mother! (2017)

[baumer]

4 hours ago, Cochofles said:

The more I think about this film, the more I liked it.

Yep...it made me feel...I know it sounds incredibly cliched, but here's the thing: we are so used to uber-polished, uber-generic "feelings" in film, epecially when it comes to the musical cues and the ploty contrivances designed to make us feel a certain way, that those emotions feel...meh...unearned.

This film made me uncomfortable...uneasy...even sick-ish, and the last act totally destroyed me. 

Not a film I would buy on DVD to watch often, but it was certainly a movie that compelled me enough to re-watch it in cinemas.

And I still have it under my skin.

So yeah, to me, it was a fantastic moviegoing experience pretty much because it was unforgettable.

DOes that make sense? It does to me.

 

I have no problem with people feeling like this.  It didn't work for me, in fact I hated it.  But if a film can make you feel something then it has done something amazing.  I'm glad you got something out of it.

[Cochofles]

33 minutes ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

 

I have no problem with people feeling like this.  It didn't work for me, in fact I hated it.  But if a film can make you feel something then it has done something amazing.  I'm glad you got something out of it.

Thanks.

 

[rockNrollaDIM]

LOVED this. You can interpret this in many ways but I see it as a deeply feminist statement. Final 10 minutes or so are horrific and not sure I can watch that again but the payoff is there.

[Jake Gittes]

aDIM in da house!

[rockNrollaDIM]

11 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

aDIM in da house!

 Hey buddy  I know, it's been a while. Hope everyone is doing well!

[trifle]

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/antwrangler/status/915232713677967360

Edited October 3, 2017 by trifle

[somebody85]

On 10/1/2017 at 4:03 PM, Cochofles said:

The more I think about this film, the more I liked it.

Yep...it made me feel...I know it sounds incredibly cliched, but here's the thing: we are so used to uber-polished, uber-generic "feelings" in film, epecially when it comes to the musical cues and the ploty contrivances designed to make us feel a certain way, that those emotions feel...meh...unearned.

This film made me uncomfortable...uneasy...even sick-ish, and the last act totally destroyed me. 

Not a film I would buy on DVD to watch often, but it was certainly a movie that compelled me enough to re-watch it in cinemas.

And I still have it under my skin.

So yeah, to me, it was a fantastic moviegoing experience pretty much because it was unforgettable.

DOes that make sense? It does to me.

I honestly forgot I saw this until jumping onto this forum for Blade Runner. But yeah, these types of movies are going to give you a reaction or they aren't.

I highly recommend checking out A Ghost Story. It's even better outside of the theater because it's such a quiet movie (I actually heard fucking Girls Trip playing a few theaters over for a lot of it in theaters). If you do get a reaction (like the one you described), it's very moving and will stay with you.

[Alli]

On 9/25/2017 at 1:05 AM, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

So is a movie brilliant because it takes a concept that is known, like the Bible, and then disguises it and uses allegory?  Is that the definition of brilliance?  I think that's a really poor excuse for brilliance.

exactly.

 

this movie lacked subtlety. the allegory was too on the nose.

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, Alli said:

exactly.

 

this movie lacked subtlety. the allegory was too on the nose.

Arguably the other way around, I think it was maybe a bit too subtle, I wonder was the percentage of the people without any clue

Spoiler

 

got that the movie was about climate change with the humanity dying at the end, I did read a lot of reviews of people not getting the movie at all.

 

Seem to be easy to mistake the narrative tool used (the bible) with the actual story, like if there is one layer a bit too tick.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Barnack

[Alli]

33 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Arguably the other way around, I think it was maybe a bit too subtle, I wonder was the percentage of the people without any clue

  Reveal hidden contents

 

got that the movie was about climate change with the humanity dying at the end, I did read a lot of reviews of people not getting the movie at all.

 

 

 

Seem to be easy to mistake the narrative tool used (the bible) with the actual story, like if there is one layer a bit too tick.

really? how the heck is it about climate change? the bible stuff is straightforward and the easiest explanation. it matches completly

[Barnack]

15 minutes ago, Alli said:

really? how the heck is it about climate change? the bible stuff is straightforward and the easiest explanation. it matches completly

Spoiler

 

The bible is the tool used to anthropomorphism mother earth into a human form and tell humanity story (and thus be able to tell is possible end), it is not one or the other, the setting of the bible is used (not an explanation, that is the obvious storytelling device in no way trying to be subtle at all) to tell that warning/angry story about the destruction of the environment by the humans. But the movie is not mostly about religion, it is using the myths as a short end with the audience for the actual stories.

 

 

 

 

Lot of people say it was too on the nose, who would not get it, etc... but many didn't (not sure I would have without the many clue or knowing the director very active work on the subject), it is a rare case of a movie too on the nose according to some but yet not that understood by audience. An argument can be made that it was too subtle.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Barnack

[Alli]

12 minutes ago, Barnack said:

  Hide contents

 

The bible is the tool used to anthropomorphism mother earth into a human form and tell humanity story (and thus be able to tell is possible end), it is not one or the other, the setting of the bible is used (not an explanation, that is the obvious storytelling device in no way trying to be subtle at all) to tell that warning/angry story about the destruction of the environment by the humans. But the movie is not mostly about religion, it is using the myths as a short end with the audience for the actual stories.

 

 

 

 

Lot of people say it was too on the nose, who would not get it, etc... but many didn't (not sure I would have without the many clue or knowing the director very active work on the subject), it is a rare case of a movie too on the nose according to some but yet not that understood by audience. An argument can be made that it was too subtle.

 

 

i still don;'t see it. imo the bible stuff is used to tell the story of a writer/artist and his muse and the trappings of fame and its intoxicating nature

[DeeCee]

You don’t need to spoiler tag here. 

[Jake Gittes]

Subtlety is not always needed or useful. 

[Barnack]

15 hours ago, Alli said:

i still don;'t see it. imo the bible stuff is used to tell the story of a writer/artist and his muse and the trappings of fame and its intoxicating nature

There is 3 "sources" to the movie, the bible stuff, the direct stuff (writer/artist/muse/fame/woman expectation/etc...) the 2 most obvious and then what the movie is also about: humanity destroying their environment (by but not only global warming, but over fishing, over mining, etc...).

 

The house/Lawrence character represent what make life possible on earth (in many ways, the woman fertility, to the eco-system). When there is the deluge (the sink breaking) the humanity is destroyed at that moment because they were not respecting the rules a bit like in the bible, at the end when the house explode humanity killed itself by asking too much and taking too much from the eco-system (a worst case scenario of were the humanity is headed).

 

The life before and the life after can be seen as representation of the life on earth before the mammals "reign", say like the dinosaur before the giant meteorite, after it is has long life survive (and it will) to humanity earth will be ok, it is just the humans (or the level of life) that would be gone by the pollution, like for the 5 or so previous mass extinction earth went through, life on earth was badly hurt one of them I think 90% of all living things went extinct, but flourished against millenniums after.

 

That is what humans taking stuff, repainting the house, taking part of the house, beating Lawrence are about, that does not make much sense (if any ?) in the writer/artist or bible story line.

 

And like I said, arguably the movie was too subtle and not enough of the nose, because like you I think a large percentage of the audience didn't get it and that why they felt the need to explain it, a failure of the movie in a way, should have been less subtle a little bit imo or if it was not so strong with the biblical stuff maybe the third source would have more naturally emerged among audience.

 

Saying that the movie was too on the noose on is allegory, without getting them (you are not alone saying this) is a bit ironic, and if you miss that, the third act (the exponential nature of what humanity is asking from the earth) must be really strange and not make much sense.

 

 

 

 

[The Stingray]

One of the best of the year.
 

[Noctis]

Fucking insane...holy shit.

[RichWS]

Still my favorite of the year. Exhilarating and exhausting. Four Aronofsky scarves out of four.

[That One Girl]

On 12/9/2017 at 5:49 PM, RichWS said:

Still my favorite of the year. Exhilarating and exhausting. Four Aronofsky scarves out of four.

 

Just watched this.  Only movie I liked better this year was Blade Runner.

 

Damn this year is a wild ride.  I was pretty sure Logan would still be in my top 5 by the year's end but nopeeee.  and I still have a lot more to see!

[TheMovieman]

Hated just about everything and was so hard to sit through.

 

Easily an "F".