darren aronofsky's mother!

from the guy who wrote a book about Showgirls being a masterpiece though

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, September 19, 2017 9:04 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Showgirls is a masterpiece.

“I apologize,” he told one TIFF audience, “for what I’m about to do to you.”

fwiw: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ4dqMnWAAAcPry.jpg

i don't know who that is but he sounds like a dick

how could you possibly say that about someone that did coke with the Strokes!!!

That's some valuable oral history alright.

that is a sick burn of aronofsky even if it's also an accidental self-own

there's people to laugh at on both sides

have you seen the movie
even if you like it - and i will grant there are some really good things in it - you have to admit that last section is pure torture to watch, purpose disregarded
i don't see you how you could fault anyone who hated and/or was offended by this film

In some ways, this reminds me of the Lou Reed/Metallica collab Lulu: the nutty mashup, the gruesome metaphors, the critical reaction. "Sing it, James!" = Kristen Wiig cameo.

it's "come on james!" and god don't make me want to see this by comparing it to lulu

For worship someone who actively despises you.

lol

Darren Aronofsky dresses like he is the drama teacher on a Disney Channel sitcom. His name is "Mr Z" and he rolls his Rs for some reason pic.twitter.com/J28mSkw2SC

— Natalie Walker (@nwalks) September 19, 2017

As an Aranofnostic (liked Pi, Wrestler and Black Swan) I really enjoyed this. I didn't really pick up on/care about the religious symbolism, for me it was most effective as a blackly absurdist, sometimes very funny depiction of social and relationship anxiety. The level of ire it has raised doesn't make sense to me.

didn't really pick up on/care about the religious symbolism, for me it was most effective as a blackly absurdist, sometimes very funny depiction of social and relationship anxiety

same. that's why i didn't like the last third, though

see I liked the blackly absurd social anxiety, "hell-is-other-people" stuff. the movie fell down when it actually became HELL IS OTHER PEOPLE

yup. really hitting-you-over-the-head with a really non-clever analogy. also the violence was just gratuitous and dumb, not even particularly well orchestrated

Gone all in on the 'biggest mother of them all' approach, I see.

#controversy #mothermovie YOU DECIDE pic.twitter.com/gBSDrD4jnJ

— darren aronofsky (@DarrenAronofsky) September 22, 2017

this movie sounds not interesting in the least but it does remind me i should probably watch Antichrist someday

^ yeah just don't watch it on a full stomach

I think the thing that is most putting me off of this is how much the reviews and the discussion around it are reminding me of Antichrist (which I hated).

i have a friend who watched antichrist on a first date

...and a last date?

i have a friend who watched antichrist on a first date

Oh hell yeah, I assume they're married

For the first two-thirds or whatever, I thought this was an ugly-looking mishmash of better horror films, Rosemary's Baby and Night of the Living Dead most obviously; it held my interest at that level. The last third was preposterous: Cronenberg and Lynch at their most self-parodic, crossed with Ken Russell or somebody like that. I didn't much care for Get Out a few months ago, but after Baby Driver and this monstrosity, it suddenly seems moderately okay.

Michelle Pfeiffer and Ed Harris were good as the Castevets.

"better horror films"--I meant to say exponentially better, or infinitely better.

yeah what did you think of Get Out?

I was intrigued for a while, then I thought it became more and more a conventional--conventionally graphic--horror film. The context was interesting, but the actual experience of watching it became less and less so as it went along.

I think horror films and me may have had our day. It Follows and The Witch were at the opposite end of the spectrum--moody, arty, almost completely without gore--and I wasn't big on them, either.

this only fell off 56% at the US b.o. 2nd weekend, less than i wd've expected (tho i guess it didnt have far to fall)

the vvitch was the best of the last few years' big-deal US horror flicks imho

Otm

Clemenza u should watch The Love Witch

would also watch The Love VVitch

I don't know...I found Viva mind-numbing; I passed when it played here for a couple of weeks.

no idea what Viva is

The previous film by the director of the love witch iirc

ah wikipedia is a little squirrely, all I was turning up was some spanish movie about a drag queen

The Love Witch was fun but it needs an edit so bad

does this movie work as an art movie at all? i just like interesting visuals and sound. if it had a tiny budget and no stars would people think it was so controversial or just another indie flick? i tried scanning this thread for descriptions of what the movie looked like but i couldn't find anything. you are all a.o. scott. kidding.

well scott the cinematographer is DA's usual guy (who also has done a few Spike Lee films, eg Inside Man and Chi-Raq)

imo:

there is some really great filmwork (the slow tracking shots that circle around JLaw, the use of wall color as a narrative device) and some really bad filmwork (the cartoony look and bad CGI of some of the last third)

my ambivalence towards the filmmaking makes me rate below other things I also liked this year, like Raw and Good Time

Yeah, my initial post was about how the movie is so compelling visually, sonically, and psychologically. worth seeing just for that imo. I just don't dig the allegory or what Aronofsky was trying to say. wouldn't have been any different if it were by some no-name director at an empty art house. also, lots of people I expected to totally hate it ended up loving it, the movie is so so polarizing, & I only hate it so much because the allegory is so dumb but visually & sonically it's pretty amazing. go see it!

i think Requiem for a Dream also has that really extreme LOVE/HATE thing for people.

none of the CGI struck me as particularly bad tbh and I'm usually pretty attentive to effects

xp scott seward: yeah there's some amazing shots, tension, etc. A friend actually said to me that this basically is just a generic indie horror flick in a lot of ways, though I would say it's beyond that for the "good" parts. CGI was fine to me. It's the last section that gave me bloodcurdling viewer rage.

visually & sonically it's pretty amazing

this has never redeemed his films before. and his best film (The Wrestler) eschews all that.

The Wrestler looked great!

https://thefilmqueuedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/the-wrestler.png?w=900
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zXgdZ3sjGqM/UzX6tbDEnJI/AAAAAAAARb8/TuLtI8dm9Iw/s1600/The+Wrestler+film.jpg
https://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/01-classroom.png?w=1024

I don't find his films visually amazing. I can't separate visuals from content.

Why is the allegory dumb? The film's theme — how creation and destruction are embedded in each other — is pretty broad and universal. The movie isn't any more explicit than that, and none of the different readings (e.g. it's an eco parable, it's about relationships or religion or parental anxiety or the narcissism of artists) are any more or less valid, which is a neat trick to pull off.