The Shape of Garbage

Rating: 1/10 (12 July 2019)

I was prepared to like this film. Hell, I WANTED to like it, seriously. Based on his previous work, I thought Del Toro a filmmaker with some chops (although now I'm not so sure...) and really, I had some expectations for this newest piece of his.
It started well: the sets had this kind of baroque, Gilliam-esque density and muted palette that gave the film a certain visual appeal and tone. Twenty minutes in I was thinking, "Okay... it's not as good as I hoped, but maybe it'll pull itself together..." By the end of the first hour I was wondering if I could make it to the finish without hurling something at the screen. But the thing is, I always hold out this forlorn hope that somehow, against all odds, at the finale the movie will redeem itself, explain away the vacuous plot holes, hackneyed acting and ridiculous, cliché ridden dialog, and make SOME kind of sense. Sadly, this was not to be the case. This film was awful right through to the credits.
I really would like to have a conversation with someone who adored this film. I would like to ask them how they managed to get past all of the elements in this film that annoyed and, quite frankly, insulted me as a viewer: the stock, cliched characters, the utterly egregious plot holes, the cringe-worthy dialog ("You ARE a god!" Eek.), and the fact that our central character, a guy in a rubber fish suit, looked to me exactly like... a guy in a rubber fish suit. For pity's sake, it wasn't even consistent from scene to scene! Did they LOSE some pieces of the suit during filming?? Hell, you could even SEE the seams in some shots!
Okay, just for fun (sarcasm alert) let's look at a couple the more obvious plot holes:
So, apparently we can't release fish-guy back into the ocean because the flood gate at the end of the canal is closed. Explain to me: what's the problem with driving an extra 400 yards to the other side of the gate? Do you seriously expect me to believe that this canal is the ONLY access to the ocean within driving distance? Come ON...
After the great escape (though machinations so absurdly improbable I'm not even going to dignify them with a comment), our well-intentioned heroine decides to keep fish-guy happy (oh, and have sex, too, apparently. Right...) by flooding her entire bathroom with water Does anyone seriously believe that the upper floor of an old building like that could even come CLOSE to handling that kind of mass without a catastrophic structural failure? I'm sorry, but that is simply impossible. Period. Assuming the room is about 10 by 10 (likely bigger), that comes to nearly 50 thousand pounds of water, or 25 tons. In reality, it wouldn't just leak down into the audience below; the entire room, water, floor, walls, bathroom fixtures and everything else, would come crashing down onto the moviegoers, killing or injuring at least a dozen. But that wouldn't make for a charming, romantic movie, would it?
I expect some people are reading the above and thinking, "Oh come on! It's a fantasy; stop being so literal." Nope. Sorry, I disagree. If you place a fantasy in a fantasy world then fine, you can write your own rules, create your own reality, the sky's the limit. But if you place your fantasy in the REAL WORLD, then you have to abide by real-world rules. You can't pick and choose what parts of reality to accept and what to cast aside because it's inconvenient. To do so just lazy writing, and this film is rife with it.
I could go on, but really, what's the point? And frankly, I would very much like to put this horrible experience behind me, thank you very much. I have to admit that Sally Hawkins (as Elisa, the mute cleaning lady lead) did a decent job with a shallowly written character. Also, the ubiquitous permeation of cold war paranoia in the 60's was decently captured. But I fail to see how Richard Jenkins, a character actor I admire, could allow himself to be drawn into this mess, especially given his cliched, stock character of the lonely, closeted gay man (if you're going to insert an LGBTQ character into a film, could you not at least make him/her interesting?)
Suffice to say, I have not had any respect for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences since the execrable "Oliver!" won best picture way back in 1968. This film and its woefully misplaced accolades does nothing to change that opinion.