The previous film by the director of the love witch iirc
― good art is orange; great art is teal (wins), Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:01 (six years ago) link
ah wikipedia is a little squirrely, all I was turning up was some spanish movie about a drag queen
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:03 (six years ago) link
The Love Witch was fun but it needs an edit so bad
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:03 (six years ago) link
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.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:35 (six years ago) link
well scott the cinematographer is DA's usual guy (who also has done a few Spike Lee films, eg Inside Man and Chi-Raq)
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:42 (six years ago) link
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
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:42 (six years ago) link
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!
― flappy bird, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:44 (six years ago) link
i think Requiem for a Dream also has that really extreme LOVE/HATE thing for people.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:46 (six years ago) link
none of the CGI struck me as particularly bad tbh and I'm usually pretty attentive to effects
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:46 (six years ago) link
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.
― Nhex, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 16:52 (six years ago) link
visually & sonically it's pretty amazing
this has never redeemed his films before. and his best film (The Wrestler) eschews all that.
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 17:00 (six years ago) link
The Wrestler looked great!
https://thefilmqueuedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/the-wrestler.png?w=900http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zXgdZ3sjGqM/UzX6tbDEnJI/AAAAAAAARb8/TuLtI8dm9Iw/s1600/The+Wrestler+film.jpghttps://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/01-classroom.png?w=1024
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 17:11 (six years ago) link
I don't find his films visually amazing. I can't separate visuals from content.
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 September 2017 17:11 (six years ago) link
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.
― dinnerboat, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 17:13 (six years ago) link
the Wrestler was not flashy or full of editing tricks + CGI the way, say Pi or the Fountain or Noah or Requiem for a Dream were. Visually it's his most understated and conventional film.
xp
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 17:13 (six years ago) link
I can't separate visuals from content.
^^^also this
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 17:14 (six years ago) link
As in visuals are part of the content?
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 17:26 (six years ago) link
the one thing that someone mentioned on here that made me want to see this was the movie BUG which is seriously one of my favorite movies of all time. i've probably seen it 20 times. i would kill to see a genre film even half as good (or crazy) as that in 2017.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 17:27 (six years ago) link
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:00 PM (fifty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I didn't say it redeemed the movie, & I can't separate visuals from content either. But I would still recommend seeing this movie in a theater for the experience & bc I've been wayyyy off on predicting who would love it & who would hate it. I thought It was really shallow upon reflection, but it was a great movie theater experience - packed crowd in a huge auditorium on a Saturday night.
― flappy bird, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 18:01 (six years ago) link
you liked EMOJI: THE MOVIE
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 18:03 (six years ago) link
um it was called The Emoji Movie
― flappy bird, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 18:08 (six years ago) link
lots of movies have great creativity and quality in their visuals and bad everything else (editing, acting, story etc) so i don't quite get what you guys are saying. are you saying that no movie with great visuals can be truly bad, or that if a movie is that terrible the visuals are irrelevant?
― Nhex, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 20:55 (six years ago) link
If the movie's terrible, I don't care how well it's shot.
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 September 2017 21:00 (six years ago) link
I can take pleasure from evocative visuals in an otherwise ordinary film, and if I really like the look of a movie, that's enough right there to preclude me calling it bad. (Example...lots of them; can't think anything offhand.) But the look of Mother was one of the things I hated most about it; ugly brown and oppressive close-ups the whole way through.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 21:19 (six years ago) link
Me at the weekend getting rid of films."GREAT film... but I'll never watch it again.Now this one is total shit... but wasn't that garden lovely, it's a keeper"
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 21:34 (six years ago) link
p.much! that's why i try to avoid the temptation to buy films these days
― Nhex, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 21:38 (six years ago) link
I normally go for aesthetics rather than narrative, as I find it speaks to me on a more emotional level. But Aronofsky is someone where the aesthetics often feels cold and technical. And it doesn't help that he insists on aronofsplaining his films afterwards, and how it was meant to be experienced.
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 21:50 (six years ago) link
I don't get why it's bad to watch a film with a lovely garden, though. That's a totally legitimate response.
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 21:51 (six years ago) link
Narrative and aesthetics -- I'm not sure how you're defining it -- are indivisible. I can't sever the engine of the plot from, say, how Tsai and Assayas tell and photograph it.
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 September 2017 22:00 (six years ago) link
Always intended to see Elvira Madigan, just never have (don't ever remember a theatrical screening here).
― clemenza, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 22:02 (six years ago) link
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 22:51
Unsure if there was a misunderstanding but I was saying that I was keeping films for things like that, while getting rid of generally much better films that had no visual juice for me.
Like, I think Cold Fish is a superior film to Strange Circus but I'm only keeping Strange Circus for the more bits of juice.
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Tuesday, 26 September 2017 22:45 (six years ago) link
I think the whole movie was just part of Aronofsky's strategy to fuck Jennifer Lawrence, and it was a successful film from that standpoint.
― davey, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 01:26 (six years ago) link
lmao otm
― flappy bird, Wednesday, 27 September 2017 04:36 (six years ago) link
For me it's an allegory about the nightmare that is DIY
Saw this last night after avoiding all the chitchat around it - the above comment on this thread strikes the biggest chord with me, as I experienced the film as a 'property terror' genre piece, like The Amityville Horror - it could just as easily be called 'House!', or 'In Every Dream Home a Heartache'.
The accusations of misogyny strike me as especially witless; the film goes out of its way to critique the expectations put on women to be 'the good mother', the good housekeeper, while the Bardem character is a ludicrous jerk throughout.
Excellent movie.
― Gunpowder Julius (Ward Fowler), Wednesday, 27 September 2017 08:09 (six years ago) link
Saw it. It's actually the Letterboxd MD'A entry I agree with more so than anything...
I don't love mother! for its Deep Meaning, though. I love mother! for its simulation of a rollercoaster that ratchets you uphill for miles, until the lack of oxygen makes you lightheaded, then plummets you at 200 mph through one of those haunted-house rides in which something horrific pops out at you around every turn, except here "something horrific" = humanity.
It's been that kinda year, I guess.
― Anne of the Thousand Gays (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2017 03:16 (six years ago) link
(Except I wouldn't really say I love mother!, tho. Not that that matters.)
― Anne of the Thousand Gays (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 September 2017 03:17 (six years ago) link
At its core, it's a basic, stupid black comedy about the basic, stupid black comedy of people in general.
Would make a good double feature with Paterson.
― to fly across the city and find Aerosmith's car (C. Grisso/McCain), Monday, 9 October 2017 06:46 (six years ago) link
Marty OTM (on Rotten Tomatoes, at least)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/martin-scorsese-rotten-tomatoes-box-office-obsession-why-mother-was-misjudged-guest-column-1047286
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 October 2017 17:39 (six years ago) link
Or maybe they'll fade away and dissolve in the light of a new spirit in film literacy
sounds likely
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 10 October 2017 17:44 (six years ago) link
his THR editor told him it needed a ray of sunshine
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 October 2017 17:54 (six years ago) link
I thought the ray of sunshine was his praise. I would've loved him to write, "Was the film any good? No. It was garbage. Nevertheless..."
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 October 2017 17:56 (six years ago) link
Finally watched this today and really quite enjoyed. I guess my biggest complaint is that the allegories were so obvious and directly literal in the last third particularly that it got a bit bogged down in Do You See.
― Thomas Gabriel Fischer does not endorse (aldo), Sunday, 24 December 2017 13:00 (six years ago) link
this film was literally so boring. it was just a load of special effects doing bits of the old testament. only highlight was the book publicist shooting people in the head execution-style. That was pretty funny in terms of "character arc". Feel like the lead actress was only scripted to say "what?" and "don't sit on the counter!"
― plax (ico), Sunday, 24 December 2017 14:17 (six years ago) link
lol best review
― sonnet by a wite kid, "On Æolian Grief" (wins), Sunday, 24 December 2017 14:20 (six years ago) link
at the end of the day, i liked darren aronofsky's mother more than she liked me.
― The times they are a changing, perhaps (map), Monday, 25 December 2017 05:22 (six years ago) link
lol @ the lead actress
― i know kore-eda (or something), Monday, 25 December 2017 08:54 (six years ago) link
this movie was great, I don't get all you people who hated it. It was a bit "here is a very blatant metaphor' but I kind of appreciated that. At least it tried.
"A lot of the criticisms are the opposite of how I felt about it. I thought it was deeply feminist and Christian
― Whiney G. Weingarten, "
Yes
― akm, Saturday, 30 December 2017 16:25 (six years ago) link
We just watched this over two nights. After yesterday we thought it was pretty good, after finishing it today I feel like I've been put through a traumatic experience for no reason, my wife says it was a "parable about nothing." Feel like there's all the ingredients for a great movie in there somewhere, but something's gone really wrong in the cooking, we're all stuck here eating this baby and we don't know why.
― mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Wednesday, 31 October 2018 21:41 (five years ago) link
I don’t know if “parable about nothing” is really apt for this. I mean I think it’s main fault is in how sledgehammer-y it is with its themes.
― circa1916, Wednesday, 31 October 2018 21:55 (five years ago) link