The Substance (2024)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

The Substance (2024) – C. Fargeat

While I am definitely on board with the central theme here (essentially “women are judged on their looks, objectified, sexualized”), the film felt too chilly or clinical for me and, let’s face it, it descended into a silly mess by the end.  Demi Moore makes a late career comeback (even if she never really went away) as Elisabeth Sparkle, a fading star relegated to aerobics videos who is tempted to take an underground drug that creates a new younger version of herself (“Sue” played by Margaret Qualley), apparently by some sort of genetic fission. Naturally, there are rules around the “use” of this younger self:  they must rotate every seven days, although there are some ways around this which Sue soon exploits.  It’s not subtle but the entertainment industry (and presumably the public at large) treats young Sue and older Elisabeth very differently (even though we are reminded that they are really one and the same) and the pressures they feel are similarly different.  Writer-Director Coralie Fargeat aptly doesn’t restrict things to the male gaze (epitomized by TV producer Dennis Quaid) but explores the competition for that gaze that is experienced by women (who would be hard-pressed to swim against the societal tide and rewards, forced to choose between becoming complicit or rejected; I exaggerate but you know).  Sounds great as a plot and premise, especially for those who like horror or sci-fi, but, yes, it doesn’t really land the finish, except in the most outré way imaginable, which I guess will cement its reputation as a cult film for all time.  

Flow (2024)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Flow (2024) – G. Zilbalodis

Latvian (though wordless) animated feature which won the 2025 Oscar and Golden Globe in that category. It’s hard not to see echoes of Studio Ghibli throughout the film (though which Miyazaki film is being referenced seems to keep changing) or perhaps Dreamworks (those lemurs!).  We follow a feral cat (no owners appear at least) on an epic-feeling journey when the world is suddenly flooded. Shades of Noah’s Ark perhaps but if there are other religious overtones, apart from a “let’s be friends and work together” vibe, then I missed them. Perhaps it is a plea for harmony amidst diversity (cat, capybara, tall birds, lemurs, dogs)? The cast spends most of the film on a boat, time on the water adding to the sense of “flow” – rarely does the motion stop. But as the film neared the end of its run time, we started to wonder where it was going to end up (perhaps like 2001: A Space Odyssey?).  In other words, what’s the point?  Ultimately, maybe it’s just some gorgeous animation for us to enjoy (although some in this household felt there was a disconnect between the detailed environments and the stylized/less realistic animals while others felt this was an artistic choice).  Worth letting it flow over you.

 

The Ghost of Sierra de Cobre (1964)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

The Ghost of Sierra de Cobre (1964) – J. Stefano

Writer-Director Joseph Stefano wrote the screenplay for Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) but nothing else at that level of prominence.  This 80-minute TV-movie was apparently the pilot for a series that never got made, starring Martin Landau as an architect/psychic investigator. He lives in an incredibly stylish house jutting out over a cliff-face overlooking the ocean. Although this was the pilot, he’s already established and the plot revolves around events from a previous case (in which an American tourist is killed by the bleeding ghost of Sierra de Cobre) and in particular the presence of Judith Anderson (the housekeeper from Hitch’s Rebecca, 1940) as the new housekeeper to blind Tom Sincox (and new wife Diane Baker who hired Landau) who thinks his late mother is telephoning him from beyond the grave (she had a phone installed in her tomb).  If you were 10 or 11 years old, this might have scared the bejeezus out of you, if you caught it on TV.  Pretty creepy, even spooky, until the plot seems to wrap up abruptly in the final 10 minutes. That’s probably how the TV series would have been too.

 

Following (1998)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Following (1998) – C. Nolan

Christopher Nolan’s low-budget B&W debut feature is a noir-ish trial run for his more successful bigger budget chronological cut-ups (such as Memento, 2000, or Inception, 2010). A young man who may be called Bill (Jeremy Theobald) decides to follow strangers on a whim, possibly because he’s bored, possibly to find fodder for his hoped-for writing career.  This is a great weird premise. However, soon the plot shifts when Bill is confronted by one of his targets (Alex Haw), who turns out to be a philosophical thief, robbing people’s apartments more to see what sort of things they have hidden away than to make money. As the film progresses, we start to see short inter-cut scenes (Bill with shorter hair in a suit, Bill with a swollen eye, etc.) hinting at some future or past events. We even see Bill interacting with a potential femme fatale (Lucy Russell) before we see him rob her flat. When the usual Nolan (or film noir) twists begin to pile up, it’s slightly difficult to keep track of what’s happened (the DVD version apparently contains a cut that reshuffles scenes into chronological order).  But for 70 minutes, it’s easy to take, even if the overall feel is sort of amateurish (although that does add a weird sensation to the proceedings, as if it might be real).  

 

The Long Hair of Death (1964)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

The Long Hair of Death (1964) – A. Margheriti

Mario Bava’s Black Sunday (1960) starring Barbara Steele is a personal favourite and also a template of sorts for this film. In fact, it seems as though Italian horror spent the entire decade in mildewy damp castles (such as 1964’s Castle of Blood, also directed by Anthony Dawson a. k. a. Antonio Margheriti, probably shot on the same set as this one) with Steele as the haunted heroine or more likely an evil witch or ghost or demon (sometimes playing more than one role). As with Hammer films in the U. K., the sets and costumes – the mise en scene as a whole – are often the highpoint of the film with the plot a gauzy tissue holding together a few shocking setpieces.  The Long Hair of Death (great title!) begins and ends with people getting burnt to death.  In between, it’s a bit dreary.  The plot goes something like this: a suspected witch is burnt at the stake by a debauched lord with lecherous intent; her older daughter (Steele) is also killed but a much younger daughter lives and is adopted by the evil lord’s family, eventually marrying his spoiled son.  And then, somehow, Steele returns (from the dead) and leads the lord’s son astray and through a lot of secret passages. The film looks great but I recommend you start with Black Sunday (or even Castle of Blood) first.

 

Escape from Alcatraz (1979)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Escape from Alcatraz (1979) – D. Siegel

Ah, the prison film – it has such a long history and so many clichés.  Escape from Alcatraz does not really eschew any of these but as crisply directed by Don Siegel and starring Clint Eastwood in his macho prime, it’s a solid effort.  But does it live up to the masterworks of the genre? (Maybe not). I’m thinking of Bresson’s A Man Escaped (1956), Becker’s Le Trou (1960), Dassin’s Brute Force (1947), and maybe Caged (1950) starring Eleanor Parker.  Obviously, there are a lot of variations on the theme (e.g., The Shawshank Redemption, 1994) and modern versions might be even more brutal (e.g., A Prophet, 2009).  But Alcatraz is based on a true story with an open-ended conclusion: the escapees were never found (presumed drowned but who knows?). So, since we know where the story ends up (as forecast by the title), this is really all about the mechanics of the escape (similar to the Bresson and Becker films), with a little bit of relationship building and character development (but not much!).   

 

A Letter to Three Wives (1949)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

A Letter to Three Wives (1949) – J. L. Mankiewicz

I missed the first five minutes or so and came in just when the three wives (Jeanne Crain, Linda Darnell, and Ann Sothern) received the letter in question from idealized but never seen “Addie Ross” who claims that she has run away with one of their husbands (Jeffrey Lynn, Paul Douglas, and Kirk Douglas, respectively.  Joseph L. Mankiewicz won Oscars for best screenplay and best director (who then did it again for All About Eve, the following year).  As the three are just departing on a picnic day-trip as volunteers for under-privileged children, they get to spend the day ruminating about whether their husbands have left them.  Viewers are therefore treated to three extended flashbacks providing “evidence” (based on the anxieties of our heroines) as to why each husband might have grounds to leave.  As such, we are treated to three very different relationships – a la 1950s – and have the ability to guess who it might be.  When the ladies return home, one of them discovers her husband is away – but there’s a sudden twist that clouds whether he’s really run away with Addie or not.  Apparently General Douglas McArthur wrote to Mankiewicz to try to clear this up and was told everything he needed to know was there on the screen!  It’s melodrama to be sure but superbly acted (Paul Douglas is particularly impressive in his feature debut).