I think the message is pretty clearly that it is a bad idea to inject yourself with an unknown substance you picked up in a derelict back alley.
Itâs a film about how shrimp tastes good this had been discussed writ large
Itâs about how Demi Mooreâs STILL GOT IT!
itâs a David cage ass movie is what it is
Is he Nic Cageâs brother?
If so, then Yes!
Also, not for nothing, but I donât think movies should necessarily be judged by their message, since I donât think most people make art to deliver some banal statement.
My friends have forcefed me a bunch of horror movies lately because theyâre real horrorheads (pinheads, amirite?) and I think the real interesting element to horror moviesâand maybe what makes them feel excitingâis the insistence on practical effects.
This has been scratching at me since I watched Terrifier 2 the other day, which is jsut a nasty movie, but I imagine some of the appeal has to be in the craftsmanship of the crew. Because it certainly isnât for the acting and rarely for the direction or cinematography (though I think the aeshetic of the Terrifier movies is actually interestingâlike a roughed up VHS tape slimed with grimeâand worth replicating or digging deeper into) and often these movies arenât even scary, Terrifier and Substance being obvious examples of horror movies that are not only not scary but donât seem interested in being scary.
And even going back to, like, The Thing. I imagine part of the enduring appeal is the technical knowhow on display. Though maybe this is a bad example since thatâs just a legitimately great movie. But weâve all seen old horror movies that arenât especially good or scary but they endure because, I posit, the practical effects and the technicians behind the movie have done something joyously wondrous.
And I think The Substance really thrives on its practical effects. Because you could have done that ending with CGI and it probably wouldâve looked like shit.
But now I put myself at risk for reducing myself down to the Anti-CGI Guy on these here forums.
itâs more of a âmargaret qualleyâs assâ film if you think about the asses in it
(this is me engaging with the filmâs use of objectification and not me endorsing it. MQ is a killer actor whoâs pretty much always in interesting stuff and i love her work!)
those terrifier movies bring out the tipper gore in me.
They are just nasty!
I really donât see the appeal of it, to be honest, which is where my theory of craftsmanship comes from. There has to be something that appeals here beyond the grotesque!
the terrifier movies are just Troma nonsense. Theyâre comedies
i see the appeal and âi get it.â i just donât like it!
I donât care about them either just not from a tipper gore angle is what I mean
Theyâre comedies without jokes though!
expected no less from the resident âbad kidâ media apologist
Just watched Pumpkinhead since itâs Halloween. Pretty much entirely forgettable outside of the creature effects and the lighting in the indoor scenes. Iâm probably more annoyed than I should be that the creature doesnât look pumpkin-y at all
did you notice the clown?
touche
I watched that first Terrifier when it came out because someone told me it was âthe scariest movie everâ and that shit was boring!! Really do not understand the huge following there
I concede that they really just have the one joke but repeat it many times
THis was also how I felt about it, but I also really like that they made a movie for $5k and it looks like it was made for $5k instead of making a movie for $50mil that looks like it was made for $5k.