By:Dominic La-Viola
Billy Fellows calls out John Carpenter, whom he says “is arguably one of the most influential voices in the horror genre, particularly when it comes to body horror.”
Going on to talk about the situation, when a fan asked Carpenter if he liked the film, after stating they “loved it”, to which of course he said, he didn’t. He was going to leave it at that, and then the fan pushed and asked what he didn’t like, to which he reportedly said, “Nothing”.
Which of course caused backlash and this Collider writer, writing this.
“John Carpenter may be a great filmmaker, but there is nothing else to say here apart from the fact that he is wrong. There are clear strengths to The Substance that aren’t just the opinions of one Collider writer, but a consensus among audiences and critics.”
Which is completely inconsistent with the English language and by the definition of what a fact is. The statement is incorrect for it can’t be proven. You could make a statement in which you say, you believe he is out of touch with modern audiences, or that his option is clearly in the minority and give examples why, citing facts like:
The film’s critical praise. Which sits at a 78 currently on metacritic.com. Which has more than a few 100% reviews.
However, the film also has quite a few flat-out terrible reviews bashing the film.
Slate Magazine gave it a mere 20, stating, “After two hours and 20 minutes of flamboyantly repulsive variations on this well-worn theme, even the strongest-stomached and most feminist of viewers could be excused for muttering, ‘We get it already.’”
Paste Magazine gave it a better, but still degrading, rating of 30. Stating, stating, “An overuse of stale horror conventions in an already predictable plot—combined with decades-old, thoroughly unchallenging ideas about women’s relationships to their bodies—leads to a film that claims to support its protagonist, while treating her like the butt of the joke at every turn.”
The Chicago Sun-Times, the paper most known for its legendary film critic Roger Ebert. Gave the film a high praise of 50, which, just for clarity, out of 100, is still a F, for failure. The critic has this to say about the film:
“The satire becomes almost numbingly obvious over the far too long running time of 140 minutes, and with all due appreciation for the strong work by the leads, the horrifically impressive VFX and prosthetics, and a few moments of pitch-black humor, we exit the film feeling more pummeled than enlightened.”
So John Carpenter is not alone when saying the movie isn’t good and he didn’t like it. The fact that people are trying to belittle and discredit one of the greatest horror filmmakers of all time is humorous.
The fact that he was one of the founding directors to truly make body horror what it is, alongside directors like David Cronenberg. Whom arguably knows more about horror, how to make it, and what truly makes it enticing.
To try and discredit them because they bash your favorite film is not only disheartening, it comes off as if one is unsure of their own opinions and needs validation.
When truly, “The Substance” isn’t that good of a movie. While I don’t agree that there is nothing to like about the film. For the performances, cinematography, score, make-up, and costume design were spot on. Truly flourishing. Paying homage to the greats that came before. Which I truly love about the film.
The overall storyline lacks that degree of authenticity that makes great satire.
Personally, Instead of making it about an Oscar-winning actress with a successful career being fired from an overly sexualized Gene Simmons cycling class knock-off.
A better concept would have been, her being passed on for a role of a lifetime. A remake of a classic Hollywood film, like “The Graduate”.
Where her character was signed to play “Mrs. Robinson” and then is fired because they want to go younger. Someone who is more of a “sex symbol”.
It would have given more credibility and substance to the plot and subject matter. It better replicates what’s actually happening in Hollywood and the movies.
Most notably with “Spider-Man”. In the Sam Raimi franchise, Aunt May was played by a very elderly woman. Then with the “The Amazing Spider-Man” franchise, they went younger, with an actress noticeably younger.
Only then to go even further in that direction when Marvel made the “Home” trilogy. Making Aunt May, way younger and arguably sexualizing her character. Not only with appearance but with jokes, pointing out Happy’s attraction to her.
So much to the point that people online made posts pointing this out. Stating and posting pictures, stating the next “Aunt May” will be played by Megan Fox, and attaching photos of her. Calling the studios out on what they were doing.
In conclusion, while the film was an overall critical success, and has found its audience. Some of which have said to really relate and connect to the themes in the movies.
Which I not only completely understand and respect. But also praise, that the film was able to generate such emotional connection to its viewers.
However that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for negative criticism and it would be fair to say that people have legitimate opinions for not liking it.
Source: Collider
Four Time Film School Dropout 
Leave a comment