trifle
-
Posts
3,637 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by trifle
-
-
1 hour ago, The Futurist said:
I hear Jlaw has become Breibart's favorite punchbag celebrity, is that true ?
Pretty much, and this year it is mostly made up stuff. The 'hurricanes are because Trump was elected' she never said, etc etc. She still can't stand Trump though, so they don't care if she really said something or not. What's worse imho is the so called mainstream things like People or whatever which will have a headline that isn't true with a note in the story saying 'actually this isn't true'. She's click bait. To some people it's because they love her to others they want to be outraged. Click bait media responds. Add an ax to grind like Brietbart has.....
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Steele131 said:
So is he saying he didn’t like it, or just that the movie is long?
As far as I can tell, he's just saying it is long. Twitter is practically incandescent on this film, otherwise.
-
1
-
-
Everything I've seen on twitter until this was just fantastic. Pretty long, but I guess if it's great, you just want it to continue...
-
-
1 hour ago, Jeriosnal said:
Red Sparrow will make some money, but it won't enhance Lawrence's career. She has enough generic blockbusters on her resume as is. Either she needs to do big movies that have some cultural presence like Will Smith and Tom Cruise's bigger movies back in the day, or more prestige pictures with top directors. The Spielberg thing would be good, but will that ever happen? Likewise, is she in the Tarantino Manson movie or not? Those are the films that enhance careers, not Red Sparrow.
She tends to mix money makers with passion project type movies.
-
so at least there is some interest from the trailer.
-
1 minute ago, Cochofles said:
Has anyone re-watched this? What did you think? Did you discover things that you may have overlooked the first time?
I can totally see this film becoming a cult favorite.
It is certainly thought-provoking.
The infamous scene that has revolted so many people is the least interesting part of the film.
I did. I hadn't read yet that the sounds were actually Jen's voice distorted, so I will pay attention to that next time....Aronofsky wasn't kidding when he said she 'was the score'! I did notice new things, but mostly I was able to appreciate aspects of it more. The first time I was reacting quite a bit and didn't really have the luxury of dwelling. It is extremely well made.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, straggler said:
There is something called numerical bias. The basic idea is that when we see a number or grade our minds immediately assume it is valid. But Cinemascore is really meaningless. It is a survey of about 400 people at only 4 or 5 theaters on opening night. That is too small and limited a sample to validly convey anything. All it indicates is that 400 casual moviegoers went to see that new horror/home invasion film starring Jennifer Lawrence and got mother! instead. Yet the media treats Cinemascore as if it trumps all reviews or the reactions of audiences that actually had a clue what they were going to watch. I get that it is a divisive and insane film, but I think it is brilliant and I could not care less what 400 unsuspsecting moviegoers had to say on opening night about what they thought they were going to watch. Cinemascore is a tool, but it should not be overstated and I don't think it is helpful regarding less conventional movies. It measures expectations. But I guess moving forward studios need to be smart about how they manage all these different shorthand measures.
I understand there have only been about 12 F Cinemascores since the scoring began. I wonder how many of the others had 74 scores on metacritic.
-
2
-
-
Quote
There are links to eight other articles in there, as well. Spoilers, though!
-
1
-
-
-
I think she has box office draw at least as much as any actress, but I don't think that means a movie reported to be booed or as loved by the intellegencia, but hard to watch, will open wide across the nation based on one star - any star.
I'm glad Jen did mother! but not (obviously) for box office reasons.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Incarnadine said:
I saw the trailer in front of Kingsman last night, not great or terrible, although JLaw looked really good in a couple of the outfits.
When I saw the trailer I had the feeling I had seen something very similar before, but I couldn't think of it until it came to me this morning. There was a TV movie in 1985 called "Secret Weapons" starring Linda Hamilton and also Geena Davis.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089983/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1
I also couldn't help but think of "The Americans", like how Keri Russell's character would have been 15-20 years earlier.
It is a spy story, and there are a lot of them, male protaganist mostly, but female also. What is different about this one is it was written by an ex CIA operative and actually goes into spycraft - in the book, anyhow. There are other differences, but they are spoilery.
Still, I don't think having another spy story is more repetitive than having another science fiction movie or any other genre. I'm hoping this will be a good one. People who saw 20 minutes of it raved about it... I hope the whole movie is good.
-
1
-
-
-
46 minutes ago, ddddeeee said:
Going to see this again tomorrow. Even more excited than I was the first time.
I'm seeing it again tomorrow, as well!
22 minutes ago, Alli said:lol will this poster be shown at the cinemas? why would they waste even more money on it?
There are no actor credits... I suspect Aronofsky just created it on the spot for his reddit q& a this morning. But he and Jen are flying to Korea for a film festival soon.
16 minutes ago, filmlover said:Or touted the F CinemaScore grade.
They already did that. If it had opened on a platform release it wouldn't even have HAD a cinemascore. Oh well!
4 minutes ago, The Futurist said:
Yeah. Except click bait articles are captioning headlines "JLaw flips off critics of her movie" or whatever, when she was really relating a story about how she reacted to Aronofsky when Aronofsky came to her, oxygen tubes in her nose, with a torn diaphragm, telling her they needed to shoot 'that scene' again, because it was fuzzy.
In another interview DA said he had decided to take the camera off of her back, shooting her 'perspective' of that scene, and put it on her face because 'you just don't see emotion like that!' So he kinda deserved it, imho. And probably thought the result was worth it, from the fact that he's laughing in the picture, as she does it.
-
1
-
-
-
-
at the Academy screening tonight in NY
-
1
-
-
So it seems Jen was cheated out of a credit....
SpoilerHow 'mother!' Uses Sound To Enhance Its Allegory
Like all aspects of this movie, using sound in this manner also has thematic meaning. Aronofsky and Lawrence have confirmed what early viewers suspected (spoilers ahead) — #mother is a biblical allegory, Him (Javier Bardem) is God, Mother (Lawrence) is mother nature, and the bricks and mortar of the home are planet Earth, shown symbolically via a pulsating heart hidden in the structure of the walls. In this sense, sounds of the home become the score.
Its use is impressive enough, but there's a surprise twist — the sounds are the voice of mother nature herself, Jennifer Lawrence, digitally distorted and manipulated. In an interview with Aronofsky and Lawrence, the New York Times confirmed that the sounds of the house, down to every creak in the floorboards, use Lawrence's voice as a foundation. This is poetic representation of the omens, warnings, and disturbances from mother nature's "voice" about the state of the world, hurricanes replacing creaks, earthquakes replacing smashes.
It relates to another metaphorical warning hidden within mother! in climate change and the human disregard for the health of the planet. Those seemingly innocuous sounds catch mother nature's attention (and the audience's, too), but to the hoards who carelessly invade her home, they mean nothing. Her warnings are ignored, her renovations taken out of her control. Eventually, it leads mother nature to implode her planet, engulfing it in a fiery apocalypse — another biblical reference.
Spoiler warning! https://moviepilot.com/p/jennifer-lawrence-mother-score-voice/4373783
also:
QuoteWhen guest moderator William Friedkin (also a member of the rarefied “F” CinemaScore club, thanks to 2007’s “Bug”) grilled Aronofsky over his intentions and personal beliefs at a Directors Guild Q&A on Sunday, the exchange reportedly took on a life of its own: “Do you believe in God?” he asked Aronofsky in a wide-ranging conversation described as “tense” and “insane” by guests in attendance.
“Do you believe in possession?” retorted Aronofsky, whose pre-”mother!” films have queried similar themes of religion and human consequence, most obviously 2014’s “Noah” and 2006’s “The Fountain.”
-
1
-
-
-
https://twitter.com/JLawrenceARG/status/910337025101959171 https://twitter.com/JLawrenceARG/status/910337025101959171 https://twitter.com/JLawrenceARG/status/910337025101959171
Según la página #IMDb#mothermovie es la segunda película mas popular
— Jennifer Lawrence (@JLawrenceARG) September 20, 2017
Mientras que #RedSparrow sube 1168 lugares y entra al ranking #36 pic.twitter.com/sDmkQX4jWH-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, misafeco said:
JLaw needs to choose more carefully in the next few years and she will be fine.
1 hour ago, filmlover said:I don't think this is gonna have any effect on her career and that everybody will look at it like the kooky arthouse film that it is. If anything, JLaw's presence will give it an exposure that it wouldn't have received otherwise as that time she put aside her "movie star" status to make one of the most polarizing films ever. It's clear that she doesn't want to have a career in strictly commercial fare like Julia Roberts and a bunch of other A-list actresses before her.
Yeah, I'm glad she did this, and I know she wants to do indies, so there are probably more to come. She'll do the big stuff too, of course
-
1
-
-
This article has thematic spoilers (Jen discusses the metaphors and allegories) but not actual action. And it's a good article, imho. And I love that Jen has DA programed into her phone as 'The Dark Lord'. Every couple should have pet names....
-
1
-
-
On 9/16/2017 at 7:57 PM, trifle said:
The thing is what she asks for this sort of film is typically WAY lower than what she asks for commercial fare. That is why I doubt it. However, if it is in the news that much, it is reality as far as anything really matters, anyhow.
Here's probably my last post on mother! budget unless I get something definitive. The media were all saying $13M until BOM just came out with $30M and now they are all saying that. Meanwhile Aronofsky has been talking about how cheap the movie was in a way that sounds to me a lot more like the $13M number.
QuoteAnyway, on to Mother! How the hell did you convince a studio to let you do this movie?
That’s a good question. It wasn’t too hard. It wasn’t such a hard thing to convince people to do. I imagine that probably has to do with the fact that we attached Jen Lawrence to it as a first move. And we made it for a very, very low amount of money. So I think that combination allows studios to take a risk. I think that if the price point makes sense, then there’s not much to lose. There’s not much downside. So I think that’s how they looked at it. I think they saw the genre elements that are there, even though they know that I don’t really play genre fairly — I kind of mix it up and stuff. And I think there was some concerns about the extremes of it. But I do think that studios and the people at studios do want to, every once in a while, do something different and roll the dice and try different stuff.The interview is in Vulture, and I would post the link but it has major spoilers and I am not sure if I'm allowed to post article links with spoilers in the weekend thread. You could google the text, though, if you want to find it.
Anyhow, I hope it's $13M because I'm glad they made this, but I don't see how they would have thought this divisive a movie would make a huge amount of money to begin with.
-
2 minutes ago, a2knet said:
yes i agree with that and if they had kept their statements limited to audacity, risk and experimenting it would have been fine. i think their pulling netflix into it didn't make much sense due to the different inputs required in both the mediums. seemed a bit passive aggressive "you like netflix originals so what's wrong with this". well there was nothing wrong with theatrical risks (solaris for eg) even before netflix existed. and there isn't anything wrong with taking those risks right now.
i don't think they appreciated why a different medium like netflix finds it easier to sell stories no one wants to tell and why people have slightly safer expectations from theaters due to the time and money people put in compared to watching netflix with a monthly subscription.
OK, I guess I'm not up on the Netflix animosity. The mention of Netflix added nothing to the comment for me, so it could have been omitted, imho.
The New Mutants | August 28, 2020 | Rumors are saying it released, but no one we know saw it
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
Well, looks like you might be right, apparently there is a teaser out there...