marciatomka

There is a review for this film posted on January 22nd by KHamblin-1 that I could've written. Scroll down and check it out, because it's very well-written and sums up everything I was going to say in my review. This user gave the film 5/10, and I tend to agree with that rating.

There is also another review (I will not point out the User's name) which praises The Substance, and in its heading, implies that those giving mid or low ratings are shallow and don't understand the film. I'm mentioning it only to say I take exception to that characterization. I do understand the message, and didn't require anyone to explain it for me.

I was very excited to see The Substance because of all the buzz after Cannes, and then the Golden Globe win for Ms. Moore, and the 5 Academy Award nominations. Thus I decided to rent it rather than wait for it to come to one of the streaming services to which I subscribe. I should've waited, lol.

I'm wondering if the Oscar nominations are because the film is written and directed by a woman, the story is about challenges women face with ageism, and the 2 main characters are women. I can find no other explanation for the Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay nominations. Although Demi Moore gave a great performance, I don't believe it's Best Actress-worthy when compared to the other nominees. I do agree with the Best Director nomination, however.

If you don't want to scroll and find the review i recommended, I will just say I enjoyed most of the film, but I'd say the last 20-30 minutex could've been shortened - a couple of scenes just went on too long and began to bore me. I do understand what the writer/director was going for, but I was left dissatisfied, and I think the same message could've been imparted with a "less is more" approach.

I have seen the original about 4 times. I love it, and generally have a disdain for Hollywood remakes of good foreign films. I was waiting for this one to stream so I could sneer and find 1000 things wrong with it. I'm not above saying I'm wrong, and yes, I was wrong. I formed an opinion based on past film remakes without seeing this one first. While the Danish film (or Dutch) is very dark and very disturbing, this version was definitely a Hollywood movie, not as dark, not as disturbing, but so well done, IMO. I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did. It focuses less on the deeper lessons and observations of the original, but makes up for it with solid acting, and a solid storyline. A lot of the original story was kept, but at the crucial point in the film, it veers in another direction. McAvoy is brilliant, as usual, and the rest of the cast delivers solid performances. It's not a carbon copy, and is a really good film all on its own. If you're like me and think the foreign film is always better, go ahead and give this version a chance. I really really like it. It's almost a different story altogether, and didn't leave me as nauseated as the original, lol. It gives you what you wish had happened in the original film.

I did not like this movie much when I started it. I got about 40 minutes in, then turned it off and went to sleep. It was very weird, with a dreamy quality, some freaky stuff, and it kept jumping around and it didn't seem like any of the scenes were connected. The visuals were stunning though. But tonight I decided to finish it, and I'm very glad I did. After watching for another 20 minutes of weirdness and some more freaky stuff, it started to be more of a real story. Everything that came before made sense. The first hour or so of the movie, you are seeing everything from Sonya's perspective, hence the disconnectedness and freaky things. I had guessed part of the plot before I turned it off the first night, as I'm sure a lot of people did, and will. Tonight I found out I had guessed correctly. I don't want to say anymore about the story, because I don't want to give the slightest inkling to anyone reading this of the plot.

I'll again say that the visuals were beautiful. The whole film is really shot beautifully, even the freaky parts. During my first viewing of the first 40 minutes last night, I thought this was an "artsy" film and I didn't "get" it, but that isn't the case. It's a unique way to present a story. The music is beautiful in parts, and very jarring in others. I did a lot of up and down with the volume control, lol. But it was effective. Georgia Eyers was great. I didn't even recognize her as the same actress who was in "Godless" (not the full title, but it's about an unsanctioned exorcism). I hope to see more of her.

I'm very glad I decided to finish watching it tonight. I don't get why people here didn't like it, why it's rated so low, yet films like "Eraserhead" (artsy) are lauded. I really hate that film. I suspect a lot of reviewers didn't watch it until the end.

"Violett" is only an hour and 40 minutes long, give or take. If you're open to sticking with it through the initial weirdness, and you have a little patience, I think you'll like where it ends up.