Powered by Blogger.


PODCAST 299: The Shape of Water & Crimson Peak [Del Toro Wins Edition]

This week the Horror Duo celebrate the recent Oscar success of filmmaker Guillermo Del Toro by sharing their thoughts on a pair of his most recent films. Forest covers this past year's sexy fish-man movie, The Shape of Water. Cory appreciates Crimson Peak, but thinks it falls short of being great.

They also run down some of the highs and lows of the Oscar Awards, and Forest rants about Disney's monopolization of the award show and it's gratuitous use of A Wrinkle in Time. All this and the Black Dynamite sequel needs YOU!


★ ★ ★ ★



★ ★ ★



  • 00:00 - Introduction & News
  • 30:55 - "The Shape of Water"
  • 52:29 - Know Your Horror Trivia
  • 52:44 - "Crimson Peak"
  • 75:25 - Comments & Conclusion


Horror Pack Subscription Box


Blake Matthews said...

We lost Stephen Hawking:


chris reeves said...

Hey guys love the Del Toro praise this week! Without him we might never have Ron Perlman as a kick ass gat toting Satan...which I’m sure is one of his many nicknames! Also what are your thoughts on how Creed 2 will turn out under a new director? And how many montages will we be robbed of without Stallone in the chair? Thanks guys and see ya next week!

Andrew said...

Regarding blue collar henchmen in evil organisations - ‘Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery’ also dealt with them. More importantly it covered the wives, children and friends the heroes leave bereaved when they kill these henchmen:



Andrew said...

Oh also, on the subject of women having sex with things from the sea, have you guys heard the story of Margaret Howe? Basically she was involved in an experiment in the 1960s which involves her living in a flooded house with a dolphin. The dolphin soon started insisting that she give it hand jobs, which she did (for science, I guess):

So, The Shape of Water isn’t perhaps as weird as it sounds...


Anomalous Host said...

16 minutes in, Forest talks about Death Wish. You know, I had a feeling something like this would be what would get me to comment again, but I didn't think you would be taking this side. But on the other hand, if everyone shared the same mindset and the same opinions and the same likes and dislikes, what fun would that be? LET'S GET IT ON!

"The idea of a guy using a gun to solve his problems, eh, it got me a little bothered there."

Right, like virtually every other movie that had a guy with a gun solving problems, like Westerns and John Wick and The Equalizer and a shitload of other examples. The only reason you're bothered now is because you're being told to be bothered by it now.

"Even though the first movie was controversial too, that one at least sort of talked about the ethics of taking the law into your own hands. This one tries to, [but is half-assed about it compared to the first film]."

I agree, the ethics talk with the radio hosts and podcasts was very tacked-on. But there were 2 other bits that worked more in the film's favor regarding the dangers of vigilantism (though I don't believe it went far enough with them). 1. Seeing his lifestyle going downhill, mainly with the room he eats and sleeps in, how he alienates himself from others like his brother. 2. The other wannabe vigilante getting killed, thus providing the warning message to the dangers of being a vigilante. Not everyone is cut out to be one, let alone try.

"I don't wanna cheer for a rich white guy shooting poor minorities."

So you would rather cheer for a poor minority shooting rich white guys? Kind of hypocritical, don't you think? Not all rich (if you could call them that) white ('cause #WhitesNotAllowed) guys (#MenNotAllowed) are all assholes anymore than all minorities are assholes (and a decent amount of minorities are white, like some of the other assholes that get shot in the movie). Let's face it, there are some minorities who deserve to get shot for the things they do, and the same applies to some majorities. Assholes aren't confined to just minorities or majorities, they're in both.

"I feel like the other ones are 'innocent' even though they're not [like they don't know any better]."

I partly agree with that. But on the other hand, maybe those other ones, because of their youth (which has pros and cons), they present things simply in a, pardon the expression, black and white manner. In the 70s, people were getting mugged/raped/killed by minorities at a rate high enough that made films like the original Death Wish and Dirty Harry so popular. Today we are told to demand more, to see things more fairly, to have everyone be a multi-dimensional character (especially the villains, because sometimes they're just misunderstood). And I say, if we're educated well-enough to know better, why not still have films be as simple as that? Why not have that simplicity of escapism? And better yet, why is it that it seems ok for left-wing films to be released without hardly any backlash (at least from critics and mainstream media), but not right-wing films (or at least films that appear to be left/right pandering)?

Anomalous Host said...

Ah, and one last thing. Less people would probably bitch about a Death Wish movie if it was made like this: