The Substance.

Review #2355: The Substance.

Cast: 

Demi Moore (Elisabeth Sparkle), Margaret Qualley (Sue), Dennis Quaid (Harvey), Edward Hamilton-Clark (Fred), Gore Abrams (Oliver), Oscar Lesage (Troy), Christian Erickson (man at diner), Robin Greer (nurse), Tom Morton (doctor), with Hugo Diego Garcia (Diego, boyfriend), and Yann Bean (The Substance voice) Written and Directed by Coralie Fargeat.

Review: 

"“It’s really a movie about our bodies and about the reality of how we feel in our bodies. I needed to speak to the reality of the way our flesh can reflect our mental deformation, and I knew this had to exist for real.”

Honestly, I probably should've tried to make the trip to see the movie when it was new. I vaguely remember checking a showing for this particular film a city or two away from where I was when it was still in theaters...and, well, sometimes it seems better to wait for it to hit DVD like the champion for physical media that I strive to be. In honesty, I didn't really know anything about Coralie Fargeat prior to going in with this, but I'm sure her first feature Revenge (a rape and revenge action thriller released in 2017) was something I should've paid attention to. She wanted creative freedom for her next film to go along with casting and arranging a movie that was quite a venture to do when it comes to prosthetics and the like. Apparently, the movie was originally signed to be distributed by Universal Pictures (through a deal with Working Title) but go figure, a few film executives (take a guess at the gender) did want to release it as is, which led to Mubi acquiring rights to release the movie, which resulted in what you might call a bonafide hit; the movie was nominated for five Academy Awards and won one for Best Makeup and Hairstyling.

One of the things I will say is that for some odd reason, certain parts of horror actually makes me have a laugh when seeing the execution of, well, the guts of a movie. I probably enjoyed this movie far more than if I had seen it in a theater with people if only because I had such a good time from the get-go looking at the absurdity that comes with the obsession we have with women's bodies at all costs. We care so much about how an ass looks because it's real to them, damn it. I joked once that it had been a while since someone tried to do a movie about a woman so obsessed with trying to turn back the clock that they would take anything to get it back with The Wasp Woman (1959)*, and that was a bit on my mind when watching this movie, but I really should've tried to guess that the movie would remind me the tiniest bit of Being John Malkovich (1999), a movie that technically is also about someone trying to manufacture a life away from the one they are currently inhabiting, complete with using a larger-than-life image of its star at a certain juncture (why else would one feature a large picture of a younger Moore?); one had a film tag about being someone else, this one asks about being a better version of yourself. I probably should see or mention movies that also apparently come up such as Death Becomes Her (1992) and Seconds (1966). In short: we have a fairy tale kind of movie that can be as horrifying as much as it can be darkly amusing by the time it closes its 141-minute runtime of messiness about the way we can rip ourselves apart when it comes to image that is captured in gloriously symbolistic ways. The movie coasts along on visuals and vibe more so than trying to get too invested in, well, the substance within the substance (if you think about it, by doing this process, one is stuck in a place in perpetuity when having to await the next delivery week after week while only getting older and older). For all we can try to be in united for others in helping and promoting people...we really can rip the hell out of each other when the opportunity presents itself. We can hate each other just as much as we can hate ourselves and what we look like because some people really do crave love like it was crack. It just so happens we have a quality trio to hold the movie up when it comes to listening and hearing just what we see in one's self-image as we move through the tunnel of light. I'm probably not as familiar with Moore as I would like to admit.** However, she pulls off a tremendous performance, one who manages to sell the visceral pain that comes with being so alone in a body that can only go so far and be so much before it all snaps. Having to be caked in makeup of varying levels (turning the idea of playing a role a decade younger than they actually are on the head) is quite the endurance test for anyone, and Moore handles it with the type of grace that can only come from someone who clearly is committed to the material in knowing what it all is about when wrapped in a business built on flesh and bone that can be comprised of truth and plenty of lies (consider that we never see her interact with anybody that seems like an actual friend). Qualley matches her with a burning intensity and energy that is hypnotic to see play on screen in the furor that comes with youth and trying to control oneself in maintaining an image at all costs, particularly since we sure see plenty of Moore and Qualley in skin that probably says more about us that we'd like to admit (such as living through others, perhaps).***

And then of course there is Quaid, who was cast a few months into preparation for the film because the original choice in mind (Ray Liotta) died. Suffice to say that it is interesting to see Quaid here.**** He manages to evoke a type of disgust and excess that is so easy to see in our actual everyday lives and make it strangely amusing to see pop in from time to time, particularly with the camera angles used to see him (consider the shrimp eating scene to how he is seen by the end). I can certainly see where one might wonder just where the film could've ended, because technically there are two other ways to envision film before it splatters its way to the final realization, but then I say to myself: is there really such a thing as going too far in horror? The answer, to those with the skin to say it, is no, no, no, and hell no. I sometimes wonder when rating a movie to hopefully not come back to it later and think it was a tad too high...but this is the kind of movie where I wonder if I will like it more the second time around (when I can just say some of the highlights without spoiling the curiosity for those who haven't seen it) because of the visceral delight I had in seeing it, one that manages to make one see and hear the horror (and darkly amusement, in my mind) that comes with the body and we would do for perfection. Fargeat clearly likes to experiment with what she wants to make for films, and I look forward to seeing what might lurk next for her as a whole.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Starting now, I'm just going to put some notes down here rather than waste space on parenthesis.  

*I was wondering a bit what Corman would've done in trying to ape off The Substance for a knockoff, because you could certainly lean in on that theatricality.

**Well, Mr. Brooks (2006) was okay. Interestingly, I had considered Striptease (1996) for Acknowledged in August in 2024 but, well, Showgirls seemed more suitable, suffice to say.

***I applaud anybody who likes to make a movie that actually goes ga-ga for gore and/or nudity because duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

****(speaking of movies I dragged my feet on, I actually thought about seeing him in Reagan [2024]...if the movie was actually as ridiculous at it sounded).

 

Nothing but Trouble (1991).

Review #2244: Nothing But Trouble.

Cast: 

Chevy Chase (Chris Thorne), Dan Aykroyd (Alvin "J.P" Valkenheiser / Bobo), John Candy (Dennis Valkenheiser / Eldona Valkenheiser), Demi Moore (Diane Lightson), Valri Bromfield (Miss Purdah), Taylor Negron (Fausto Squiriniszu), Bertila Damas (Renalda Squiriniszu), Raymond J. Barry (FBI Agent Mark), and Brian Doyle-Murray (FBI Agent Brian) Directed by Dan Aykroyd.

Review: 

"Well the movie I directed I wish had done better because I know it was a good serviceable comedy. It was called "Nothing But Trouble." It just got hit by the Gulf War and there was a Julia Roberts comedy and a Jodie Foster movie in the same marketplace and we were dead. But people watch it on DVD and they tell me they like it."

I'm sure you've had a weird experience on the road once. Dan Aykroyd apparently had one such experience in the late 1970s that involved him wrapped in a kangaroo court after a traffic mishap that saw him invited to tea. The impetus to make a horror comedy came at the suggestion of Robert K. Weiss when he went to a screening (with the Aykroyds) of Hellraiser and saw people laughing at the film. Peter Aykroyd wrote the story for the film while his older brother Dan wrote the screenplay. A variety of the ideas came from dreams Aykroyd was having to go along with the actual town of Centralia, Pennsylvania (a near ghost town due to a coal mine fire that has burned under the place since 1962). Aykroyd never actually wanted to direct the film, because he initially aimed to play both the Judge character and the lead character eventually played by Chase because the studio wanted Chase to star (Aykroyd then was tasked to play "Bobo" because nobody was big on playing an ugly twin). While the studio did not meddle during the actual shooting of the film (due to, of all things, being distracted by another troubled production in The Bonfire of the Vanities), they eventually meddled when it came to the final cut, which they felt was too much and thus cut it down to go for a PG-13 rating and push back the release from Christmas 1990 (the aforementioned Vanities film got the date) to 1991 while changing the title from "Valkenvania" to, well, "Nothing But Trouble". The movie was not liked by audiences or critics, and it is the only film that has been directed by Aykroyd.

Honestly, it isn't exactly that bad, and I fail to see exactly why people gave the movie guff for basically being a sillier rendition of a monster movie (Abbott and Costello isn't too bad a comparison) crossed with Motel Hell. Sure, it isn't as funny as it probably could have been and it sure seems obvious where things were cut down to size (complete with its Looney Tunes ending), but what the hell is so bad about goofy grotesque fun? If it was a film by an "auteur", would people have given credit as one that dared to show dreams on screen? Instead, it was thought of as gross and not funny when the grotesque eccentric nature is the whole point. Sure, one could say the cast turns out to be a mixed bag, depending on one's patience, particularly when it comes to the middling chemistry of Chase and Moore, but one could make the argument that they look accurately befuddled at the proceedings around them that play around with the idea of who one wants to be following as a lead. When one finally gets around to Aykroyd, you really can't take your eyes off him in his amusingly creepy nature that imposes plenty on its audience, complete with a moment where his nose looks a certain way while grinning. He plays one half of the mutant baby-creatures that likes to play cards that is actually kinda funny. I think one has to just imagine that Chase really is just playing a jerk who thinks he knows better than the others around him rather than calling it a lazy performance (don't worry, there were lazier ones). Candy is probably the second most committed to the bit, having some warm charm in one role and a silently funny role on the other side (yes, one can look pretty convincing in a certain type of costume if they have the right glance for it). It is the designs that come through in the sets and costumes that keep the film on the ride of sustainability that otherwise would've doomed other films to, well, having less interest in it in the "is it really that bad?' cult. There are too many doodads and weird things to mention (heh, goofy ugly twins) without just saying one should just see it for themselves in what they accomplished in macabre engagement. The 93 minute runtime just makes one want to see just what the hell was so weird that couldn't make it through for audiences to grit their teeth at. As a whole, it is a messy movie that deserved better, particularly with what ended up being on screen. Its creativity in the art of weirdness is one that should be celebrated when it comes to the grotesque more so than in comedy for a strange but worthwhile experience.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Now up, state your case this time with: Mommie Dearest.

Ghost.

Review #1626: Ghost.

Cast: 
Patrick Swayze (Sam Wheat), Demi Moore (Molly Jensen), Whoopi Goldberg (Oda Mae Brown), Tony Goldwyn (Carl Bruner), Rick Aviles (Willie Lopez), Vincent Schiavelli (Subway Ghost), Gail Boggs (Louise), Armelia McQueen (Clara), and Phil Leeds (Emergency Room Ghost)  Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, and #1274 - First Knight)

Review: 
"You have an idea of where you want to get, but you have to experiment your way through it, and it might take a long time to get there.”

It's easy to say a movie is a ride before you actually see it. One that tries to balance romance and comedy within a mystery that certainly has endured for itself after three decades as a romance for the spirits. I suppose romances always had a big appeal with audiences, so it shouldn't be a surprise that this was actually the highest grossing film of its year (beating out films with their own notable reputations like Home Alone and Pretty Woman). The film began its script life through an idea Bruce Joel Rubin (whose two previous writing credits involved death with Brainstorm (1983) and Deadly Friend (1986)) had involving inspiration taken from Hamlet, in which the ghost desired for someone to take avenge him. Years of approaching studios for the script (written in 1984) led to Jerry Zucker being approached by Paramount Pictures to do the film; Rubin reportedly cried when he heard the news, thinking that it would be turned into a comedy, owing to the success that the Wisconsin native Zucker had with films like Airplane! (1980) with his brother David and Jim Abrahams. Discussions with the director over quibbles with the script to improve its structure led to better confidence in Zucker, who had expressed interest in the film not so much to break out of comedy but instead to just make a good film. This was the fourth film that Zucker directed, and it is one of just two that did not fall into comedy (the other was First Knight) - he wanted to make a "roller-coaster ride" that would make you laugh and cry. 

Rubin believes the film taps into some sort of primal thing with audiences, since it deals with death and closure within romance in fantasy. There is certainly a bit of truth to that argument, since what we have is a fairly interesting film with some spiritual interest that will soothe those searching for something pleasing in entertainment without too many quibbles. Others might bristle at its 128 minutes as perhaps being a bit too labored in pace, and its reach for thriller tropes that could be thought of as contrived when leading to its drawn out ending. In other words, it is the kind of entertainment that could be thought of as either sweet or corny depending on one's patience for such material (i.e. something like Titanic, albeit with more/less hokum). Is it one of the best films of its year? Not exactly but being a good film with some staying power isn't exactly a bad thing either, being one that proved rewarding for everyone who did the film, particularly with Rubin and Goldberg. Believe it or not, the lead role was actually a hard one to cast, since I suppose playing a ghostly observer isn't something easy to peg to one actor, with even Paul Hogan rejecting the role because he thought it wasn't funny enough (he would star in a film involving ghosts with Almost an Angel the same year). A showing of Road House (1989) furthered Rubin's belief in Swayze for the lead while conversely not convincing Zucker, and it was an audition with Swayze (who wanted to break from action fare) that convinced the director. Swayze has the charm required in someone tasked to observe and find one's place without the one needed most, balancing that line between chilled and confident that naturally sells his time spent with Moore for all the tissues needed in curiosity. Moore does well enough with chilled mourning that plays the other side of the romantic coin with great interest, as the pottery sequence allows them to move with grace that dazzles in crisp romantic charm, and it repeats itself with soothing closure for the end. The film kicks itself into the next gear of interest when Goldberg shows up around the forty-minute mark. Who would've have believed that a comedian could play a charlatan so well? Her and Swayze do quite well with keeping the film on its toes in amusement without it turning into a bit just for ghostly giggles. This seems most apparent with the sequence spent in the bank, as one guides the other with conniving chuckles that keeps the plot rolling; if The Color Purple (1985) was her breakout role, this only proves to confirm her obvious talent within humor and soothing truth. Not to be forgotten in all of this is Goldwyn (in his fourth film role), walking that tight rope of assured and sniveling that does quite well with what is needed in balance, while Aviles (a stand-up comedian) plays the heavy to useful effect. Schiavelli may only have two scenes, but he makes them count for what it is worth in rough advisory that nevertheless sticks in your mind. As a whole, it is the passion of the film that keeps things going on as decently as they go, for better or worse - it has a neat cast and a stirring music score from Maurice Jarre that makes for a serviceable effort. It has a range of memorable moments that keep it on the level more so than the aspects that could have sunk a lesser effort that drives this film to three decades (and counting) of endurance for all the right reasons.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mr. Brooks.

Review #1137: Mr. Brooks.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (Earl Brooks), William Hurt (Marshall), Demi Moore (Detective Tracy Atwood), Dane Cook (Mr. Smith / Graves Baffert), Marg Helgenberger (Emma Brooks), Danielle Panabaker (Jane Brooks), Aisha Hinds (Nancy Hart), and Jason Lewis (Jesse Vialo) Directed by Bruce A. Evans.

Review: 
Mr. Brooks is certainly an interesting film to think about, if not for the fact it certainly stands out for its main character - a man addicted to murder, as if they were doing a modern variant on the Jekyll and Hyde tale, to the point where Costner's character goes to twelve-step meetings for addicts to try and curb his "killing addiction". Believe it or not, this was meant to be the first film in a trilogy, and while the film was a mild success at the box office, there were no further follow-ups made. While I can't say that this is a great film, I will say that it is an interesting thing to watch, if not for the twists that it tries to pull and some of its performances being pretty stand-out, even if the film has some deep flaws of its own that can't quite make a success.

Costner and Hurt are easily the highlights for the film, interacting with each other over the nature of what they are bound to do with the kind of energy and interest that you would probably expect from a buddy film. Costner manages to pull off a entertaining performance, balancing the family man aspect of his role handily while also balancing his struggle to deal with his urges as if he was in a werewolf film. It's hard to resist seeing Hurt and his fiendish grin in his role as the alter ego, being watchable each time he appears on screen with his conversations, having fun with the mayhem that he lives on to compel Mr. Brooks to do. One big flaw that comes out from the cast is that there isn't anyone else in the film that actually gets up to the level of Costner and Hurt in terms of performance or presence. Moore plays her detective role with the kind of wooden nature that could only come from humorless television movies, but the more amusing thing is the threads that the film tries to stake on her character. She doesn't just play a detective, she plays a rich detective who does what she does for her own reasons, which the film likes to explain in the end as some sort of sting. In any case, there isn't any scene where she gives enough energy to make this role seem remotely interesting, being one of the lulls that stops the film's momentum. Would you expect that Moore's character has three plot-lines? Yes, between her investigation into the serial murders in the main thread, there is also the thread of her divorce and the thread about another killer that has escaped from jail that she put away that is in the pursuit of her - named the Hangman. The other lull is in Cook, playing a character seemingly devoid of charm or interest, which I suppose makes sense when playing someone who is trying to parrot Costner's character. Perhaps this would've worked if Cook (a stand-up comedian playing a dramatic role for some reason) actually made this person someone I wanted to be around with Costner and Hurt. Perhaps someone with a bit more charm (or possibly less time on screen) would've made the film run without less stoppage to it. Yes, the character is a slimy one, but it at least could've been a useful slimy one to be around with. Strangely enough, there isn't as much time for Helgenberger and Panabaker, who have minimal time on screen to be around Costner for this on-screen family. Maybe there would've been more for them to do if there had been sequels (and I put that generously), but there had to be another way to have them more involved. I feel like the parts with Costner and Panabaker should've had more of a focus, since she basically only has three brief scenes, and she basically disappears after the first hour. Yes, her character does have a function to at least one plot thread, but it doesn't really resonate as much as it could have. Spoiler alert, her character also committed a murder, as if she inherited it from her dad. Sure, why not. There are just as many plot threads than actual deaths in this film. By the time it gets to its climax, the film essentially collapses from exhaustion. It can be a creepy film sometimes, when it involves the nature of what makes Mr. Brooks who he is, but it isn't as effective as it probably should've been.

With all of its attempts to pull so many twists and narratives, the film can't quite execute at a fair rate, where there become so many threads that it almost feels needless. After a while, it becomes exhausting to wonder why there are so many plot threads going about in a film that probably should've just stuck to a bit more simple for a psychological thriller that manages to last two hours. When it wants to be just Costner and Hurt, the film works just fine, but when it tries to verge on others in its small cast, it feels a bit distracted and not too particularly focused. This may have worked better a television series with all the threads it wants to throw around, but even with that it mind, it's just a frustrating movie to sit through. I like the idea of where it wants to go with Costner and Hurt, but the final product just isn't enough to fully give thrills and satisfaction without becoming ridiculous and overstuffed. It's the kind of movie that might serve as a guilty pleasure for ones in the right mindset, or ones with more patience in mind for where it ultimately lingers.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Beavis and Butt-head Do America.

Review #570: Beavis and Butt-head Do America.

Cast
Mike Judge (Beavis, Butt-head, Tom Anderson, Principal McVicker, and Mr. Van Driessen), Demi Moore (Dallas Grimes), Bruce Willis (Muddy Grimes), Robert Stack (ATF Agent Flemming), Cloris Leachman (Old woman), Richard Linklater (Tour bus driver), Dale Reeves (President Bill Clinton), and Greg Kinnear (ATF Agent Bork) Directed by Mike Judge.

Review
To be honest, I never really watched this show (Of course not being alive when this show first aired helps), and while I know about the two characters, I watched this in the morning with a mostly open mind. It should be noted that following Gone with the Wind is a tough challenge, but at least this didn't last over 3 hours. So how is the film? For all of its weirdness, the movie is pretty funny. This is a rambunctious, wild, and out of control movie that is perfect for these two (no point in lying) dummies. The cast is enjoyable, all of the randomness and bizarre nature make for a movie with much enjoyment. The animation is silly but fun to watch, even during the hallucination sequence, which is as random as it gets. You want a movie that sums up the 1990s? This is for you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.