The Shape of Water (2017)

"The Shape of Water" is a "Beauty and the Beast" in the view of Guillermo del Toro. If you've seen anything made by him before - "Pan's Labyrinth", "Hellboy" or even "Pacific Rim" in a totally different niche, or even more the disaster that was "Crimson Peak", it's impossible not to notice the same directing style, and more particularly the influence in the visuals & production design. That part brings a lot here, but the big plus comes from somewhere else.

The action is set sometime in the '50s-'60s, in the middle of the Cold War, in a research lab in US, where a secret delivery is done. The contents: a human shaped creature fished out of Amazon, manifesting survival capabilities both under water and out of it. The clear resemblance reminded me of Abe Sapian, the merman in "Hellboy", especially given that we also have del Toro there, but in the end it seems there's no direct link between the two. So, moving back to the lab, "the Beast" is repeatedly tortured by an evil security chief (Michael Shannon). But as in any institution, we have the auxiliary personnel, and as part of this we have "the Beauty" (Sally Hawkins) - here a simple cleaning lady. Who shares a sort of similar communication problem with the blueish aquaman = she's mute. And like that an "impossible romance" begins, entangling within it also a Russian conspiracy (Cold War context, remember...), but let's leave some stuff to find out from the movie.

The big plus I was referring to comes from the actors side. Michael Shannon is playing a totally detestable negative character, but the one who steals the screen is clearly Sally Hawkins. The acting is exceptional, especially given that we're not talking about a mute actress, and also we don't have here something in the range of "The Artist". The part is a very natural one. Besides the actors we have the rest mentioned in the start, and I don't want to get into more technical details - everything leads to the feeling it creates, one that gets you there, you're in some gloomy '60s where somehow some color emerges from somewhere. Normally, out of more or less subjective reasons, I'm not really fond of romances, but this was nice :) If just the ending that's a bit forced wouldn't make "the incredible romance" indeed incredible...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Coco (2017)

When I've seen the trailer for "Coco" I had a deja vu with "Book of Life", and I decided to let it pass, even more having two additional issues with it: 1. musical (animated or not animated it's still a genre I detest) 2. Disney/Pixar = excessive tear-jerking coefficient. I (hardly) reconsidered my decision following the reviews that place this as the best animation of last year. It was not the best idea, but not necessarily (or well... completely) because of the above reasons.

The context is indeed very similar to "Book of Life". We have a location somewhere in Mexico. We have a boy, Miguel, who wants a mariachi career but his family pushes him towards shoe making (well, there's a difference from the bull fighter in the other movie... but anyway). We have old unsolved family issues. We have the "Day of the Dead" context. We have the passage to the netherworld, where Miguel searches for his great-great-great-grandfather who left home with his guitar becoming a family outcast. And from here onwards, fortunately we have a different story. The good part is that overall is better organized than the story in "Book of Life", especially concerning the ending. The bad part is that the story in "Coco" is much more simpler/linear. Another bad part is that out of three essential twists, I've seen two coming much quicker than I should've = no exaggeration, but these were predictable from the first minute when the character/the twist element entered the scene. This thing made a consistent part of the movie pretty boring... and it's also enough as a reason to not tell more about the story :)

In respect to the musical part, this is quite consistent but fortunately tolerable. The excessive tear-jerking coefficient (trademark Pixar) is there, and it's the main problem I had with this movie, but unfortunately didn't go the way I expected... I didn't roll my eyes or check my watch to see how much time I still have to endure the torture. It's just that... let's say it's not a movie I would recommend watching at some moments in your life... can get very painful... but I'd rather not go into details.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Stalker (1979)

After the entry of last week I remembered that I actually don't remember well another movie by Tarkovsky, seen quite long ago. That's how I got to re-watch "Stalker". And since I don't have the best mood for writing, it probably was the best option. Because we have again a movie where's useless to talk too much.

The movie is carried almost from beginning to the end by 3 actors, together with the cinematography, editing and sound that overpass lots of what's released these days in cinemas. The "stalker" is a man who leads two people into a Zone, where something not well defined happened, the outcome being a strange relative reality contained in a deserted, closed and guarded perimeter. In the Zone there's a Room, which is said that grants any wish to one who enters - the apparent reason for the illegally organized expeditions. In all this context, any viewer is left to create a personal interpretation for what's seen = from the path to the Room, which cannot be the shortest, up to effectively discussing its purpose.

You shouldn't expect something clear in the story development - the script written by the Strugatskiy brothers (based on one of their own novels) has dialogues that sometimes make sense, sometimes don't. A problem is that at some points this creates lengths, which make the slow development quite noticeable. Still, typically this is perfectly compensated by the technical part, the editing/camera work being complemented by a location setting that's probably among the best in all dystopias I've ever seen (it was filmed somewhere nearby a deserted hydraulic plant in Estonia).

Bottom line: It's a movie that requires patience, and even more I think it also requires some years = you'll get something when you're 10 (probably not much), something else after 20, something else after 30, and so on...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Ivan's Childhood (1962)

"Ivan's Childhood", or by original name "Ivanovo destvo", it's one of the first movies directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, and actually the first more visible internationally gaining several awards when it was released. I avoided it until recently, because the subject of a child caught on the Russian front during WW2 wasn't the most joyful topic, especially given that my mood lately is not the best. Well, finally I decided to watch it, mainly due to its decent length (which criteria, as I was saying in another recent entry, in lately Hollywood standards looks to count in paying for a movie making by inch of film, without caring too much what's on that inch). My surprise, which wasn't actually that big considering a movie by Tarkovsky, was that we don't have a linear story = there is drama, but the way it's presented relaxes somehow the harshness (or well, depends I guess by how it's perceived by every viewer...). Ivan is a kid of around 10 years old, becoming an orphan during the war time, and growing up too quickly being involved in reconnaissance missions behind enemy lines. There's not much to say about the action. If you're waiting for a classic development with a beginning, middle and end, you need to look somewhere else. What we have here is a movie built on composition: characters, cinematography, editing, the context, etc. It's not story driven. I can say it's unbelievable how this looks today considering the year - 1962 - when it was produced, in black and white, made by Mosfilm in the Soviet Union. Leaving aside maybe some overacting, which is often present in old movies, technically if you just look at how the contrast is used in the composing the frame, the effects at that time and the camera movement, there would probably be already a lot to talk about. But also pretty useless :) it's better just to see it...

Rating: 4 out of 5