Just watched it and didn't really enjoy it but was happy that a film like this was made if that makes any sense. It just didn't have the typical Hollywood fingerprints on it and for that it was a breath of fresh air. What did /tv/ think of it?
>>215559010I had fun. Definitely could have trimmed some 40 minutes out of it.
The first half and 2nd half felt like different moviesI liked it don't get me wrong, it made me feel things and I'm not just talking about my erect penis dripping precum if you know what I mean
>>215559010I'd have to agree with you anon. I thought it was too on-the-nose with its message and really started to drag in the third act but overall I welcome this shlocky, shocking, high-concept type of movie. Reminds me of 80s movies when they experimented a bit more.
>>215559010Outside of Qualley doing her goonfuel bit, a real bore. Awful direction.
If anything, it's a French movie btw Yeah, same here: wasn't that impressed by it but I appreciate the effort. Now, if you really want to watch something genuinely transgressive in somewhat the same vein, watch Babygirl with Nicole Kidman.
how did Sue get employment at the agency without a social security card, ID, work history, or any documentation of any kind?
>>215559510She's hot.
>>215559010Dennis Quaid was fucking hilarious in this
>>215559510Movie clearly exists in a hyper-reality world>>215559113filtered
>>215559510it doesnt really matter anon, dont try to cinemasins it
>>215559010>It just didn't have the typical Hollywood fingerprints on itI really don't understand what you mean by this. Everything about this movie screamed modern-day Hollywood movie.
>>215559510Better question is how she was able to even obtain an audition when she had no family in the industry.
>>215559010>women get less attractive when they age>the movie
>>215559664Filtered by a subpar Aronofsky knock off 25 years too late? Nah, I wasn't. No one was filtered by the Substance. The movie aggressively telegraphs everything it's saying.
>>215559664>Movie clearly exists in a hyper-reality worldA broad, lazily constructed hyperreality.
>>215559010I think Demi Moore is about as good an actress as Winona Ryder
>>215559010I liked it a lot. I was very disappointed Demi didn't win Best Actress.
>>215559010>It just didn't have the typical Hollywood fingerprintsIt wasn't made in Hollywood
>>215559010Why are frogs so deranged?
>>215559510Not the point of the movie
>>215560636So what. You can't be critical of a movie about anything tertiary to its "point"?
>>215560618Wasn't it made by Universal?
>>215560662Only distributed. Production took place in Frogland.
>>215560662https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Title_Films
Loved it for the experience. It's the kind of movie that needs to be watched with others who haven't seen it before. I watched it with a couple of friends at the cinema and had a visceral experience during the scene where Sue beats herself to death, as up until point the crowd was laughing and getting into it but that scene alone absolutely silenced and traumatized the crowd which made me cry from trying to suppress my laughter in a dead quiet packed cinema.
Film is for losers like this guy>>215560837
>>215560864>t. no friends to go watch kino with
>>215560885Not all, but all my friends are edgelords so we laughed openly at a woman being bludgeoned onscreen, while you, a loser, were crying from suppressing your laughter and homosexuality.
>>215559010Overlong slog, the whole second act is self-indulgent and unnecessary
>>215560912>edgelordJust say you don't get no pussy bro XD
>>215559010It was good. But I don't understand why Sue treated her matrix like an endless resource. Didn't they both share the same brain? Sue knew how to speak and maintain her counterpart. Did she not know their lives were linked?
>>215560947
Best movie of the last 5 years.
>>215561077Watch more movies.
>>215561048They're not the same brain and they're both selfish narcissistic pos celebrities. It's a cautionary tale
>>215561125Like what? superman?
Some scenes were really good
>>215561143Probably why you think the Substance was the best movie from the past five years - because all you watch otherwise is capeshit and A24 productions, shit from da INDIE BIZ
>>215561127I see. Here's another question: Why was there a big empty space behind the bathroom wall? Why wasn't it being used as a towel closet or something?
>>215561150Yeah the ones with that hot slut. That's it.
>>215561177Yep, people generally compare movies to other popular movies, sperg
>>215559010Very fun movie, the message was whatever but at least it was easy to ignore.
>>215559010I didn’t like the movie but I like Qualey now.
Body double
>>215559510I didn’t see her shit a single time. Not even when she was out on the floor naked. She would have evacuated he bowels and they left that out.
>>215561241Which is why I said, watch more movies. Retard.
>>215561434You are a sperg and no one is watching your faggot french black and white pedo art
>>215559010of course not it was made by a fucking lib woman
>>215559510She used the same name and information she once bought to use for her illegal immigrant maid.
>>215561885Seems strangely specific. Is that a reference to something? When I say watch more movies, I mean, you know, good ones.
>>215560661>t. still hasn't been able to properly explain the tax policy of Middle Earth
>>215561207The developers had a lot of extra unused space in their expensive celebrity high rise for tax fraud purposes and to maintain exclusivity.
>>215561241The movie you mentioned wasn't even a top box office draw nor a critical award winning film, so what exactly do you mean by popular— large marketing budget?
>>215562064>good ones>from the last five yearsJust admit there is a reason you can't name any and can only insult the movies other people actually name.
>>215561361She shits chicken from her belly button once
>>215562086The tax policy of Middle Earth is completely irrelevant to anything that happens in LOTR. Qualley is hired in the movie, and yet she's a person that appeared out of thin air. Hyperreality, sure, but one that's awfully vague and one dimensional. >>215562161So far the only films named were Superman and the Substance. I haven't seen the former, and I won't see it. The latter is garbage. Seems presumptuous of you.
>>215562196>The tax policy of Middle Earth is completely irrelevant to anything that happens in LOTR.No, they move through multiple jurisdictions and the differing tax policies and code enforcement should have had an effect.>Qualley is hired in the movie, and yet she's a person that appeared out of thin air. Completely irrelevant to the plot and they easily could have just hired her as a contractor or day laborer like they do with a lot of extras.A lot of people "appear out of thin air" in hollywood because people are always bussing in to realize their dreams or whatever.
>>215562196>Seems presumptuous of you.Nope, it still holds that you clearly can't name one and you have still criticized every one that has been named by others, along with blanket criticism of every superhero and indie movie.
>>215562249>No, they move through multiple jurisdictions and the differing tax policies and code enforcement should have had an effect.LOTR is a fantasy world, and it's steeped deeply in lore that I'm unfamiliar with because I'm not a fucking nerd. I'm not asking for every film to immerse itself in the minutiae.>Completely irrelevant to the plotThat's not my point. It's indicative of an overall lack of vision and thought put into the film itself.>and they easily could have just hired her as a contractor or day laborer like they do with a lot of extras.Movie doesn't specify.>A lot of people "appear out of thin air" in hollywood because people are always bussing in to realize their dreams or whatever.So are you saying this is an artistic choice? And if so, then it is relevant to its point. Make up your mind.>>215562272>you have still criticized every one that has been named by othersEvery one, as in... one. Seems presumptuous, like I said.
Good but the themes were pitifully pathetic, couldn't take any of the movie seriously but I guess that's fine
>>215562361>LOTR is a fantasy worldBut a world where you can have a magical twin by way of magical injections, but if you disobey its magical rules you will create a magical monster is not a fantasy world? >I'm not asking for every film to immerse itself in the minutiae.So why a silly flick like this one?>That's not my point.The point is that you are not being consistent and you are reaching to complain about secondary tax policies that you generally overlook in the vast majority of films.>Movie doesn't specify.It doesn't need to, that had nothing to do with the plot and can be explained away in a variety of ways left up to the viewer's imagination which you clearly are lacking.>So are you saying this is an artistic choice? No, its just a reflection of typical hollywood dynamics.
>>215559010It was okay but it tried to out-Cronenberg Cronenberg and accidentally pushed it way too far. Sometimes less is more, this was one time more was less.I can watch Videodrome, Existenz or Crash over and over (The Thing as well, even though it’s Carpenter) but this? Nah. Once was enough, maybe I’ll watch it again one day if the stars align, but it’s not a priority.
>>215562361>Every one, as in... one.No, the original one too plus all the movies that fit into the category of capeshit and indie, its not a presumption, you definitely haven't named one yourself and of course people stopped trying to name some for you because all you did was make unjustified complaints about their quality and made it obvious you would never name a good film from the last five years yourself and would only complain about any movie that someone else liked.
>>215562432It's less Cronenberg and more a feminine take on Frank Henenlotter/Troma.
>>215562479I thought Tromeo and Juliet was the female take on Troma?
>>215562427>But a world where you can have a magical twin by way of magical injections, but if you disobey its magical rules you will create a magical monster is not a fantasy world?It could be, but this is not.>So why a silly flick like this one?You misspelled sucky. I already told you why.>The point is that you are not being consistentProjection.>and you are reaching to complain about secondary tax policies that you generally overlook in the vast majority of films.Because I never actually complained about Qualley being hired without paperwork. That was another anon. But I can see why it might bother them, because this film felt very vague and poorly developed, even for something you would call a "hyperreality." A film that addressed how she was hired without having any relevant documentation might have made for a more interesting movie.>It doesn't need toSure, it didn't need to be a good film either. And it wasn't.>that had nothing to do with the plotShe was hired in the movie. It's a pretty big plot point.>and can be explained away in a variety of ways left up to the viewer's imagination which you clearly are lacking.I thought it didn't matter. Yes though, writers shouldn't even try. Just let the audience imagine a good story while watching a threadbare piece of shit.>No, its just a reflection of typical hollywood dynamics.But wouldn't that suggest an artistic expression? Therefore making it relevant.
>>215562463>the category of capeshit and indieI didn't say all of those films were bad, but that if you're not watching much else beyond what comes out of Hollywood/Indiewood, you're limiting yourself.>you definitely haven't named one yourselfAnd will continue not doing so.>and of course people stopped trying to name some for you because all you did was make unjustified complaints about their quality"People"? It's just you.>and made it obvious you would never name a good film from the last five years yourself and would only complain about any movie that someone else liked.Wow, yeah. By the way, the Substance sucks.
When she went full tradie renovating the bathroom that broke my immersion.
>>215562514There can only be one?
>>215562610>I didn't say all of those films were badThen what are some good ones?>And will continue not doing so.Because you know you are lying and can't actually name anything good from the past five years, any named film will immediately have its numerous flaws pointed out to you.>"People"? It's just you.Nope, you are the one that pointed out that only the two films have been named, so nobody else ITT is comfortable naming a good film from the past five years, most notably and vocally, (You).>By the way, the Substance sucks.So do all the movies you like and are too afraid to name because you know they actually just suck in all the various ways you suck.
>>215562714>Because you know you are lying and can't actually name anything good from the past five years, any named film will immediately have its numerous flaws pointed out to you.It's not on me to name good films. I doubt you'd have anything intelligent to say about movies I like. You like the Substance. You have bad taste.>Nope, you are the one that pointed out that only the two films have been named, so nobody else ITT is comfortable naming a good film from the past five years, most notably and vocally, (You).The conversation is between us, numbnuts. Nobody else was piping in with their choices.>So do all the movies you like and are too afraid to name because you know they actually just suck in all the various ways you suck.Uh huh. Boy, the Substance sure isn't a good film.
>>215562479Nah, Troma is fun whereas this was a slog. Although imagine what they could do with the same funding.
>>215562769>It's not on me to name good films.It is when your claim is that some films from the past five years are good, but can't actually name any to support your claim.>I doubt you'd have anything intelligent to say about movies I like.I know you don't have anything good to say about any because you have proven it over and over and will continue to do so every post you fail to name a single one and what is good about it.>Nobody else was piping in with their choices.Except the part where you are clearly too dumb to notice when "the other person" in your anonymous conversation keeps changing tone, grammar, style, and vocabulary.>Boy, the Substance sure isn't a good film.Just like every film in the last five years due globohomo's no more good films mandate from the mid 2010s.
>>215562831>It is when your claim is that some films from the past five years are good, but can't actually name any to support your claim.I guess I can't then. Luckily my other claim, that the Substance is dog poo, still stands.>I know you don't have anything good to say about any because you have proven it over and over and will continue to do so every post you fail to name a single one and what is good about it.About... one movie.>Except the part where you are clearly too dumb to notice when "the other person" in your anonymous conversation keeps changing tone, grammar, style, and vocabulary.The only films named were the Substance and Superman.>Just like every film in the last five years due globohomo's no more good films mandate from the mid 2010s.So the Substance sucks? Great. We agree then.
>>215561048Because she was greedy and selfish. She’s just a younger, more ruthless and careless reflection of Elisabeth herself. That’s the irony here. She’s her own worst enemy. That’s why the movie keeps hammering down how they are one, you have to respect and maintain the balance. But Elisabeth is too insecure to live her own life because Sue represents everything she wants but can’t actually have herself because Sue is living it so she gets resentful and jealous. And meanwhile Sue just wants to live in the moment and not care about anything else, that’s why she so quickly starts breaking the rules. It’s an allegory about aging among other things.I think the only problem with Substance is the way it basically almost immediately jumps to the point where Elisabeth/Sue are at war with each other even though barely any time seems to have passed. There should have been a longer time skip and showing of how they both start to bend the rules and it ultimately escalates to the whole body horror stuff when consequences of their mismanagement start to show. Like Elisabeth gets her first grey hairs, etc. instead of a shrivelling disgusting looking finger. But I suppose you gotta be more overt about it in order to move the story forward due to time constraints.
>>215562196>Qualley is hired in the movie, and yet she's a person that appeared out of thin air.Did you miss the part where they were doing an open casting call? That’s how a lot of nobodies can get cast into major debut leading roles. It’s not a plot hole or weird. The show was about looking hot while doing aerobics. They were looking for a hot young girl because there is no substance to it, they just wanted to “upgrade” because Elisabeth had become too old for them.
>>215563100>Luckily my other claim, that the Substance is dog poo, still stands.Yea but it doesn't hold any weight since every movie produced that year was mandated to be such.>About... one movie.No, two movies and two entire movie genres.>The only films named were the Substance and Superman.Individual films didn't need to be named after you wrote off entire genres.>So the Substance sucks? Great. We agree then.The substance is just like every single movie made in the last five years, so there is nothing terribly meaningful about your statement. Great. We agree then.
>>215563154Yeah, but an open casting call doesn't mean no questions asked, or no legal paperwork when hired. >>215563194>Yea but it doesn't hold any weight since every movie produced that year was mandated to be such.So you agree that the Substance is dogshit. I don't care what imaginary mandate exists. The movie is dogshit. You agree. Ta da.>No, two movies and two entire movie genres.I never said anything about Superman. I've never seen the movie. What I wrote was about your assumption that that's what I would pick in place of the Substance as a contender for best film from the past five years. And no, Hollywood and Indiewood are not genres, and I wasn't saying all of those films were bad. But I've already told you this. Could be, you have terrible reading comprehension.>The substance is just like every single movie made in the last five years, so there is nothing terribly meaningful about your statement. Great. We agree then.Cool. The Substance is garbage. Great talk, sport.
