Is it on the nose? Undoubtedly, but most satire is. Don't know how old you are, but may be a generational thing. I grew up on South Park and it (along with Heathers and Arrested Development) shaped my sense of humor.
- The cinematography is breathtaking.
- It takes a very creative approach to roasting a very resonant issue.
- The performances are excellent.
- It's entertaining AND intellectual.
- The makeup effects and body horror are exceptionally well done.
- It's extremely funny.
- The sound design is meticulous.
It's in my top 20 for the decade and I ordered the 4k this morning.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm 52. I liked Heathers when it came out, but haven't revisited it since then. I like much of South Park and Arrested Development. Acerbic, dark satire is not a turn-off for me.
I don't intend to respond to this as a provocation or to "pick a fight," but I'll offer my point-by-point thoughts.
1- There certainly are some impressive cinematographic feats, but I find a great deal of the visual style more garish than impressive, assaultive to the senses more than engaging of them. It's probably technically accomplished for what I assume is a modest budget relative to its fellow nominees.
2- I struggle with who/what is being roasted. The beauty industry? The cult of personality/celebrity? The pursuit of some societally-determined physical ideal? I find the satire too scattershot and inconsistent to be effective. I also think the "world-building", for lack of a better term, is so underdeveloped as to be meaningless. Setting aside the sci-fi/horror of the substance itself, what world is this intended to be taking place in? It so little resembles contemporary reality, especially in relation to media, and it has no attempt to place it in a past era where some of the content would make more sense (the Jane Fonda-like exercise guru influential on, what, a broadcast TV morning show?). Why is it that Moore's character, acknowledged as incredibly famous, apparently knows absolutely no one apart from her employer and a maid she hardly interacts with? My biggest problem with the film is the utter phoniness of the environment in which it exists. Nothing adds up. I am not opposed to the surreal, off-kilter, or hyper-stylized, but if films are to embrace these qualities, I think they need some consistency of internal logic or construction.
3- Strongly disagree about the performances. Moore is fine, adequate but not exceptional, for much of it, but there is a sequence towards the end that calls for comedic skills she just may not have, and the result is embarrassing. Qualley is not much more than a cipher for most of it. Quaid is terrible, hammy with no redeeming verve or panache. But I don't think any character is conceived in any way that would make them resemble actual people. Sure, the film is non-realistic in conception, but even within a highly stylized genre film, I mark a performance's quality in part by its ability to meaningfully represent human experience.
4- I didn't find it either of these. Maybe I'm missing something more profound than what I apprehended, but I've yet to be convinced. I am open to an analysis that challenges my reaction, though.
5- Sure, well-done, but derivative beyond belief. If you've seen
Videodrome, The Thing, and
The Elephant Man, you've seen much of it already. Maybe this is homage, but this film doesn't belong in the company of its inspirations.
6- see #4
7- Could be. I don't really remember it.
