The Substance of Fire

I found this film quite flawed on the grounds of story and acting. The story is rather slow, without any definite direction and it ended abruptly before some of the main characters begin to develop. Apart from Ron Rifkin and a bit from Sarah Jeassica Parker, the overall acting is below the level one expects from such type of films.

The primary reason to like this film is that it's honest and it's original. One can see that the filmmakers are really passionate about the subject it's based upon, I don't know, maybe from personal experiences. Its structure and style are quite original and don't have any clichés. Even the ending, though abrupt, is heartfelt if the viewer cares to understand the film's statement.

I saw this movie just recently and was certainly disappointed ... not that I was expecting a masterpiece either but it was sooooooo long and uninteresting I nearly fell asleep at the 2/3's point ...

A whole lot of pointless dialogues going round and round ... discussions about some old book that we don't care for anyway ... annoying characters on the screen (like the author of that Holocaust book that made me cringe 10 times at least during the movie wishing he would shut up and stop whining about everything from the coffee he was drinking to the editors he was meeting) ...

The stubborn old man in the lead was also quite boring (not too mention hard headed) and then last part of the movie where he finally goes off his rockers (big surprise, pretty clear from the get go this guy has serious "issues" !) for good is really bad ... lots of scenes that made me think "oh, come on" and wish I could slap the old dude back into reality at once... or maybe send him to an asylum ...

I couldn't wait for this "thing" to end ... 1.5/5

The Main reason to see the film version of "The Substance Of Fire" is Ron Rifkin's splendid performance. He reprises the role he created on stage with great aplomb.It is however,one of the few reasons to see this film.The plot has been drastically altered from the original play,even adding major characters that did not exist in the original.The basic story remains, a Jewish Publisher and his slow decent into dementia brought on through his loss of control of the company to his son. But there it ends. The messages in this film are very clear,but the execution,direction and scripting destroy the impact of the original play.

This is a film that could have been an important film if it had not stooped to the use of repeated use of the 'f' word and other foul language. The people depicted in this film would not ordinarily use such language. I am acquainted with many Holocaust survivors and I have never heard such language pass their lips.

Although the Holocaust was used as the starting point of the film, and as a background for the most important character, there was no attempt to explain how that experience molded the character to make him what he is in the film.

Also it was never shown how the children of the Holocaust survivor were affected by their father's experience as it was with most children of Holocaust survivors.

It should have been a strong family drama, and it was to a point. But the foul language ruined it.

I thought that this was an interesting look at how one person's hardheadedness can affect a family so strongly. Ron Rifkin did a wonderful job portraying 'Isaac'. I think he's a very underrated actor and I even loved his annoying accent.!( He uses the same accent that he had on "I'm not Rappaport.") I read an interview where he compares the movie vs. the stage version and supposedly it ends differently. I would have liked to have seen the play.