Movies Talk

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.

1 Like

It’s a film about how shrimp tastes good this had been discussed writ large

2 Likes

It’s about how Demi Moore’s STILL GOT IT!

3 Likes

it’s a David cage ass movie is what it is

3 Likes

Is he Nic Cage’s brother?
If so, then Yes!

2 Likes

Also, not for nothing, but I don’t think movies should necessarily be judged by their message, since I don’t think most people make art to deliver some banal statement.

My friends have forcefed me a bunch of horror movies lately because they’re real horrorheads (pinheads, amirite?) and I think the real interesting element to horror movies–and maybe what makes them feel exciting–is 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 isn’t for the acting and rarely for the direction or cinematography (though I think the aeshetic of the Terrifier movies is actually interesting–like a roughed up VHS tape slimed with grime–and worth replicating or digging deeper into) and often these movies aren’t even scary, Terrifier and Substance being obvious examples of horror movies that are not only not scary but don’t 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 that’s just a legitimately great movie. But we’ve all seen old horror movies that aren’t 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 would’ve looked like shit.

But now I put myself at risk for reducing myself down to the Anti-CGI Guy on these here forums.

4 Likes

it’s more of a “margaret qualley’s ass” film if you think about the asses in it

(this is me engaging with the film’s use of objectification and not me endorsing it. MQ is a killer actor who’s pretty much always in interesting stuff and i love her work!)

1 Like

those terrifier movies bring out the tipper gore in me.

2 Likes

They are just nasty!
I really don’t 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!

1 Like

the terrifier movies are just Troma nonsense. They’re comedies

1 Like

i see the appeal and “i get it.” i just don’t like it!

2 Likes

I don’t care about them either just not from a tipper gore angle is what I mean

1 Like

They’re comedies without jokes though!

1 Like

expected no less from the resident “bad kid” media apologist

2 Likes

Just watched Pumpkinhead since it’s Halloween. Pretty much entirely forgettable outside of the creature effects and the lighting in the indoor scenes. I’m probably more annoyed than I should be that the creature doesn’t look pumpkin-y at all

2 Likes

did you notice the clown?

3 Likes

touche

2 Likes

I watched that first Terrifier when it came out because someone told me it was “the scariest movie ever” and that shit was boring!! Really do not understand the huge following there

4 Likes

I concede that they really just have the one joke but repeat it many times

1 Like

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.

2 Likes