|
Yaws posted:I loved mother! but I think I'd put Black Swan and The Wrestler over it. I like both, but something about mother! puts it over the top for me. It's just so tight and self-assured.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
The movie does a fantastic job of putting in perspective the absolute hell of have your agency robbed from you repeatedly (i.e. the average experience of women in our society)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Yaws posted:You shan't have been triggered. There are no "people" in this film. There were actually many people in this film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
I Before E posted:There were actually many people in this film. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
this movie is absurd
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:this movie is absurd It is a great existentialist piece, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:this movie is absurd like ur mother
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
remember when the only hollywood scandal was aronofsky abusing lawrence via mother
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:this movie is absurd absurdly good
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Quick question: Should I spoil myself on this movie or is it worth the wait to see it spoiler free? Well I finally saw this and pretty much wish I'd just spoiled myself. drat, this was boring af. I guess I was expecting something with better pacing and a little more down to earth(haha). I haven't bothered reading what the general consensus in the thread is but it just didn't work for me. I really enjoyed Pi, The Fountain, and the Wrestler, and even Noah was decent, but this just dragged. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Well I finally saw this and pretty much wish I'd just spoiled myself. drat, this was boring af. I guess I was expecting something with better pacing and a little more down to earth(haha). 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Well I finally saw this and pretty much wish I'd just spoiled myself. drat, this was boring af. I guess I was expecting something with better pacing and a little more down to earth(haha). mother! still owning dweebs and simpletons ityool 2017 LMBO
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:absurdly good BeanpolePeckerwood posted:mother! still owning dweebs and simpletons ityool 2017 LMBO Yup. I honestly don't much care for the movie, there was some really great camera work and visuals, I think the acting is pretty great, but I feel like the movie unravels(on purpose) in the second half in a bombastic way I didn't much care for. Pretty much as soon as the sons show up it is mostly down hill from there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Except I laugh at people that get owned by mother! because mother! owns and is the most memorable film I've seen this year among six dozen others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
I hadn't even thought about Ionesco but it has very strong similarities to Rhinoceros and The Bald Soprano.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:Except I laugh at people that get owned by mother! because mother! owns and is the most memorable film I've seen this year among six dozen others. A Serbian Film is memorable but it doesn't mean it's good
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Yes, but mother! is good and A Serbian Film is not, hence the invalidity of your point, not to mention your genetic heritage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:mother! still owning dweebs and simpletons ityool 2017 LMBO He is just not dumb enough to feel smart after being shocked by this silly film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Lmao, sorry fellas, I really did want to like this. And I certainly appreciated what it was going for, just not my thing, I guess. I hope we can still be friends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
You're good, dude. It was divisive from the get go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
I liked the one single Native American dude who was trying to fix poo poo up in all the chaos and said something like "You're supposed to respect it".
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
She also asks a dude who's ripping boards out of the wall "why are you doing this?" and his response is "to prove we're here!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 10:56
|
|
|
Not sure I agree with the theological conclusions and comparisons Aaronofsky is drawing in this movie. I do loving love it though. It's very good. There is a certain intense anxiety, discomfort, and psychosis to this movie when you view it through Lawrence's character, which is easy as that's what the movie begs you to do constantly. It's very easy for me to connect to it, it's nearly therapeutic for me in this regard. I understand why some people don't like it, but there's a lot to get out of it if you are a certain kind of person with a certain kind of relationship to faith or creative action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Darrenofsky is my greatest of all time director. I've seen all of his movies except Noah at least 10 times. I think The Fountain is one of the greatest love stories ever told, and The Wrestler is the best movie ever made. But I just saw mother and I...I don't get it. And I don't think watching it any number of times again is going to make me get it. I seriously thought when the baby was born and it cuts to it in her arms, it was going to pull a "chaoos reiiiiigns" E: Also was disappointed that she didn't use the panties she threw behind the washing machine to set the fire at the end. drunken officeparty fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Dec 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:I seriously thought when the baby was born and it cuts to it in her arms, it was going to pull a "chaoos reiiiiigns" I'm pretty sure you get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
This might be Aronofsky's most intense movie to date. Though I have to say the baby scene, neck snapping sound and all, absolutely hosed me up to the point where it got me out of the movie for 2-3 minutes. Maybe it's because I have a 10 months son myself, but between the buildup to that scene (mother caring for the son she always wanted and Bardem waiting for her to fall asleep to steal him away) and the newborn peeing right before getting killed (no idea why I'm finding that unnerving) I just, huh, got hosed really hard.. It's obviously a masterpiece but I'm wondering whether that scene was really necessary or just bad taste. It did make me lose my focus for a while so I'd say it was a bit excessive even for Aronofsky. I don't think I'll watch this twice. Kawabata fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Dec 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
Kawabata posted:
Yeah, I think it's the juxtaposition of a very natural defenselessness (the innocent physical gesture of neonate incontinence) with the sort of shallow and repulsed reaction of some of the people in the crowd when they get pissed on. Like many of the most disturbing images in life it crosses wires in the brain, one almost wants to laugh at first out of humiliation and self-defense...which makes the feeling more intense when it switches over to a sense of mortal terror. The example I always think of is from The Thin Red Line when Keck tries to throw a grenade and pulls it from his belt by the pin, basically blowing himself in half. In this situation the camera never shows us the gore but rather the fear on people's faces. To the viewer that doesn't know what's coming Keck's reaction is almost comical at first as he swears at himself, but it's when he remarks that he'll never gently caress again that that mortal terror sort of kicks in and you feel the full weight of what this means for him and the people that depend on him. It's a tragicomic element that always gets to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMUHkM1t7l0
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
I had to seek out this thread so i could express my absolute hatred of this movie.I finished it not more than an hour ago. I was initially intrigued with eventually finding some sort of metaphor to be uncovered. I first started thinking it was an interpretation on a Polanski film. Then i thought it was some sort of statement of the role of women/ womanhood. Then I thought it was a Biblical Parable. Then as a woman's relationship as the lover and supporter of a tortured artist, giving away her agency for his success. then i thought it was ANOTHER biblical/christ allegory/ statement about organized religion . Then JLaw lit herself on CGI fire, and then it occurred to me. Darren Aronofsky made an ugly, unpleasant, sensationalistic movie that tricks stupid people into thinking they're smart by smashing you over the head with a meaning that isn't fully realized. I also read an interview with Jennifer Lawrence, who explained the "True" meaning of the film, which was an environmental one. I was way off, and apparently not bright enough to figure that one out on my own. I apparently needed a postscript explanation of this MAJOR RELEASE MOVIE, like I was some kind of idiot child. here's a visual representation of Darren trying to get a point across https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-NH6TGZTcc If you're like the people who enjoyed Mother! who were dense enough to enjoy it, let me explain my video. Darren is Kurt Van Houten, the Movie is crudely drawn representation of Dignity, Luann Van Houten is the viewer, uncomfortable and frustrated. gently caress YOU DARREN. shut up netface fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Dec 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
shut up netface posted:I had to seek out this thread so i could express my absolute hatred of this movie.I finished it not more than an hour ago. Have you considered therapy
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
y'know, I'm not someone in this thread that gets really indigent when people say they didn't like the movie (I myself was a little underwhelmed by it, though I went in with sky high expectation) but acting like watching the film is some sort of game where you have to figure out the one true meaning and then flipping over the game board and accusing the filmmaker of cheating or at least not playing badly when you find something that says the meaning might not match up to what you thought it meant is....odd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
This movie lets stupid people feel smart. Also I missed the point completely! What a stupid, stupid movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
glam rock hamhock posted:y'know, I'm not someone in this thread that gets really indigent when people say they didn't like the movie (I myself was a little underwhelmed by it, though I went in with sky high expectation) but acting like watching the film is some sort of game where you have to figure out the one true meaning and then flipping over the game board and accusing the filmmaker of cheating or at least not playing badly when you find something that says the meaning might not match up to what you thought it meant is....odd. perhaps I should have dialed that back.The ideas are poorly formed, and half heartedly executed, and the entire film is an obtuse mess. Its as if it was written by a teenage dipshit in Creative Writing 101 after reading a few Kafta stories. Our dipshit will respond to any level of criticism with "WELL YOU JUST DONT GET IT MAN ITS REALLY ABOUT..." gently caress, and I thought this movie was gonna be about a writers wife getting gaslit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
it's about customer service
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:it's about customer service Worst airbnb ever
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Some people criticize this movie for being too obvious while others criticise it for being too obtuse, and a whole lot of people manage to do both at the same time with an extra helping of angry rhetoric about intelligence and who really has it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
I just feel Aronofsky wouldn't be all "NO NO NO YOU DIDN'T GET IT ALL" and more "Well what do you think it's about?". In my experience talking to filmmakers (especially ones that make films like this) while they might have a true meaning in mind, they want their film to be open to whatever anyone will get out of it, which is why they tend to be so shy in speaking about what it's about in the first place. They don't want to unduly influence what people get out of their movie. I think Aronofsky has shown aggravation that people have hated his movie, which is understandable, but it's more because a tone of people don't engage in it at all rather than interpret it incorrectly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
I just think it's a great movie about systemic denial of autonomy that bloats into outlandish zaniness a la Zazie dans le metro. The way Lawrence's peace is so persistently intruded upon is so sickly funny, even just starting out with a scene that could be in Curb Your Enthusiasm (drunk lady insists on seeing home), and the way her intents are so utterly twisted back upon her (she's never allowed to be right - she's right to be upset, but the social temperature is always against her, like in the scene where she's wearing a bathrobe at the funeral). Mostly it's the way it expands and duplicates itself is what gets me, it keeps growing and growing with almost mathematic precision until in the second half it's literally doubling every minute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
shut up netface posted:perhaps I should have dialed that back.The ideas are poorly formed, and half heartedly executed, and the entire film is an obtuse mess. Its as if it was written by a teenage dipshit in Creative Writing 101 after reading a few Kafta stories. Our dipshit will respond to any level of criticism with "WELL YOU JUST DONT GET IT MAN ITS REALLY ABOUT..." How Kaftaesque...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
I like how so many negative responses say the movie is heavy handed in delivering its message but few of those responses actually agree on what that supposedly obvious message is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 06:39
|
|