Guillermo del Toro’s 8-Year-Old Dark Fantasy Film With 92% on Rotten Tomatoes Is the Greatest Creature Feature of the 2010s

by

As a movie buff, I often find myself confronted by the notion that Academy Award-winning films can be overly serious and elitist, and films like “All the King’s Men,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” and “The English Patient” don’t exactly dispel that notion. However, it’s important to note that there are numerous films with an esteemed Oscar pedigree that appeal to a wider audience, such as a film that, surprisingly, is a cleverly disguised creature feature.

The 2017 debut of this production was greeted with overwhelming acclaim from both audiences and critics. They were captivated by its narrative and visual charm, found themselves deeply invested in its characters. There’s simply so much to admire about the slightly eccentric 123-minute journey, making it easy to understand why it received an Academy Award. Every aspect of it has been intricately crafted for maximum effect. Admittedly, it’s a complex tale that could be compared to the more serious Oscar nominees. It’s unique in being both a romantic drama and a subversive horror story. The Shape of Water, directed by Guillermo del Toro, explores themes such as loneliness, love, repression, and exclusion. However, like certain well-known ogres, this film also represents a blend of overlooked and often comedic subgenres.

The Shape of Water Perfectly Fits the Definition of a “Creature Feature”

  • Creating the “Amphibian Man” was a laborious process. During filming, creature actor Doug Jones sat for three-hour daily makeup sessions. In addition to the outer “skin”, the costume also included animatronic components.
  • For the creature’s movements, Doug Jones studied matadors. He was particularly inspired by how these performers lead with their hips. As a nod to this choice, a statue of a matador can be seen in Doctor Hoffstetler’s apartment.

Creature features as a film genre gained popularity during the 60s, although it was only then that the term became widely recognized. The term originated from the “Creature Features” television series that began airing in the latter half of the 20th century. However, it’s important to note that creature features existed prior to this period; for instance, Ishirou Honda’s Godzilla was released in 1954. The collections also featured non-creature-focused films, but the most successful ones were usually the most fantastical.

One category of monster and kaiju films often centers around an unusual (and often excessively peculiar) creature that is creepy or frightening in nature. Some movies have straightforward names such as “Tarantula”, while others, like “King Kong”, require a bit more interpretation. Regardless, the terror in these films arises when something commonly known and safe transforms into an unexpected danger.

Essentially, there’s often a common pattern or blueprint. For instance, consider “Creature From the Black Lagoon” as an illustration. Typically, you find a collection of unfortunate souls, such as adventurers, scientists, party-goers, or students. In the case of “The Shape of Water”, these roles are taken by government employees. They uncover a monster, like the one played by Doug Jones, and usually involve at least one woman who serves as the damsel in distress.

In simpler terms, the creatures in these movies can be either based on reality or pure imagination. For instance, “The Shape of Water” and “Creature From the Black Lagoon” lean towards the imaginative side, while films like “King Kong” and “The Deadly Mantis” make familiar concepts scary by giving them a terrifying twist.

Creature Features Prey on Different Fears

  • Scholars generally consider 1915’s The Golem to be the first monster movie. Unfortunately, the Paul Wegener and Henrik Galeen film is now considered a partially lost work.
  • Though it debuted in the 1960s, the Creature Features collection was part of an earlier collection. The broadcast-ready bundle, dubbed Shock, was released by Screen Gems in 1957.

Isn’t it interesting how even the simplest concepts can evoke unease? For instance, one solitary frog might not cause fear in many, but an entire legion of potentially lethal amphibians could send shivers down most spines. Similarly, a single fly may be merely irritating, whereas a grotesque human-insect hybrid would likely prompt a swift exit.

The horror elements in this work are unique and unlike what one might expect. The focus isn’t on making the audience afraid of the creature or the unknown, but rather, it delves into exploring a group that is typically portrayed as heroic.

In the world of “The Shape of Water”, neither the depths below nor the creature violate usual boundaries deliberately. The movie’s romantic aspect demonstrates that Elisa finds comfort in embracing uncertainty, as seen through her affection for the Amphibian Man. However, greedy military leaders eagerly take on the role of antagonists. It is an order from the Air Force General (Frank Hoyt) that creates much of the film’s tension, and Colonel Richard Strickland (Michael Shannon) continually prolongs it with his relentless pursuit.

Indeed, The Shape of Water can be seen as a creative expression of Guillermo del Toro’s big-budget dreams. Originally conceived as a means to rework certain cinematic tropes, it evolved into something far greater than its initial concept. Regardless of Del Toro’s personal involvement, the final product offers a unique and invigorating take on familiar themes.

In this unique story, the Amphibian Man, often perceived as the antagonist, is instead portrayed as a victim of his circumstances. The damsel in distress transforms into a near action hero, discarding her shackles. Once noble soldiers, they metamorphose into relentless pursuers. Characters from The Shape of Water are purposefully designed to challenge norms; they are ordinary workers rather than stereotypically attractive adults or cheerful teenagers. Unlike the typical hero who depends on interchangeable sidekicks, Elisa finds support in her hidden-hearted middle-aged roommate, Giles (Richard Jenkins), and her unpretentious coworker, Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer). The critical turning point is not a murder scheme; it’s an ingenious escape plan. Even one of the anticipated villains (Michael Stuhlbarg) experiences a touching change of heart.

In a different phrasing, the scenario isn’t about seeking attention or trying to be controversial; instead, it’s thoughtfully planned without unnecessary twists. Unlike other films that might surprise with their secondary characters, the shock factor in The Shape of Water feels genuine and integral. The reversals found in the film are just one aspect hidden beneath its Art Deco and mid-century modern style. For audiences, these turns are not only intriguing but also carefully crafted and executed concepts that fit seamlessly into the storyline. If any of these elements were removed, it would leave a noticeable gap in the narrative.

There are numerous perspectives to consider when it comes to understanding the movie, “The Shape of Water.” Similar to many remarkable narratives, this film extends an open-invitation beyond mere screen viewing, inviting viewers to engage actively with its content. It’s one of Guillermo del Toro’s many complex masterpieces that offer multiple interpretations. For instance, it could be a story about embracing diversity and understanding others, or it might serve as a warning against blind obedience. While its romantic exterior is significant, the movie’s real power lies in its seemingly boundless depth.

Read More

2025-07-04 07:06