From: trotsky <>
Subject: Re: THE SHAPE OF WATER (2017)
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id v68mr11182346qka.48.1520252939690;
Mon, 05 Mar 2018 04:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: THE SHAPE OF WATER (2017)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
References: <>
From: trotsky <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <fKanC.107355$CZ2.34209@fx39.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 12:28:59 UTC
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 06:28:59 -0600
X-Received-Bytes: 1817
X-Received-Body-CRC: 758897133
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Original-Bytes: 1755
Print Article
Forward Article
On 3/4/18 8:43 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
> A mute cleaning woman discovers a man/fish being held captive in a 
> government lab and things go on from there.  This film has been 
> nominated for a host of Academy Awards and I don't get it, I just don't 
> get it. I kept wondering for whom this movie had been made.  Fans of 
> comic book movies? Fans of romance movies? Fans of 50s monster movies? 
> No to all that, Shirley, and it certainly wasn't made for the likes of 
> me. The Snidely Whiplash villains were cardboard cartoon caricatures, 
> the fishman was wearing a replica of the rubber suit worn by the 
> Creature from the Black Lagoon, the acting was adequate but uninspired, 
> there wasn't a single story element I hadn't encountered before, nothing 
> special here, why did they make this waste-of-time silly movie?
> And HOW did it get nominated for Best Picture?  No...just no.

It's easy to say that a movie is shit, why not go out on a limb and say 
what movie should've won?  And give some reasons even.