Engaging Cerebral Handshake (Pacific Rim: Uprising)

This week I was going to go see Isle of Dogs at my closest theater, but was disappointed to learn that they changed the release to "select theaters" instead of the national release I was hoping for. After about an hour looking for any source of it online, only to find squat, I finally gave up on trying to review that movie... for now. Instead, ya'll be getting a Pacific Rim: Uprising review. Why? Because in place of interesting visuals, story or animation, I need to turn to action and scifi/fantasy help to fill the void.
Like an induced coma, quieting the screaming voices of outrage beneath a layer of popcorn and child-like fascination with violence and giant robots...

So without further ado, this is my dissection of Pacific Rim: Uprising.

Pacific Rim was the Robots vs. Monsters thrill ride conjured by Guillermo Del Toro and Travis Beacham back in 2013, and critics were certainly mixed by it's results. A good deal liked the film, saying that it's premise was not one that was typically brought to film, and it had an outstanding visual style to back it up.
A lot of critics also hated it. Thought it was hokey acting that was overlooked thanks to impressive visuals. I personally thought that only some of the acting was a bit hokey, everyone else was alright.
One thing that most everyone agreed upon was that the movie was an action-packed ride for any who watched it. And unlike SOME movies with giant robots fighting, we could actually tell what the hell was going on when we saw it.

The only thing I could see that remained the same from the first movie to its sequel were only some of the original cast, some of the same robots, and dear sweet Guillermo Del Toro.., in a producer and Visual Advising role only.
And thank goodness for that. I didn't want to have to slam Guillermo for any of the many questionable decisions in this film's narrative. Which brings me to discussing the SPOILER-filled dissection of...

The Plot
Look, I get that action movies rarely try to hook you in with a compelling story, and this still isn't the case when it comes to this film. So me attacking the plot seems kinda trivial. But part of the fun of dissecting a piece of media is pointing out all their silly or absurd bits. These silly points need to be addressed and dissected, because SOMEone at the writing stage for this film thought it would help their story.

You WILL relate to my tragic backstory!

The story takes place from the perspective of our protagonist: Jake Pentecost (played by John Boyega) son of Stacker Pentecost (Idris Alba) from the last film. I forgot if they ever addressed in the first film whether or not Idris's character ever HAD a son, because either way they wrote one into the narrative to give us that "tragic backstory" right at the forefront. Oh, did I mention that he's a rebel? Who makes it a point that he is nothing like his father? Can you BE more cliche` than that? But I digress...

It's been 10 years after the end of the first film, and our hero paints a picture of the world that is both impressive and confusing. By that, I mean that they establish that the world began the process of rebuilding, while others didn't really have the resources to rebuild. By that, they make a point of showing a bunch of Kaiju (a.k.a. the Giant Monsters) skeletons just littering the many third world countries across the world. Apparently the Cuba might be one, since we just sorta end up there somehow, and there's a giant monster skeleton on the beach.

Man, everyone got WASTED at last night's party. Especially Gamera.

Jake has been living it up in his stolen villa. Having apparently the craziest of parties by trading Jaeger parts for... illegally acquired food products?? What?

Seriously, there is a full on explanation for how life is like in the more destroyed regions after the war. And that the most valuable thing in those places wasn't money... but food. They even manage to product place some OREOS to get the point across. This wouldn't have been weird if they didn't compare trading for good food to an average afternoon at Lil' John's mansion for about 3 minutes of screen time.

But enough about that, because you'll be doing a double take when you hear that people are somehow piloting rogue Jaegers (roboticus giganticus) around the world. Yeah, apparently people are just able to BUILD a 100 ft robot just about anywhere, Hell, it's so easy even a child could do it.

Oh ,you think I'm kidding? No. Sadly not.
Introducing our next main character, Amara Namani played by Cailee Spaeny, doing exactly that. She is roughly 13 or 15, and she just BUILT a damn robot. I can't really get over that. Even as I am sitting here, writing that statement.

The film doesn't indicate whether or not she had help building the robot (which I might add is roughly a little bigger than my freakin' house) so we're left to assume that she built it by herself.
It was at this point in my viewing of the film, that I began outlining a "Questions" section on my little notepad. Whenever something unexplained or inconsistent to the first film came up, I just had to stop myself and ask "what? how?" in that order.

Seriously, how easy is it to build a giant robot these days??

For instance:
1. How DID she build that 50 ft robot?
2. How did she build it in a warehouse?
3. How did she get it stand up if it had no power?
4. How did she attach each of the robots parts, much less the armor and internal systems?
5. Is she a genius? The film doesn't do much to establish she's a genius, even with her tragic backstory revealed. So how did she learn to build a goddamn robot??
6. Are there rogue Jaegers running around because they made the schematics to building them public domain?
7.Or was it a wikileaks scenario and some ass-clown from within just dumped the schematics online??
8. How can you be thug-life about trading food for monster parts?!?!
ETC.??

And this was just within the first 10 minutes of the film.
Suffice it to say, I had a lot of questions by the end of the movie.

Our protagonist Jake, and the kid sidekick Amara (yep, basically her role in this film), get roped into joining into the recruitment and Jaeger pilot training program. Ironically, this program itself is under threat since a new Chinese drone tech company is threatening to put the Jaeger pilots out of work. In other words, they DID go with a "machines took our jobs" commentary for this film. However, a rogue Jaeger kills off one of the cooler characters from the last film, and our film's major conflict is underway.

Later on in the film, it's revealed that the aliens/precursors from the last film have been working behind the scenes to bring open the rift between our world and theirs so they can send more kaiju to destroy our world. A huge battle ensues and perhaps the most impressive scenes occurs, where we get an open love letter to the kaiju monster movie genre with an all out Robot vs Monster battle in Tokyo, Japan. Naturally, our heroes are victorious, the kaijus are destroyed, and there is an open hint at a future sequel wherein we take the battle to the precursors directly. But again, not atypical to this kind of genre.

In the humble opinion of this writer, the movie does its job. It's an action filled giant monster fight, with plenty of impressive visuals that keep the audience entertained.  But is it actually watchable? Well, if you want to know about the rest of the film, first thing we should examine is...

The Acting
In my opinion, the acting quality was about the same as the last film. Just a bit hokey and over-the-top, with only some of the actors genuinely giving it their best.

Two characters I wasn't super thrilled to see come back to the film were Dr. Newton "Newt" Geiszler and Dr. Hermann Gottlieb (played by Charlie Day and Burn Goman respectively). The reason primarily was because they were the comedic relief in the first film, and I thought for a moment that they were here again to reprise their C3PO and R2D2 routine. Without spoiling too much, I was wrong in my assumption.

The other actors, including our main stars, give a decent performance, but there appears to be something lacking.

And no, it's not Ellen Mclain. She's the highlight of the film IMHO.

Glados returns to voice the AI in this film in her usual Passive-Agressive fashion

Perhaps it's the number of younger actors on screen, but in this film it's just a little more underwhelming. There thankfully is no distracting romantic love interest in this film, (kinda), but there is a possibility that there would be a potential love story in the sequel. All in all, not superb acting but not terribly cringe-worthy. However, I cannot say the same for the cinematography.

The Cinematography
Let's talk about camera tilt, and it's role in this movie. Whenever the camera isn't being handheld, sweeping through on gorgeous single-tracking shots, there is a recurring tilt that slithers it's way into the movie. Almost consistently, shots are tilted whenever there is an action scene or when the action is at it's height. I can understand the purpose of tilting the camera when we see inside the Jaeger cockpit, since it may be trying to convey the sense of a giant moving robot with less than stable ground. Sure, okay.

Even the promotional posters are tilted. What gives?

But why do we keep bringing it back? The camera just gets weird at points like the cameraman got drunk before filming. I don't recall this much camera tilt in the first film either.

Perhaps this is just a personal gripe, but we can balance out our shots before we start rolling the camera. Just saying.

The Set Design
Honestly, this was perhaps the most disappointing part of this film. In the first Pacific Rim, Guillermo made sure to design the sets with a certain aesthetic that is iconic of nearly all his films. In this film however, there is mostly just your generic scifi looking set pieces, most of which is CG in any case. I can't tell you how often I kept looking for some discernible or interesting in the set pieces but nothing ever stood out. That isn't to say that there was a lot of work put into these set pieces, but the style is nothing to write home about. It pretty much fits that futuristic military robot appearance. Again, it does it's job. Which is sad for me because Weta Workshop was involved in this film, and their props, costumes and set pieces are always impressive each time I see them. Not terribly so in this film I'm afraid.

This is the only online image of  some of the set I could find and I almost mistook it for Star Trek.

The Music
The score was about as impressive as the first film's score, but it lacked the first film's main theme until the near the climax. This was mildly annoying, but if anything the soundtrack did what it needed to. Not really much to comment about the score but that it is sort of lackluster when compared to its predecessor.

The Results
The ultimate question. Is it worth seeing? Well, yes and no. If you're out on the town with your friends or roommates, it's a good enough action film that it can get everyone talking. But the price of admission? Maybe not. It's not a stellar movie, but it does get the adrenaline going. Is it an upgrade from it's predecessor? Kinda. I mean there are certainly more robot battles than the first, which is always nice, but it doesn't really add anything new aside from expanding your "WOW factor."
It may get nominated for next year's Academy Awards for Best VFX, but ultimately that's all it really is. A visual ride through the cockpit of a Jaeger.
If you're not keen on spending your hard earned cash at the theater, you can probably just wait for redbox or Netflix to make it available. I mean, they already released Annihilation to Netflix in the U.K, and I reviewed that sucker less than a month ago.
I wish I had more to say about this movie, but there wasn't any great complexity to it. Just a good ol' fashioned action flick. Go see it with your friends. Especially that one friend of yours who exclusively wants to see action or sci-fi flicks. This will really hit their soft spot.
Looking at you Steve.

Perhaps next week I will have a better review in store. One about dogs. On an Island. Made of garbage. Maybe... if Wes Anderson gets off his Indie artist ass and makes good on that full release. Otherwise, y'all getting a different review next week. But I wonder what...?

Annihilation (aka: The Color Out of Space)

Just gonna throw it out there before we start:

Seriously, cannot get over those visuals. So tasty.

I enjoyed Ex Machina. A lot. I cannot begin to describe how much I thought about its visuals, its simple narrative, and its larger ethical commentary on the nature of artificial intelligence.






There. Now I've said that.

Because Annihilation is a MUCH more visually interesting than Ex Machina. At least, in my opinion.

Annihilation is based upon the book by of the same name written by Jeff VanderMeer, (the first part of his "Southern Reach Trilogy"), and was adapted into a film format by Alex Garland. Naturally the film deviates somewhat from the narrative of the book, with some alterations where needed in order to preserve the narrative of the film. I personally haven't read VanderMeer's books, but the story presented in the film was actually familiar to me before I even saw the movie.
When I first saw the trailers for the film, I actually thought it was an adaptation of the Lovecraft short story "The Color (Colour) Out of Space."



SPOILER WARNING if you ever want to read either the short story or see the film, here's the short version of the both the film and the short story:

Somewhere in the United States, (presumably the East Coast), a meteorite has crashed on earth (in the film into the base of a light house) and a strange "shimmer" begins to radiate out from the crash site, slowly, and over the course of several months. This shimmer (or Colour as Lovecraft called it) has an effect on the environment within its radius, mutating and changing the flora and fauna within to either beautiful or horrifying mutations. Turns out, at the origin point of the crash, there was an entity/alien, that simply was affecting the environment until ultimately, it would make it unrecognizable to anything that could exist on earth. It was not a malevolent force (though in Lovecraft's short story, it's hard to say), and it did not seem to want anything. It's ultimate effect was literally annihilation. Suffice it to say, in both stories, the Colour/Shimmer/Entity was countered in some way (or just left the planet in the short story), but it's implied that some small part of the Colour remained on earth to have further unseen consequences on the planet or its inhabitants.

I mean, you can see how I could confuse the two, right?

Now, of course, this narrative diverges between the book, the movie, and the short story, but ultimately, these are the parallels that connect them. "But is the movie worth seeing?," I hear you ask. Well, in short, yeah. It's a little slow to get started, but still very enjoyable at least on a visual scale. However, if you're sensitive to bloody or disturbing imagery, be aware that there are some scenes which may be uncomfortable to watch. It has an "R" rating for a reason. But in case you need more convincing, I'll dissect this film into its best parts and give you a full review.



The Plot
Since I've already discussed the main points of the plot in comparison to the Lovecraft story, I'll just talk about the pacing and story progression.
I was told recently by a some friends who went to go see it that they felt it was a bit slow. And I concede, the story is a character-driven narrative, so the film isn't going to be an action-filled rumpus through a monster-infested landscape. Remember that this film is by the same people who made Ex Machina. Slow and steady wins the race in this case. Although the trailer lent to the idea that it was going to have more action scenes than it did.
Regarding the action, the film is a bit slow to start, taking some time to set up the main arc of the story, which is the journey into The Shimmer itself. I personally have to give some props to Alex Garland, since he resisted the urge to launch headlong into the adventure. For those of you who need action in order to stay with it though, fear not, because there are plenty of scenes with guns and blood. In no particular order, there is a scene with a bear(?), an albino alligator, and someone who goes nuts.
That said, it is a bit too slow in the film's first act. But the film is taking us on a journey, and like any actual adventure, there are more quiet moments than loud.

Spooky the Bear is scarier than your average bear.

The Visuals

I think it goes without saying that the movie is a VFX artist's best dream. With some additional set pieces to boot. Seriously, major props to the set design, because they were on point in this film. The VFX artists are using the same CGI technology they used in Ex Machina, so the visual realism of their creatures/entities look as though they are actually there. Well, at least for certain scenes. In other scenes, you still can recognize that there are computer computer-generated images on screen. But they do a very convincing job overlaying the CG on top of the live action Case in point, there is a naturalness to the behavior of the creatures that helps to sell the performance of the actors.
Since the majority of the film takes place within the Shimmer, and by extension the marshland it encompasses, the camera has to convey the feeling of the warm, yet surreal glow of the area. There are vibrant colors on screen in the foreground and in the background of the jungle that contrast to the cool, muted colors of the urban and natural environments presented in the first act of the film.

Long story short, the CG works like artwork: it completes the scene when it's used.

Whoa, something cool's going on here I bet.

The Set Design
Like the VFX in this film, the set designs are basically the canvas in which all the CG images are drawn into. There are set pieces that are just oozing with detail (literally oozing in some scenes) that  require a closer inspection to truly appreciate. The biggest highlights I care to point out are the sets in which the unnatural nature is overtaking the urban environments. It may be a personal point, but I have become fascinated with areas like in Chernobyl, where the environment is no longer habitable due to whatever factor, and the world just retakes it. In the film, there was a whole town in which nature had overtaken the man man-made houses, added with the bizarrely beautiful mutations occurring all over the place. It was very beautiful, and their efforts did not go unnoticed.



The Music
I had to make mention of the music in this film, because it has a deep connection to the action on screen. This is a bit of a spoiler but the type of music changes to match the natural or unnaturalness of each scene portrayed. A common motif used for each act or "chapter" in the film was a simple acoustic guitar riff which transitioned us into the next scene. If you go to see the film, pay special attention to the music used at the climax of the film, and how it sounds in comparison to the rest of the film. I believe that is the only point in the movie in which the music is at its most divergent from the rest of the soundtrack. For some people this may sound like musical inconsistency, but if you listen closely, it's actually just the natural progression of the musical score reaching its apex.



The Cinematography
I'm sure most people will say this about the film, but I also thought the cinematography was amazing. But perhaps I enjoyed the cinematography for different reasons than others. For instance, there were shots that connected visually at the start of the film to shots used at the end. If you're planning to go see the film, keep an eye out for what I like to call 'division shots'. You'll get it once you see it. Throughout the movie there are images invoking ideas of mirrors, reflections, genes, and cell division, which are all running themes in this film. These "division shots" are present at the start and at the end of the film, tying the whole film together rather thematically. There is a particular soft soft-focus filter that originates around the edges of the frame in certain shots that is just inexplicably appealing, and it tends to draw the eyes towards the shots that are in the focal zone in the center of the shot.
When our the characters were actually in The Shimmer or "Area X", there was a visual quality in the sunlight that made you think of a kaleidoscopic crystal or a pool of oil on cellophane. I think these minute details and qualities add to the film in such a way as not to be distracting, but still noticeable, and easily appreciated once the film actually gets going.

Thompson, Portman, and Rodriguez (left to right)

The Performances
This may or may not be a point that people agree with, but I felt that, outside of the main cast (Natalie Portman, Gina Rodriguez, Oscar Isaac) the performances by all the other actors felt very muted in most interactions. This can also be said in some instances with Tessa Thompson and Jennifer J. Leigh. Though they were part of the main five characters we focus in on after the first act, there were times when the emotion conveyed by them felt a little too distant, or like there were under-performing. Except Gina Rodriguez who I personally feel gave one of the most human performances in the film. She was able to imbue that human quality of making light of a grim situation. After witnessing horrors within the shimmer, she began to question everything around her. It perhaps may be attributed to the fact that her character is a surveyor, and unlike the rest of her team, she has to make sense of Area X with her normal understanding of the world. Of course, Portman as the lead does a fantastic job as well. Especially in that climactic scene, where she literally goes for a solid five minutes on screen not speaking, --the emotional conveyance in her face says volumes.
Strange, I seem to be on a kick with slightly silent protagonists. Perhaps I should watch A Silent Child, or some Charlie Chaplin feature next...



The Results
This film has, without a doubt, some of the most interesting and beautiful visuals I have seen in recent years. It feels less like a narrative, which itself is pretty simple, and more like a walk in another world. The irony of course is that this world was built in our world's back yard. Though you may not feel as connected to the characters, and the story may be a slow starter, you will feel different leaving the theater. Whether or not you will enjoy it is entirely up to you. All I can recommend is that you appreciate the film more as art than entertainment; having this in mind will allow you to enjoy it a little more fully than just watching it normally.

The reason that I defend this movie as a worthwhile feature, is because it is one of the few films out recently that is pushing the boundaries on visual effects and visual storytelling in cinema. Sure, it's no Black Panther or even Blade Runner: 2049, but it's a visual art piece in its own right. Not to mention, it leaves open the possibility for future adaptations of more cosmic-based features or other-worldly stories. Who knows, we may actually get to refine "weird nature" as a sub-genre in future films.

So get a hold of the film however you can, get some popcorn and snacks, and prepare to go on a walk into a wild, beautifully weird world. This film may just leave you feeling... Annihilated.

The Shape of Water as a Platform for Bioshock's Film Debut

Back in 2008, I was a senior in high school and on my way out of the proverbial prison that restrained my interactions with the “real world” for the better half of twelve years. I remember back then hearing a rumor-- because the only “reliable” news source for teens back then was rumor and gossip-- that Guillermo del Toro was being drafted to direct, or possibly draft a screenplay adaptation of the game Bioshock.

Suffice it to say, I was super jazzed about that idea, and upon further research I found that he had actually been drafted to work on a Bioshock film. Sadly of course, something down the pipeline fell through and the movie version to one of my favorite games never came out, and I thought that perhaps it was for the best… until I saw The Shape of Water.

“But Kaz!” I hear you ask rhetorically through the digital screen, “what does a movie about a girl falling in love with (a merman/mirelurk king/Abe Sapien/the creature from the black lagoon) have to do with BIOSHOCK??” Well I am so glad you hypothetically asked dear reader, for I believe this film is the best evidence of what a Bioshock movie would have looked like if it was made by Guillermo del Toro.

To preface, in case you don’t know what Bioshock is about or why it connects so well to this film, please watch the game trailer first, or even some gameplay, and then come back to this review. In short, Bioshock was a game made back in 2007 produced by 2K Boston, with a story centered on a plane crash survivor trying to find his way out of an underwater city called Rapture. In this dystopia, you, the protagonist, have to navigate your way around this ruined city, while fighting its disfigured inhabitants and monstrous abominations while making difficult ethical choices about your own DNA and the life of the city's inhabitants.

If you haven’t seen The Shape of Water yet, please do! I highly recommend it despite my small gripes about it, and it will also make sense for why I still believe Guillermo could still do a movie adaptation of Bioshock.

ALSO: Please understand, I am going to dissect this film based on cinematography, plot, set design, and to some degree the actor’s performances. This post contains some spoilers for the movie and game in question. Read at your own risk!

The Cinematography and Visual Effects

Without gushing too much about every scene, I will instead describe the camera work and visuals within just the opening scene of the movie. In the first scene of the movie, a dream sequence no less, starts out with a major section of the set under water. The camera slowly maneuvers its way through this sunken section of apartment gracefully and dreamlike, like an underwater expedition. We then glide into the apartment of our main protagonist, a mute girl named Elisa (played by Sally Hawkins), as her entire domicile is utterly submerged, with pieces of furniture and various household items floating in the water, as though the entire apartment was just plucked out from the surface and plunged deep into the ocean. The transition between the dream and Eliza returning to reality is almost seamless, as the camera doesn’t appear to make a single cut in the entire sequence. It uses a computer-generated alarm clock to sync up with a real alarm clock, and just like that, everything that was in the dream lines up with its placement in real life.

As that scene was playing out, I had to try very hard not to jump out of my seat to get a closer look at the screen, as I could not tell what parts of the underwater set were placed in there with CG. The transition was so seamless because, according to interviews with the production designers, they used dry-for-wet techniques that made everything look like it was actually underwater. It involved a lot of wires, slow motion cameras, and no small application of CG, and the end result was very believable. This is a small scene, but it’s somewhat of a testament to how this film integrated water into the set or how it recreated it convincingly enough to convey the underwater look to audiences. It leaves a bigger impression for the rest of the film because it oozes with aquatic delight in almost 85% of the movie. Not only that, but it has that signature deep ocean blue and green color throughout the film which heightens the water aesthetic.

TL;DR Visuals and camera work were VERY on point, and the interplay of water in most scenes was a nice connecting visual for most scenes in the movie.

The Plot

In my opinion, Guillermo del Toro films have always been hit or miss in terms of plot; either the film activated a sense of wonder and fascination or they fell flat and left me content but ultimately wanting more from the story. In this film, I am glad to say that I was thoroughly entertained by the plot, and the odd human-to-monster romance presented in this film was executed without being awkward or uncomfortable. The story is presented as something of a fairy tale, with our main protagonist as the “princess without a voice” right from the opening narration. And much like a fairy tale, our heroine is a princess with traits that are comparable to Cinderella, or Snow White: a beautiful handmaiden janitor who cleans for people in a large castle Top Secret Government Research Facility, set in a long forgotten medieval country by the sea the start of 1960's McCarthyist America along the coast of Baltimore.

From a certain viewpoint, you could technically say this is a re-imagining of the “Beauty and the Beast” story. Within the first half of the film, our “Beast” is slowly revealed to be much less a beast and more of a misunderstood ancient being who comes to understand our language and music. The monster quickly becomes more “human” with the way that he interacts with Elisa, even though he still looks like something out of the town of Innsmouth. In time, our princess falls in love with this creature, because she no longer sees him as such. And yes, before you ask, they did manage to explain-- in few to no words-- how a Merman and a Woman can “couple” together in the film. Truth be told, after a certain point, that detail becomes less important to the story, rather than how these two characters can convincingly convey affection for one another without words, or even having to be human.

See the sparks splashes fly.

I enjoyed the story, even though there was a small period where the momentum slowed down a bit. And without stating specifics, the film does provide you with enough clues to make you question the ending of the film, much in the same style that Guillermo del Toro did for Pan’s Labyrinth. Suffice it to say, good plot overall, and despite it’s simple nature, this love story is one for the records.

TL;DR: The story is a more updated version of a fairy tale romance story, akin to Beauty and the Beast, with the added twist that the Beast in this story is a non-speaking merman/Deep One. Two thumbs up.

The Characters and the Actors that played them

In short, I felt that the performances by the actors were all very well done. Sally Hawkins as Elisa manages not only to convey raw emotion while being unable to speak, but also conveyed little traits and quirks about her character within her various scenes. Zelda (played by the very talented Octavia Spencer) was also enjoyable even though she wasn’t in the film nearly as much as everyone else, as she played a great support and counterpart to the duo between her and Elisa. Where Elisa was silent, Zelda seemed to speak nonstop in all her scenes, which was mildly entertaining given the contrast. The character of Giles (played by Richard Jenkins) was a flawed, but ultimately loyal friend to Elisa, and we could not help but feel for him as his mini-arc within the film panned out less in his favor.

That being said, I couldn’t help but notice how Guillermo wrote his film’s main antagonist.

Unfortunately Michael has "Resting Creep Face"... poor dude.

The “big bad” of our story, a government agent by the name of Strickland (played by the forever creepy looking Michael Shannon... sorry Mike), is written in such a way that he just secretes creepiness in every scene he’s in. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but pay close attention to the scenes he’s in, and tell me that he’s not been deliberately designed to be the most vile or creepy character in the entire film. Look for moments when he’s not saying something off-handedly offensive to Elisa or Zelda. Or, tell me a scene where he says something innocuous, and that he doesn’t sound like or look like a borderline psychopath. Hell, the very first scene he is introduced, the camera frames him from an upward angle (making it look like he’s looking down on us), and the color of his suit is, you guessed it… black. It doesn’t help that the actor Michael Shannon is perhaps the tallest cast member in the entire film, towering at a whopping 6’3” above the rest of the cast. In each shot he’s in, it just drives home the point of how domineering this character is, added on top of the over-the-top creepiness factor.

To drive the point home of how much we should hate this character, I will illustrate one of the creepiest scenes with this character:

"Well, as long as she doesn't actually say no..."

Strickland is observing our protagonist Elisa through the security monitors within his office. While ogling her, he deliberately knocks over a glass of water, and has his receptionist call in Elisa to his office to clean it up. While she is in the office, he talks about how he is “somehow attracted” to her muteness, and while grabbing her arm implies that he could make her “squawk” in a sexual way. Elisa manages to get away unscathed (save for some emotional trauma) but at that point in the film, if you weren’t convinced that Strickland is very much a “bad guy”, this scene grabs you by the back of the head and rubs your face with it’s lack of subtlety.

The point I’m trying to make is that Guillermo, perhaps in an attempt to make some of his stories feel “fairy tale-esque,” likes to write his human villains as too obviously sadistic, villainous, or creepy. Compare Strickland to his villain from Pan’s Labyrinth, Captain Vidal (played by Sergi Lopez), and you’ll see that there is a degree of sadistic creepiness that the character exudes. In Pan's Labyrinth, we see how he is obsessed with passing on his lineage with a demented sense of purpose.

But having very obvious villains is not necessarily a bad thing, as both Vidal and Strickland are paced out very well in terms of development. There is a slow descent into total psychosis for these characters which can feel very reminiscent of older Disney villains. As the plot progresses, and things spiral out of our villain’s control, so too do their grip on reality seem to weaken. The same can be said for Strickland… just with an extra helping of creepiness.

Swiggity Swooty I'm watching you sleep.

TL;DR: Everyone gave great performances, and our villain is especially villainous, almost in a Disney-like fashion. Felt a little over-the-top.

Set Design/Creature Design

How could I NOT talk about the set design for this film?. In nearly every del Toro film I’ve seen, I’ve always been amazed at the level of detail presented in his sets, whether it’s the dinner table from Pan’s Labyrinth, the underground monster bazaar from Hellboy II, or even the orphanage from The Devil’s Backbone.

Elisa's Apartment: waterlogged and welcoming.

I wish I could own this movie on Blu-ray already just so I can dissect each of the sets individually. From Elisa’s enormous, ragged, and water stained apartment, the hard, concrete look of the research facility, to the plastic greenness of the diner that Giles visits. Speaking of which, there is an interplay with the color green that I think the writers at Indiewire.com put into much better words than I could. In short, the color green is a color of science, the world, or the encroaching modern era, which is present in most sets except on the creature’s color palette.

Ahh.... so many delicious little eggs in this scene.

Without spoiling too much, but there is even a short scene where our characters are on a large 1940's Hollywood style stage, the likes of which Katharine Hepburn would have performed or sang upon, and the film tints to black and white to emphasize this fact. In every del Toro film I’ve seen, there have been at least one or two whole sets designed by his team which matches the signature style of del Toro. It's difficult to put into words, but it's present in all of his custom sets, especially in this film.

This could not be more true for the creature design. The creature itself, sharing only a few visual similarities to Abe Sapien from Hellboy I and II,  has a wide range of aquatic colors detailing its already impressively realistic design. There are waves of black and blue that line his body like a tiger fish, with a serrated looking spine along his back,  In the film, they state that he was worshiped as a god in an unspecified region in South America, and the coloration of his scales/skin has a pattern to it that makes you think of something from that continent. In addition, they managed to consistently make the suit look wet or glossy, which really popped out the amphibious nature of the creature.

TL;DR: Absolutely delicious set designs, even in the less del Toro-esque locations. Definitely hope they win the oscar for Set Design or Costume Department.

The Crossexamination

“Ah, but Kaz!” I again hear you frustratingly ask through your monitor, “what does ANY of this have to do with Bioshock??” Well my dear reader, I will tell you, it has EVERYTHING to do with a potential Bioshock movie. And I’ll put a pin on each topic I’ve discussed to illuminate it.

The biggest and most obvious thing to tackle would be the set design. For a Bioshock movie, scenes would have to be either underwater or work with water to pull off the deep sea feel of the game. Guillermo del Toro has shown, in this film, that he can definitely handle underwater sets and scenes. Again, just in that opening scene alone, he has demonstrated that he could fuse the two types of environments very elegantly, and on a large scale too. Not only that, but the setting for Bioshock’s story takes place in a literal underwater city with an art deco design straight out of the 40’s and 50’s. If you can picture the details in Elisa’s old, time-worn and water-stained apartment for an entire city, then that is essentially THE look for a Bioshock film. He’s already captured the aesthetic of the 40’s and 50’s in many of his previous works, so this wouldn’t be a problem for him in making a Bioshock film.

Splicers. Goddamn splicers.

Even the cos-players can do it.

His costume/creature designs have been notable in each film he has directed or wrote for since the team that he works with are very particular to his vision and their own. With a Bioshock movie, the character designs are already in place. The game’s various enemies and characters all have their own distinct look and style. And I imagine that it would not be too hard to craft the broken, deformed bodies of Bioshock’s splicers as they are already near human enough to craft prosthetics to match that horrific look. And if you weren’t convinced that Guillermo could do body horror, look at his work in Devil’s Backbone or Pan’s Labyrinth. However, his biggest challenge in terms of character design is going to have to be the game’s most iconic enemy: the Big Daddy.

The challenge wouldn’t be so much as adapting the creature’s design into a wearable costume (Weta Workshop is going to have a field day with it to be honest), it would be how and where the first, and probably most iconic battle with the creature will take place, since there are multiple points in the game the player gets to tangle with the Big Daddies. Not to mention, there are multiple versions of the Big Daddy, so audiences may expect or hope for an encounter with the different iterations at some point in the movie. What is really going to sell the movie for fans will be how our main character, Jack, handles himself against this beast in the movie, since that will be the scene most referred to in the film.

Big Daddy's gonna mess you up.

The characters in the game of Bioshock are complex but ultimately straight forward parallels between good and evil. The majority of the cast are either cold-blooded geniuses, compassionate leaders, or straight up psychos. Characters like Tennenbaum, Atlas, and Andrew Ryan can be played by any competent or oscar-worthy actor, but it’s the side characters, and our main character which concerns me.

Building a personality for “Jack”, the protagonist, is a bit tricky since, in the game, he’s basically your average heroic mime. However, this presents the opportunity for Guillermo to build Jack’s personality from the ground up, giving the character a distinct (and literal) voice. Or if he really wants to go the extra mile, could more or less base his personality on the character Booker DeWitt from Bioshock: Infinite. Admittedly, the latter option could be a little too meta, and may make the fanboys crave a Bioshock: Infinite movie afterwards... perhaps he should just create an original character and let the audiences work with that after all.

The world ain't ready for Booker DeWitt.... yet.

More interesting however, would be who he chooses to play our game’s most notable psychopaths. namely the obsessed Dr. Steinman and the unhinged artist Sander Cohen. Even though these are minor characters in comparison to the story, including one or both of them would earn points in the gaming community. However, I also worry that, these characters may be tossed to the wayside in favor of conveying the most important element to Bioschock's adaptation: the plot.

Perhaps the hardest part for ol’ Guillermo in making the Bioshock movie would be his conveyance of the central story. A lot of the game takes its time to introduce the city/world of Rapture in incremental stages and levels. Obviously, for an hour and a half to two hour production, a good deal of those elements are going to have to be trimmed down for time. I imagine that a lot of the “levels” from the game are going to have to be either in montage or made more straight-forward rather than the long-winded fetch quests the player is made to endure. And depending on how well Guillermo wishes for us to be sympathetic to the Little Sister characters, there needs to be at least some time dedicated to building Jack’s relationship with these minor, but still central characters.

The Results

If anything, The Shape of Water serves as the perfect visual example for why a Bioshock movie is possible, but whether or not it should become a movie is entirely up to a studio willing to put stock in the idea. No matter what, fans of the game will be divided on the film’s inclusion or exclusion of in-game areas, but as long as the central story can be told, and told well, I believe it still has the potential to be a very good film. And I can see nobody better suited to tackle this story than Guillermo del Toro himself. I look forward to the day when I can go to the theater, sit in one of those comfy reclining chairs and hear those famous words:

"I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture."- Andrew Ryan

-----------------------------------

Thank you for reading, and I hope you come again for the next media dissection. If you disagree or have a differing view from my dissection of The Shape of Water or on my argument for a Bioshock film, I encourage you to leave a comment (or a note) and we can discuss other points I may have missed.

I can take suggestions for what to watch next, and I can give it my full treatment in the next post.

Until then, I look forward to your feedback!