“The Crow” is another movie that, even with its flaws, I still enjoy the heck out of). These worlds have depth, and they hint at even deeper backstories. But I wanted more from this world. I easily could’ve watched another twenty or thirty minutes and not have been bored. In Proyas’s 90’s films, setting seemed to be everything, and it paid off. Proyas was onto something in the 90’s; sadly his latest works- “Knowing” and “Gods of Egypt” - have left a lot to be desired.

The story, though at times convoluted, is an interesting adventure in storytelling. There are plenty of twists, but if the viewer is paying close attention, they should be able to piece together what is happening before the end, as I did. Strangely, though I was able to take a guess at what was happening, that doesn’t make the film overly predictable- there is so much going on that there are bound to be some surprises along the way.

The Bad:

This film was so close to great, but it missed the mark a few times, and as a result, I imagine it is only a pale shadow of what Proyas envisioned. As I mentioned before, the third act is where the story really loses its focus. Near the end, all of the storylines are whirring about in a chaotic fashion- the storylines are like atoms in a particle accelerator- and as they collide, the result, as can be imagined, is explosive.

Now, ‘explosive’ could be taken by many to mean a great compliment to the movie, but that is not my intent. When I say the movie’s climax is explosive, I don’t mean that I was at the edge of my seat and I thought my eyes might pop out of their sockets. No, what I mean is that the film devolves into deliriously hectic pandemonium. I won't give anything away because “Dark City” is still 100% worth watching. But know that near the end, viewers are bombarded with twist after twist after twist and then, on bated breath, they are catapulted into a less-than-stellar special effects extravaganza that sadly looks, after nigh twenty years, slightly silly. The streamlined ending leaves the viewer little time to react to any of what is happening until after the climax has happened, the denouement has been hastily rushed past, the film is over, and the credits are rolling.

Verdict:

What started as a truly remarkable film ended up being a decent movie; there is a skeleton of a great film beneath all the bits that didn’t work. This movie is truly one of a kind. Watch it for the unique craziness that it is; there aren’t many films that boast this much originality, and even if this one doesn’t work on every level, it absolutely succeeds in entertaining the viewer from start to finish.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Bright (2017)

Summary:

In a quasi-fantastical alternate universe, two LA cops- one an Orc, and the other, human- must navigate the underworld to obtain a magic wand, which, if in the wrong hands, could be used as a deadly weapon.

My Thoughts

As an avid fan of all things fantasy, I looked forward to this movie with warranted skepticism. We fantasy fans have been hurt before, and recently (looking at you, Hobbit trilogy, “Warcraft”, “The Dark Tower”, etc.). Fantasy stories are hard to do right, primarily because the worlds in which the stories take place need so much work in order for them to feel like they have depth. Good fantasy films have rules for their magic systems, there are consequences when magic goes awry, races or species have deep cultures and backstories. Good fantasy stories create entire worlds that we can escape to.

This is not a good fantasy film.

The world in this film seems like a Frankenstein’s monster created from the mismatched limbs of other fantasy worlds. Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files is obviously a rather large influence as far as feel and tone, but Ayer pulls creature designs from Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft, Harry Potter and plenty of other mainstream fantasy worlds. Vague backstories and even vaguer prophecies make for a poorly established setting. The elves are in an elevated status, better than humans and orcs, though there is no real reason given for this elevation. Humans are in the middle, and orcs are at the bottom of the heap because they worshipped a dark deity two thousand years ago (I want to make note that the film uses this scrap of backstory to take several thinly-veiled jabs at religion). Other than the looks of the characters, however they all behave relatively the same (the races have different languages, but don’t think they went full Tolkien and developed dialect. It’s all mumbled jargon). The orcs mention a coming of age blood ritual, and that’s about the most insight we get into any of the species cultures. This isn’t a thought out fantasy world, it’s as half baked as they come.

Enough about the underdeveloped world of Bright, what about the actual story- does it offer anything new and exciting? Does Will Smith knock it out of the park? Is this Ayer’s best movie since he wrote “Training Day”?

No.

Will Smith stars as Ward, a character whom has been cut from the same cloth as the other loudmouthed, brazen anti-heroes Smith has been known for playing his whole career. Have you seen “Independence Day”? “I, Robot”? “Men in Black”? “Wild Wild West”? “I Am Legend”? Okay, well, you know what you’re getting into. Alongside him, heavily caked in layers of grey-blue orc makeup, is Joel Edgerton (“Gringo”) as Jakoby, the first orc allowed on the LAPD. Ward is not happy about being assigned to Jakoby, as he thinks the orc will only cause trouble, and he’s not shy about voicing his views to his fellow officers. His ‘racist’ views towards Jakoby make Ward’s character even less likeable, but Ward is not wrong in thinking Jakoby’s presence will cause issues; within the first few minutes of the film Ward takes a point-blank shot to the chest from a large-gauge shotgun. Don’t worry- the wound has absolutely no effect on Ward because he was wearing a bulletproof vest, which, given the vest's divine durability, must have been made of mithril.

Plot holes, ridiculous twists, and cringe-worthy dialog string together the action scenes, none of which are remarkable. Screenwriter Max Landis (“Chronicle”), said he drew heavily from Ayer’s earlier works, particularly “Training Day” and “End of Watch”, and this is incredibly evident. There is a twist in “Training Day” that is repeated almost scene for scene in “Bright”; just replace Mexican drug runners with orcs. The writing is lazy; adding orcs and elves into a cliché storyline doesn’t make the storyline more original.

The story tries to poignantly touch on hot social issues like police brutality and racism, but the bullheaded way in which the film approaches these issues ends up totally negating anything it wants to say. Metaphors unravel if you pull at the slightest thread. Jabs at police brutality end up coming off as insensitive and slightly silly. There is a scene where Ward and Jakoby drive up on cops whom are mercilessly beating a few orcs with batons; instead of stopping the cops from beating the orcs or helping the cops arrest them, Ward gives Jakoby a lecture on the meaning of loyalty to the badge. Brutality unfolds behind them while they casually chat in their vehicle; they drive away without giving lending help or even giving a reason for their stop.

I’d be remised if I didn’t mention makeup and creature effects, which look to pull inspiration from the earlier episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (think Xander fighting the praying mantis teacher in S1 E4- Teacher's Pet); the makeup on every single humanoid character is distracting. It’s hard to see any sort of emotion on Jakoby’s face underneath the layers of makeup. “Is he crying?” My roommate asked during one scene. “I don’t know,” I responded. “He’s staring at the ground… so that must mean he’s sad, right?”

But, hey… let’s be real for a minute. Anyone who has intentions to watch a Will Smith fantasy/ buddy-cop/ action movie must know that the film will never win any Oscars (nor any other awards for that matter); the real reason you’d watch this movie is pure, simple, mind-numbing entertainment. So, does this film succeed in entertaining the viewer at least?

No.

I watched this film with my roommates, and after about a half hour, one of my roommates stood, stretched, and said dryly, “I think that’s about enough of that.” He was the smart one. Alas my other roommate and I were already committed. We were like Dante and Virgil in Inferno. We’d passed under the gates warning us to ‘Abandon all Hope,’ and the only way out was through Bright's seven circles of hell, where the end of the film and the credits lay waiting. We would finish the film, and suffer the consequences (mainly boredom).

The action in this film is dull; the gunfights are uninspired, and the magic used is wishy-washy, and the powers granted by this wand are very vague, so we don’t exactly know what could happen if the wand were to fall into the wrong hands. We’re told over and over again that the wand can be used to (yawn) resurrect the Dark Lord, but the implications of this are left for the viewer to decide. Will the realm of Hades bleed over the earth? Will this Dark Lord be worse than Hitler, Caligula, and Vlad the Impaler combined? Who knows, and who cares? The writer and director clearly didn’t, so why should you?

If you are looking for something dumb and (at times) fun, then you could watch this, but please know there are a million other movies out there that are more worthy of your time. Yes, this may be free with your Netflix subscription, but remember that watching this helps Netflix justify putting out subpar product.

If you keep watching crap, they’ll put out more crap.

The reason Hollywood doesn't invest in truly original concepts is because American viewers are okay with sub-par schlock. Critics are panning this movie, as they well should (as I’m writing this, “Bright” is sitting at a 28% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the audience score for this film is much higher, sitting at an 87%.) Lazy writing, unlikeable characters, poorly executed action scenes, and a sad attempted social commentary make for what I would call a very boring, generic movie, but apparently it’s just what the people of America are looking for (“Bright 2” was announced two days before “Bright” dropped on Netflix). Just because something has magic in it does not mean it is magical.

Verdict

Ultimately, the choice is yours- critics everywhere have voiced their criticisms, but that hasn’t stopped Netflix from pressing forward with the sequel. I personally believe that the time I wasted watching this would’ve been better spent trying to melt all the snow in my front yard with a bic lighter. There is a market for this type of movie- it panders to the lowest common denominator. If you’re fine with knowing that what you’re watching is dumber than bovine with brain damage, then by all means tune in.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

The Shape of Water (2017)

Summary:

A mute janitor, responsible for cleaning a government lab during the Cold War, develops a bond with the peculiar creature being housed there.

My Thoughts:

Guillermo Del Toro’s latest addition to the fantasy genre is reminiscent of Pan’s Labyrinth, but in all the right ways. Both “Pan” and “Water” rely heavily on tales from old folklore, myth and legend; and both are magical realism in settings of wartime. While “Pan” tells us a story about the fae, “Water” focuses on mermaids. Del Toro has built a career around his darker fantastical visions; his style is unique in that the magic in the worlds he creates is always secondary to the characters living in that world. He makes us care about the characters; we cry for them when they hurt and laugh with them when they feel happy. As we enter into the fringe of awards season, Shape of Water leads the Golden Globe race with seven nominations for Best Drama, Director, Screenplay, Score and three acting nominations for Hawkins, Jenkins, and Spencer.

Sally Hawkins (“Happy-go-Lucky”) plays the mute janitor, Eliza. Within the first few minutes of the movie, her character’s whimsy sets the tone. She goes about her daily routine in a dancelike fashion, flitting from here to there without a care in the world. It’s hard not to take a liking to Eliza immediately. She converses amiably with her neighbor, Giles, a closeted homosexual, played by Richard Jenkins (“The Cabin in the Woods”). She goes to her job where we are introduced to her effervescent friend and fellow janitor, Zelda (Octavia Spencer, “The Help”). They spend their time mopping the shadowy halls of the facility, Zelda chatting amiably away, until something is brought into a chamber; a large cylinder reminiscent of an isolation chamber, inside is one whom the credits have dubbed Amphibian Man (Doug Jones,“Hellboy”).

In the minutes after learning about the existence of this creature we are giving the foundations of the plot. Michael Shannon’s (“Fahrenheit 451”) tenacious, unflinching character, Richard Strickland, reveals that he’s dragged Amphibian Man out of the dark depths of the Amazon all the way to this tiny seaside town to find out what makes the creature tick, hoping that in studying the creature they might make a breakthrough in breathing without air- something he believes could be very useful in the Space Race against the Russians. Strickland is everything Eliza isn’t; where Eliza is a mute, Strickland is always barking commands; where Eliza is bubbly and mischievous, Strickland is always down to business, no nonsense. The two characters dance around each other creating perfect balance in celluloid. Michael Stuhlbarg (“Call Me By Your Name”) plays Dr. Robert Hoffstetler, a scientist first and foremost, but he’s also doubling as a spy for the Russians. With the characters set on the murky stage, the story begins.

Perhaps the best part of this movie is the believability of the actions taken by the characters and the changes they endure as a result. Every character, no matter how small, is dynamic; they all learn something, and different things drive them each of them towards their goals. Even Strickland, the villain of the film, has specific reasons for what he does, and though he isn’t a sympathetic character, he is one who’s actions are easy to understand when looking at it from his perspective. Giles, Zelda, and Hoffstetler, too, all have their own moral dilemmas they go up against, and each one handles it in a way that makes perfect sense for their characters.

The actors here are all veterans of their craft. Of the top billed cast only Doug Jones and Michael Stuhlbarg have yet to be nominated for an Oscar; the talent soaks through the screen without filter. Hawkins and Shannon steal the show for the majority of the movie, but Doug Jones manages to evoke a surprising amount of emotion and convey his curiosity even under all the makeup. Hawkins’s presence is something to behold, as she has next to no actual dialogue, she still manages to captivate the audience through her mannerisms and personality quirks. Her character’s happy-go-lucky nature shifts seamlessly into open defiance against Strickland, a change we are all too excited to witness. Shannon is phenomenal as always. While not nearly as subtle as he was in “Nocturnal Animals” or “Take Shelter”, he gives a chilling performance as a man driven to complete his work, even if it drives him to the brink of insanity.

Another fantastic element, one that rarely lacks in any of Del Toro’s films, is the production design. The film has a teal hue that permeates throughout, water spills, drips and pours over nearly every frame, much of the lighting is done from above and has shimmering elements to it- as if the whole movie were lit underwater. Many of patterns on the walls in the government facility look like ripples or waves. Water being in the title, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that water is featured prominently throughout the film, but Del Toro has found a way to make water flow through this film even when there’s none on screen. The design of Amphibian Man is flawless, and while it’s clearly paying homage to the “Creature from the Black Lagoon”, the design is far improved from the 1954 classic Universal Monster flick. Much like the Faun in Pan’s Labyrinth, the character relies on heavy prosthetic makeup instead of CGI, something that works to the advantage of the aesthetic- the creature feels far more tactile this way.

This is not necessarily a weakness, per say, but it is something that may turn off a number of viewers. The theme of this film revolves around love and the unconditional nature of truly unselfish love. There are brief, fragile glimpses of this type of love through the film; between Giles and the Diner owner, Zelda and the husband she complains about constantly but loves regardless. As the story progresses, a romantic interspecies relationship develops. While the story is meant to convey the idea that all love is valid, some viewers may find the relationship between Elisa and Amphibian Man a bit too strange for them. Indeed, during one of the more physical scenes of the movie I heard exclaimed from the darkened theatre a quiet uttering of the word “gross,” to which there arose a warbling of giggles. I have a hard time believing that those who can’t get past this will fully appreciate the movie; some suspension of disbelief is required for the full impact.

It is a fantasy film, after all.

Verdict

It’s rare that a fantasy film is made this well, and rarer still that the characters are so relatable and the themes are so relevant today. Del Toro has proven time and again that he knows how to create magical worlds with real emotional impact, and though this film doesn’t quite live up to “Pan’s Labyrinth” (a movie I consider to be very close to perfect), it does create a world that is unforgettable, beautiful, and, most importantly, magical. The ancient theme of love conquers all, while well-worn, still has a place in today’s world, and this film does a wonderful job of addressing the fragility and nature of misunderstood love. Fans of fantasy would be hard pressed to find a better genre film this year.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele