"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

The Substance

At some point in the last decade or so the movie-discussers really latched onto the term “body horror.” They kinda act like if you can identify a movie as body horror that means it’s legit. But also when they say it they almost always mean one thing: it has some David Cronenberg-inspired New Flesh type stuff at some point. I kinda wonder how many of the people comparing any vaguely misshapen flesh to Cronenberg bothered to see his last movie, but I suppose that’s irrelevant.

THE SUBSTANCE definitely fits the category, and there are reasons to compare it to Cronenberg, but tonally, I gotta say, this is way more Frank Henenlotter and Brian Yuzna. Picture a movie that’s a descendent of SOCIETY and the BASKET CASE trilogy and makes you wonder what Screaming Mad George is up to these days, but that also boasts an acclaimed lead performance by Demi Moore, won Best Screenplay at Cannes and is distributed by MUBI. That’s what THE SUBSTANCE is.

For me it was a must-see because it’s movie #2 from Coralie Fargeat, writer/director of REVENGE (2017). It sucks that it took her 7 years to do another feature (with only the serial killer convention episode of The Sandman in between), but thankfully she struts into her delayed sophomore outing like she has diplomatic immunity. She brings along her stylish design, blood-smeared rich people homes and mythic battles between beautiful women with star-shaped earrings and awful men, but this time in a sci-fi vein and much broader, sillier and more indulgent. I’m not sure if I would’ve noticed it was 141 minutes if I didn’t know it going in, but I love Fargeat’s dedication to overdoing absolutely everything, beginning with its narratively redundant (but all the more beautiful for it) time lapse sequence about the lifespan of a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Moore (BUNRAKU) plays Elisabeth Sparkle, a vaguely Jane Fonda based fitness show pioneer whose pig of a boss Harvey (Dennis Quaid, BATTLE FOR TERRA) decides on her 50th birthday to replace her with a younger host. Meanwhile, she’s recruited into the clientele of a mysterious company that uses your DNA to grow “a better version of you.” The kit they send her to grow and maintain the thing herself comes with minimal instructions, but she figures it out pretty well and grows a younger, more perfect body named Sue (Margaret Qualley, DRIVE-AWAY DOLLS). I’m making it sound too simple – actually it’s quite an ordeal just to get started. She grows extra corneas, her spine splits open, it’s a whole thing. A POV shot shows us her view as she tries out her shiny new body, checks herself out in the mirror, sees her usual body laying motionless on the ground. What’s she gonna do with that old thing? Well, the thing is you have to tap spinal fluid out of it as a stabilizer for the new body, and also you have to switch back and forth every other week otherwise you’re fucked.

So you gotta find a job with a lenient schedule, I guess. Sue applies for replacement host, gets the job, tells Harvey she has to take care of her sick mother every other week.

They seemed to be one consciousness, and the instructions really emphasize “you are one.” I took it as Elisabeth keeping her job through trickery by returning as a young it girl. But soon we realize that as much as Elisabeth and Sue are connected they don’t remember each others’ activities and start to feud. I was a little thrown off, honestly, but I rolled with it.

If somebody somewhere believes this movie should be more subtle, I’m not sure how that would work. It’s like saying anti-matter would be better with more matter, it’s not really in the spirit of the thing. There’s a good indication early on that nobody should expect any nuance when Harvey is introduced swaggering into the men’s room having a loud misogynistic phone conversation as he pisses, his face uncomfortably close to us like he walked up to a Ring cam, and then he leaves without washing his hands. The next scene takes a close look and listen to his nasty mouth disgustingly smacking on a pile of shrimp that he munches and leaves all over a restaurant table as he excuses himself out of an insulting lunch meeting with Elisabeth. (And if you need that scene to be even grosser let me suggest this: if Harvey is named after a famous Hollywood pig is it possible that his shrimp eating is inspired by a legendary Brett Ratner sexual harassment story?)

I think this is genuinely an arthouse gross-out comedy, which is noble, and it has other dimensions too. I love the whole procedure of obtaining and using The Substance. She gets a referral like it’s a secret society, she follows clues to find a locker hidden inside what looks like a condemned building, she receives a package with everything she needs, like a meal kit. In some movies this would be uncovered as a nefarious organization, but that’s not what Fargeat is interested in, and I don’t believe payment is even discussed. All that matters is that there’s this technology and Elisabeth decides to use it. When it goes badly and she calls and doesn’t get much help it’s not really on them, she knew what she was doing.

The style and music are current, but the subject matter seems deliberately out of time. It’s a world where aerobics are big business, but smart phones exist. Apps and social media don’t come up. The depiction of sexism is more time-honored than of-the-moment; Harvey walks around with the all-grey-haired-white-male board members telling women they’d be prettier if they smiled. I laughed whenever they cut to the camera operator of Sue’s extremely butt-shot heavy exercise show with his lens at crotch level. There are pretty funny broad jokes about men being clueless, like the boyfriend who goes to check on Sue while she’s in the bathroom screaming bloody murder, then tells her to get out so he can take a piss, or the guy who makes small talk with Elisabeth on the elevator right after her ear fell off.

Obviously Fargeat is gonna make a mess in the pristine worlds of Elisabeth’s apartment and Hollywood itself. Elisabeth’s star on the Walk of Fame is smeared in ketchup and onion rings, her portrait in glittery snowglobe gel, her floor in blood and puke and chicken bones. If you’ve heard about the last part being particularly crazy, I don’t think you need to worry about overhype. The whole movie has been consistently over-the-top, so it’s impressive that there’s still room for Fargeat to hit the NOS in the last stretch. It starts with honestly one of the great title cards of cinema and becomes a raucous carnival catapulting dumpsters full of splatter, pulsating fangorian creature FX genius and dark humor into the laps of glitzy Hollywood New Year’s Eve celebrants. Silliness is as abundant as blood, and to be clear there’s an EVIL DEAD remake amount of blood hosing off an entire audience, covering every inch of a long hallway prominently featured earlier in the movie, and most notably covering one of the many round, aerobicized asses. Where Elisabeth ends up I could never have predicted even if I was working around the clock with a team of experts, yet it feels like the 100% correct and perfect conclusion. Accept no younger, smoother substitutes.

I have to praise Qualley, whose pointed objectification throughout the movie might mask how complicated the role is, mixing a physically demanding character with ALL ABOUT EVE fame monster and her wide-eyed Frankensteinian creation from POOR THINGS. I read that she wears prosthetic breasts in the movie, which is very fitting for a story about impossible beauty standards – even she needs to resort to technology.

But obviously this is the Demi Moore show, and it’s exciting to see her throwing herself into a movie and role that are both this great and this unexpected for someone of her particular resume. She’s been working semi-under-the-radar but not doing SyFy movies or some shit – unless you count GHOST she’s barely ever done any genre work. This has been discussed as a comeback or even awards contender for her but it’s pretty far off the beaten path for that sort of thing not only because of the Not Safe For Awards Shows level of goo but because the performance allows her the freedom of a Nicolas Cage range of frequencies, from natural to running around in monster makeup cackling like a cartoon witch. It’s only a bonus that it takes advantage of Moore’s status (and old photos) as an A-list star in a previous era, adding weight to its mockery of dipshits who don’t see the value of women after they reach middle age, and already hold them to nonsensical expectations before that. I was reminded during my research that the Razzies nominated Moore’s all-timer performance in G.I. JANE for worst actress, because they had it in for her for being naked in STRIPTEASE. I guess it’s not so bad that her doing nudity now is being framed as bravery.

By the way, it occurred to me in the middle of the movie that the director of REVENGE was making a movie with the model of the I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE vhs cover. I’d love to know if they discussed that.

I’ve been through HEREDITARY, US, MIDSOMMAR, PEARL and INFINITY POOL so I know Moore probly won’t end up getting Oscar nominated for what I consider one of the best performances of the year. But we should hose the Dolby Theatre with red Karo syrup if THE SUBSTANCE doesn’t at least get a makeup nomination. Prosthetics and makeup effects designer Pierre-Olivier Persin (INSIDE, ATHENA) told Indiewire, “I don’t see it as the destruction of a woman’s body. I find beauty in what we do, what we sculpt and what we paint.” Maybe that’s one way it differs from what some people are talking about when they say body horror. Yes, it confronts us with our fears of not being able to control what becomes of our flesh, but it’s having a fun time doing it. It’s definitely not on the side of perfection. It prefers the hideous.

We see the industry and societal pressure on Elisabeth to make the choices she does, but I think it works because it’s really more of a story of personal vulnerabilities and self hatred. To me the most heartbreaking scene involves torturing herself trying to look perfect for the one character we know is gonna be impressed by her no matter how she looks. Ultimately it’s about the need to accept yourself and your physical changes as you age. I think the climax is pretty open to interpretation, but I’ve seen Fargeat describe it as empowerment, and I know I will be citing [REDACTED] as one of those lovable symbolically aspirational cinematic figures for the foreseeable future.

THE SUBSTANCE is definitely one of my favorites this year, a great time at da movies. Somebody please hurry up and greenlight Fargeat’s next four or five projects and keep this ball rolling.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 3rd, 2024 at 3:08 pm and is filed under Reviews, Comedy/Laffs, Horror, Science Fiction and Space Shit. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

30 Responses to “The Substance”

  1. Thank you! I’ve been waiting for this one.

    I’ve read criticisms of the movie being unsubtle and I don’t understand why subtle is good and unsubtle is bad. If a movie is unsubtle but well made who cares. A movie can be subtle and not good. This overrated notion that a movie isn’t smart enough because it’s 1000% clear what it is and what it’s trying to say is just weird to me.

    This movie has so many oh shit that reminds of this other movie, director, etc moments that just added a whole other level of fun to a movie that was already an absolute blast but also deeply sad.
    The most Cronenbergian aspect to me was the ending which felt reminiscent of the end of the Fly with Brundlefly’s final exit from the pod crawling up to Geena Davis.

    You mentioned Yuzna’s Society but also I thought of his and Stuart Gordon’s Reanimator as well with the green liquid syringes.

  2. I don’t know where the director goes next after this but a David Lynch Straight Story like swerve would be fascinating. I just hope it’s subtle!

  3. Am I the only one who remembers REJUVENATRIX? I’m not saying that this movie is a rip-off or something, but it’s basically the gooey, crazy monster make up 80s version of “Aging actress takes a serum to become young again but turns into a more and more hideous monster” and I’m surprised how nobody seems to bring that movie up while talking about THE SUBSTANCE. It’s pretty basic and not exactly good, but the the final monster make up alone is already worth it.

  4. CJ, I had to look that up. I forgot all about that one but now I remember seeing the vhs box art as a kid. Never saw it though but the cover alone definitely has similarities to The Substance.
    I gotta check it out!

  5. Oh man, I heard this was pretty good but leave it to Vern to sell me immediately by mentioning it in the same vein as Screaming Mad George effects. People do like to bandy about “body horror” a lot now so I didn’t know The Substance goes that hard. Stopped reading there til can watch this.

    I just watched Nightmare on Elm Street 4 (watching most of the sequels for the first time) and was excited to see Screaming Mad George in the opening credits. At first, I assumed he did the “tunnel of souls” in Freddy at the end because it reminded me of his Society effects. I looked it up and found out he actually did the amazingly elaborate cockroach sequence. I have a hard time thinking any scene in the series is going to be any more gross/disturbing than that! (although I think Tina’s death in the first one is still the most effectively nightmarish and viscerally upsetting in the series, its simple and inexplicable in a way that makes it more like actual nightmares than the later elaborate themed setpieces).

  6. To me the complicated procedure for maintaining Sue and Elisabeth spoke to the way nobody ever follows even the simplest instructions right. We have this expectation that everything works the way it’s supposed to and everyone is competent (and fair). And yet they’re surprised health insurance, the electoral college and everything were promised is totally for sure functional doesn’t actually work.

    So of course Sue tries to steal more time. They say “you are one” but they have different memories and experiences, and they can’t actually discuss the arrangement with each other. So that adds yet another level of social commentary to me.

    Never knew demi was the I Spit model! Cool!

  7. After years of ignoring Demi Moore I hadn’t read enough about this to even get that it is directed by Fargeat. I have been a huge fan of REVENGE since it came out, and watch it at least once a year. Now I guess I will have to watch a movie starring Demi for the first time since GI JANE.

  8. I did feel the 2-hour-plus runtime at a few points, but it earns it.
    The filmmaking, effects and acting are so good. As is the general vision and the level of jokes. And the sound design… I hope the poor foley artist got a bonus.
    Just an enormous amount of fun. I think I prefer REVENGE’s leaner approach to this movie’s all-out-assault, but I can’t wait to see what Fargeat does next.

    As for the subtlety thing… I mean, they put the Harvey eating lobsters and people tearing her face off the placard scenes right in the trailer; If you expected anything but an angry hammer-shaped film after the hall of fame intro… I don’t know what to tell you. Also, it might not be subtle, but it’s pretty smart in some of the targets it chooses and how it goes after them.

    I actually *was* a little underwhelmed by the ending, but only because a guy at work sold it to me as the craziest thing ever, and MEN and SOCIETY are fairly fresh in my memory. No matter, it’s still a huge amount of fun.
    The title card is priceless, though. I don’t think a chapter header has made me laugh so hard since ANIARA.

  9. Probably my favorite movie of the year so far. Hits a lot of the same points that Ti West’s X did, but in different ways. This one’s like if Pearl and Maxine were the same person, rather than the same actor. Yearning for youth, beauty, and desirability, and equating those with societal value. A satire about Hollywood’s impossible standards for women, but also about the self-loathing those women have internalized. The Picture of Dorian Gray for the Botox/Ozempic generation. I saw some folks also read substance abuse into The Substance– the drink or drugs will make you feel beautiful and loved, but the comedown hits hard, and too much of it destroys your body.

    It strikes me that Demi Moore has made multiple movies in her career about her/women’s bodies and how they are perceived, used, objectified, and commodified, both by characters in the film and by audiences– stuff like Indecent Proposal, G.I. Jane, The Scarlet Letter, Striptease. She really goes for it in this one. But there’s less of her than I expected.

    Also interesting that this and REVENGE both involve the protagonist miraculously surviving a near-death experience and then being propelled into a genre movie. Excited to see where Fargeat goes from here.

  10. Anything I’ve read this sounds like a more horror oriented reimagining of Death Becomes Her, cranked up to 11.

  11. Haven’t seen this yet, but the idea that they *don’t* share a consciousness and aren’t aware or experiencing what’s happening when the other body is active seemingly kills the premise dead. Why would Demi Moore’s character do it then? Why would anyone ever do it for any reason?

  12. JTS, that’s a good question. The creators of the serum repeatedly remind Elisabeth that she and her double are *somehow* one and the same (I forget the exact wording.) In a literal sense, this seems to simply mean they share a life force, and when one steals more than their share it begins to damage the other. But I think it’s also meant to be true in a deeper sense, and that felt more to me like a mystery than a plot hole. Sue is living out Elisabeth’s bygone dream, and it’s complicated for her to see the evidence of that all around her in posters, billboards, and on TV. It’s not exactly what she wanted but she isn’t unaffected by it. And there’s a point late in the movie where Elisabeth’s envy recedes and for a moment she feels empathy and even pride. I think their connection at their best may be more akin to siblings or even twins, but as the movie goes on each begins to the see the other as a kind of parasite stealing their own life force. But then, in the end, [spoiler?] they literally become one.

    All of which is to say that it’s the not the body-switching logic you’d expect, but I think in the end that makes for something more layered and interesting.

  13. So it’s maybe thematically interesting, but still, it sounds like I’m right and if that’s the way it works no one would ever use the titular substance for any reason. The upside is maybe you’ll feel like a sibling-like pride for your other body? That pitch would sell no one in the world. I’m still going to watch the movie but I suspect I won’t be able to get over that. That feels glaring to me.

  14. JTS, it might still bother you, but it’s not really a movie that operates by that kind of narrative logic. You just kinda have to go with it. (In my opinion, it really pays off.)

  15. Zed – The way The Substance’s more like an underground, possibly illegal test run than something that’s widely publicized, and the way it works is kept a mystery from the people who are going to use it. Elizabeth doesn’t really know what’s going to happen going in, so in that sense it makes sense. I have more problems with the fact that she actually goes through with it… but as JTS says, that’s not the way the movie rolls; it’s more of a bleak, heightened fairy tale with a hefty dash of dream logic.

    I’d say the way it ends up working is more of a parallel to motherhood than them being siblings, with Elizabeth living vicariously through Sue until mutual resentment does them in.

    Davey – No one I’ve spoken with about this agrees, but I see a little homage to DEATH BECOMES HER in the ending, what with [SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!] the still-living face lying on the floor.

  16. JTS, the way I reasoned it is that the Sue clone continues Elisabeth’s career so that Elisabeth can still have household income.

    Also, have you ever wished “I wish I had another me so I could get things done” – write that novel, run that errand, clean the house, etc. – in which case you would have the accomplishment even if you don’t have the satisfaction of actually doing it. So to me this is DEATH BECOMES HER meets MULTIPLICITY.

    I’m with Zed and Dread on this – this is a heightened reality where you just have to accept certain story conveniences. To me there were much biggest ones – the idea that being the star of a workout show could be so Taylor Swift-level star-making; that Sue is able to get this gig with no experience, no resume, and no social security number or other identification (or is using Elisabeth’s, which her employees would already have in the system); that they would just let her take every other week off from work; and that she is able to get by as just Sue, with no surname. Plus, I don’t remember the substance company ever asking for any kind of payment, and Elisabeth sure is lucky to have such a big bathroom that she has room to spread out for this messy transition AND build an extra room in which to hide half of the partnership.

    On a dramatic level, maybe the biggest artistic license is that Elisabeth is never able to (or never thinks to) reach out to anyone for help. I would think her old classmate would be a sympathetic resource, or even her horny idiot neighbor – but she retreats from these possibilities. And I don’t remember the movie establishing her as having family or female friends, despite being such a big celebrity, nor do I remember anyone visiting her at the hospital after her car crash or helping her get home.

    This is a world (or at least a city) where getting slightly old is career-ending, and where disfigurement is responded to with kill-the-monster horror rather than any tact or sympathy. So it’s an exaggerated paranoid fantasy about how women experience aging, set in a stylized reality. For me it was powerful, funny and disturbing.

  17. I think these are all good takes but one reason Elizabeth and Sue not sharing the same consciousness works narratively is because as text and subtext on self hatred people take drugs to escape who they are. Which can lead to black outs and not remembering what happened while high, drunk, etc. And yet they do it again and again to escape their pain, self hatred, etc. She just doesn’t love herself and just wants to be younger her with her mind intact. There is maybe a part of her that wants to escape all together. But while she’s escaping that better version of her (a daughter) is succeeding in every way as she perceives it. She’s not necessarily conscious of it, but her DNA is a part of that success and it lives on with or without her. Like children do. It feels like also a story about parenting and how children can be a better version of us while also taking a lot from us at the same time. Her decision makes sense to me in the context of this fairy tale.

  18. I have no problem with plot contrivances and setting aside my disbelief and not subjecting movies to the rules of real life. I enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan’s TRAP recently and that can’t withstand any plot-related scrutinizing at all. But to me ‘How does she get by without a social security number? Well, she couldn’t’ is a hole in the plot and easily forgivable, while ‘Why would she use the substance? Well, she wouldn’t’ is a hole in the premise and not easily forgivable. Comparing it to doing heroin or getting blackout drunk or whatever is fine subtextually, but I have no problem understanding why people would drink or use heroin in the first place.

    Though I will refrain from commenting any further until I’ve actually seen the movie!

  19. Oh man, I heard this was pretty good but leave it to Vern to sell me immediately by mentioning it in the same vein as Screaming Mad George effects. People do like to bandy about “body horror” a lot now so I didn’t know The Substance goes that hard. Stopped reading there til can watch this.

    The distributor has been… downplaying this aspect. I guess in attempts to lure the arthouse people. But with that said, I’ve heard several complaints from people wishing they were warned (i.e. I was leaving another film, and heard a young lady chewing out her partner with “What a long, loud, idiotic gore show. So fucking empowering to literally rip women to pieces for three hours. You definitely owe me dinner for that one”, and it wouldn’t have taken three guesses to figure out which movie she was talking about”)

    Personally, I did my part. When someone was asking me about it, and saying they really wanted to see it. but had apprehensions because she heard it was pretty “Cronenberg” (love that he’s currently a genre unto himself nowadays), and some of his stuff was “pretty fucking icky”. I told her I thought it was more Henenlotter than Cronenberg. When she said that she didn’t know what that meant, I explained “not so much ‘pretty fucking icky’ but more complete gross-outs”

  20. For more polling data, Mrs.Vern (who doesn’t usually go to horror movies with me) surprisingly wanted to see it and delightedly said “I’m glad I didn’t skip this!” at the end. I think for her the grossness is tolerable because it’s so funny and not meant to feel realistic. She says it’s one of her favorites of the year, but she told her mom not to see it.

  21. Dammit, you guys. I was perfectly content to let the internet have this one, along with all the other pretentious bullshit they adore for a month and then never talk about again, but then you go and talk up the disgustingness and now I have to see it, even though there’s like an 85% chance I’ll think it’s way too long and end up hating it. Then I’m gonna have to come back here and write a whole diatribe about it. You don’t want that. I don’t want that. Nobody wants that.

    I hope you’re happy.

  22. Articulate, entertaining, rage-fuelled rants? On the internet? Who could possibly be interested… (grabs popcorn)

  23. I dunno. This could have easily been a baller standout eight minute “ABC’S Of Death” short (“S Is For Substance”) and it still would have worked. I thought the sledgehammer themes came across pretty clearly, and I did not need to sit there for almost two and a half hours on a really nice day to get it.

    A couple of points:

    1) She survives that car crash at the beginning “without a scratch”. Either she actually dies and this movie is the afterlife, or she’s Bruce-Willis-In-“Unbreakable” and that causes the grotesque mutations.
    2) This is a woman that the camera tries to deconstruct, and we’re supposed to be grossed out. But, uh, Demi Moore at 60 (!) looks like a superhuman 50-something in this movie. How does this movie play out with an Ann Dowd or even an Illeana Douglas?
    3) Someone really needs to explain this alternate reality to me. Smartphones exist, but exercise shows are MASSIVE. People talk about Oscars, and there’s a Hollywood Walk of Fame, but no one watches movies or shows ever. And everyone is obsessed with looks, youth and image, but there’s no social media? I kinda thought they would reveal the Substance use was orchestrated by Dennis Quaid so he could get a young Demi Moore out of the deal, but once it was clear that wasn’t the case, I was vexed as to what the motivation is to get the Substance out to people for free.

  24. Someone really needs to explain this alternate reality to me

    Honestly… While this could be because this movie explicitly referencing 208 other movies, I just took it as sort of a homage of ’80s movies strange ’50s obsession. Like you’d be watching something supposedly contemporary, then these June and Ward Cleaver caricatures would show up (and no one within the movie seems to notice how strange this is). So I took it as a contemporary movie now with a nu-improved ’80s obsession.

    I was vexed as to what the motivation is to get the Substance out to people for free

    I assumed the guy who painted Dorian Gray a magic portrait for free worked for the company.

  25. Majestyk, I’m on the fence as to whether to recommend this one to you. Is it elevated horror or is it a spookablast? It’s spooelevakablasted horror. Which is fitting, given what happens in this movie.

    Maybe this might help: my favorite moment in this movie (due to timing and context) is Demi Moore shouting “Fuck off!” There is also an endless supply of female nudity, if that sweetens the deal.

    Personally I want to read your review of it, but it’s up to you. I don’t know if you saw TITANE, but if you liked that one you would probably like this one.

  26. A week on and no rant from Majestyk? I’m disappointed.

    I loved the first two-ish hours of this, but the last twenty minutes lost me a bit. Conceptually it felt correct – from about the midpoint on I figured the ending would be some sort of I’m-ready-for-my-closeup-Mr-DeMille thing and I’m glad it was – but the director lost tonal control of the movie. Which is strange since she used horror, black comedy, drama, and disgust in appropriate places and amounts for the first two acts. The Carrie homage was just too much on top of everything else going on.

    Still, I’m still thinking about it a week later. So it’s got something going for it.

  27. @Gepard, Maj moves in mysterious ways. Or he’s formulating a fomented take-down or a frosty up-tick, you can never be sure and putting a brick on top of your trashcan will not keep him out. Clever bastard.

  28. I am humbled and honored by the anticipation of my inevitable rant, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. I’m not going to see it in the theater, both because it’s not playing within 25 miles of me and because I’ve learned that if I’m at all on the fence about a movie, the theatrical experience will almost certainly push me over into full-on hate. So you’ll have to wait until it’s available at home for free/cheap.

    Or I guess you could leave a copy out in the trash. It also wouldn’t kill you to leave out some fruits or nuts sometimes, you know. I can’t live on banana peels and coffee grinds.

  29. I have now seen this. I thought it was pretty silly (not in a good way) and I thought it was too long. I adored REVENGE (2017), I’m disappointed that I borderline hated this one. Zed’s description of it as a “bleak, heightened fairy tale with a hefty dash of dream logic” is accurate and it should have tipped me off it wasn’t going to my cup of tea.

    For what it’s worth, Zed, you were also absolutely right that the premise being nonsensical doesn’t matter and is beside the point. The movie starts with a montage wherein a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is covered in snow. The Hollywood Walk of Fame in Los Angeles. The movie doesn’t take place in the real world, the jobs depicted in the movie don’t exist in the real world, the people in the movie don’t act like people in the real world — the whole thing takes place in a hazy dream, “dream logic” is the right term, the decisions people make in a dream don’t have to make sense.

  30. Loved this one, absolutely one of the best of the year for me. Demi Moore is amazing in it, and who knew she could do comedy really well? Not me, because like Elisabeth, she was kept in a box by the movie industry that only valued her looks and not her talent.

    Margaret Qualley is also brilliant. Maybe Dennis Quaid over-egged it a bit but otherwise no complaints. 503/10.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>