Mother (Darren Aronofsky) - early reviews from Venice

I'm interested in seeing this, mainly because one of my very favorite artist designed the poster art (James Jean). Mixed reviews from absolute praise to absolute hate? You're only making me more interested.
 
More_Badass said:
Probably going to watch Rosemary's Baby tonight, never seen it before
Click to expand...
Repulsion seems to be quite an influence on this, too. Polanski had domestic horror down.
repulsion6.jpg
 
Would someone mind sending me a full spoiler filled crazy rundown of this whole flick? I'll never get the chance to see it and i'm pretty fuckin curious on what exactly goes down.

Please and thank you!
 
The movie is absolutely bananas. Go in blind, I loved it.

Edit: I should add, one guy as I exited said "what a fucking piece of shit that was!" And a woman muttered "Jesus Christ." So certainly not for everyone.
 
Waiting for my wife to get back from it... :D
Worried she might hate me for convincing her to go alone for awhile...
 
Uh...just leaving the theatre now. The audience was not happy. I'll just leave it at that.

Probably the most divisive movie I've ever seen. A lot of people are going to hate this - especially those looking for a horror film.
 
kevin1025 said:
The movie is absolutely bananas. Go in blind, I loved it.

Edit: I should add, one guy as I exited said "what a fucking piece of shit that was!" And a woman muttered "Jesus Christ." So certainly not for everyone.
Click to expand...

Lights and Waves said:
Uh...just leaving the theatre now. The audience was not happy. I'll just leave it at that.

Probably the most divisive movie I've ever seen. A lot of people are going to hate this - especially those looking for a horror film.
Click to expand...

These reactions are giving me life
 
BlueTsunami said:
These reactions are giving me life
Click to expand...

Go watch it before spoilers leak. I expect the RT score to plummet as more regular-folk reviewers watch it. The movie requires a lot of critical thinking.

I'm not sure if marketing it as a scary movie is going to save it or piss people off. JLaw was great. I think I'm ready to stop disliking her lol.
 
Strictly from a storytelling point of view
if the shot that happened with the family in the first half is what gave him inspiration to write his next big poem, what was the purpose of the second half?
 
Really glad I went into that unspoiled (besides that
it's an allegory for climate change
). A wonderful sense of anxiety and offness in this, and some nice cast surprises for me (
Stephen McHattie
is always great). I definitely liked it, but I can totally see why people wouldn't. As the credits started rolling someone loudly went "what the fuck did I just watch", and it's definitely like that.
 
I didn't hear any "what the fuck was that"s, but that was the vibe in the theater (about half full). seemed to be a big sigh and no one really talking walking out. if it is supposed to be
an allegory for climate change
that makes it even stupider.

I went in blind, literally didn't know anything other than that Jennifer Lawrence was in it. she was great. first movie I've ever seen her in.
 
just got back myself
people are mentioning one allegory but really there's a trove of things to analyze here
i loved it
all the teenagers sitting directly behind us immediately began talking about how much they hated it right when it ended, which made me love it even more (and is very thematically appropriate)
 
I liked it and I don't even know why, definitely a mistake to market it as a horror movie. You will either like this movie or hate it, there is no middle ground and I understand both opinions.

The old ladies sitting in my row who wouldn't shut up called it stupid as they were leaving.
 
Human Resources said:
just got back myself
people are mentioning one allegory but really there's a trove of things to analyze here
Click to expand...

Oh yes. For sure. Like how it's about
a narcissistic artist who loves his fans more than his family. It's... very cynical... and probably a reflection of how DA feels about himself.
i loved it
all the teenagers sitting directly behind us immediately began talking about how much they hated it right when it ended, which made me love it even more (and is very thematically appropriate)
Click to expand...
HA! Yes!
 
Human Resources said:
there's a trove of things to analyze here
Click to expand...

there is, but every time I start thinking about em I just keep coming back to "that's stupid"

so the audience is supposed to believe everything that happened in the movie actually happened to those people, no symbolism, no dream, right? the whole second half felt like it was supposed to be not-so-real, but..
he had that first crystal in the beginning of the movie, when everything was still grounded in a believable reality, so if that first crystal is a real thing, then the second "love" crystal is a real thing.
if he couldn't write even with that first crystal, if he couldn't write even after his house had been burned down the first time, when the inspiration came from just interacting with other (crazy) people, why did he need to burn down his house and take someone else's love?

Turbo Killer said:
I liked it and I don't even know why, definitely a mistake to market it as a horror movie. You will either like this movie or hate it, there is no middle ground and I understand both opinions.

The old ladies sitting in my row who wouldn't shut up called it stupid as they were leaving.
Click to expand...


I didn't know it was marketed as a horror movie. it's not, but there's some psychological thriller vibes
+ I have a middle ground. I really really liked the first half. end it right when
she wakes up and knows she's pregnant
and it's a 10
 
dickroach said:
Strictly from a storytelling point of view
if the shot that happened with the family in the first half is what gave him inspiration to write his next big poem, what was the purpose of the second half?
Click to expand...

big time spoilers
there's tons of biblical allegory as well, the two sons as Cain and Abel, the sick father as Job who never loses his faith in "the creator", the child, transubstantiation, it really goes on and on

lots of you guys are trying to analyze the plot like this is an episode of Game of Thrones
quit trying to do that
 
when you use allegories as a means to symbolize things within a story you're telling it's cool. when you use allegories just to make them, I dunno
 
dickroach said:
there is, but every time I start thinking about em I just keep coming back to "that's stupid"

so the audience is supposed to believe everything that happened in the movie actually happened to those people, no symbolism, no dream, right? the whole second half felt like it was supposed to be not-so-real, but..
he had that first crystal in the beginning of the movie, when everything was still grounded in a believable reality, so if that first crystal is a real thing, then the second "love" crystal is a real thing.
if he couldn't write even with that first crystal, if he couldn't write even after his house had been burned down the first time, when the inspiration came from just interacting with other (crazy) people, why did he need to burn down his house and take someone else's love?




I didn't know it was marketed as a horror movie. it's not, but there's some psychological thriller vibes
+ I have a middle ground. I really really liked the first half. end it right when
she wakes up and knows she's pregnant
and it's a 10
Click to expand...


I'm confused about why you say no symbolism. The entire film, every frame, is symbolism. These aren't supposed to be real people with real human behaviors. These are archetypes and mixed metaphors working together to create a lasting cynical theme. That's why no one has a name. And if you watch the credits, all of the characters represent something. And as far as your question about the crystal. He did write after he had the first one, but as always, it wasn't enough so he had to use up his inspiration until nothing was left and then start all over again. It's a cynical cycle of a creator.
 
Human Resources said:
big time spoilers
there's tons of biblical allegory as well, the two sons as Cain and Abel, the sick father as Job who never loses his faith in "the creator", the child, transubstantiation, it really goes on and on

lots of you guys are trying to analyze the plot like this is an episode of Game of Thrones
quit trying to do that
Click to expand...

Yep, lots of
biblical touches, along with the idea of cult of personality, the idea of the artist (most of the time spent as an artist is not being an artist until the inspiration strikes), on top of the idea of love (literally a physical representation) versus love itself.
There's a ton to unpack.
 
Neece said:
I'm confused about why you say no symbolism. The entire film, every frame, is symbolism. These aren't supposed to be real people with real human behaviors. These are archetypes and mixed metaphors working together to create a lasting cynical theme. That's why no one has a name. And if you watch the credits, all of the characters represent something. And as far as your question about the crystal. He did write after he had the first one, but as always, it wasn't enough so he had to use up his inspiration until nothing was left and then start all over again. It's a cynical cycle of a creator.
Click to expand...

I'm liking it more now thanks to other people explaining it, I mean I caught on to the
biblical
references and I thought her husband was the
devil (picture with horns)
and she was
in hell
.
 
Turbo Killer said:
I'm liking it more now thanks to other people explaining it, I mean I caught on to the
biblical
references and I thought her husband was the
devil (picture with horns)
and she was
in hell
.
Click to expand...

There is that
one shot of the edge of the trees, where there's a bubbling, steaming water/swamp thing. It looked like the edge of the property, like nothing beyond could possibly exist.
 
I am generally very love/hate with Aronofsky's movies but this one definitely seems to be pulling from the types of things I enjoy. Will see tomorrow.
 
I understand that
biblical allegory, but my first thoughts were:

The poet represents an artist
JLaw represents creativity
The baby is the artwork that they produce
Fans come to worship it, they want more, the artist can't get enough attention, he abuses his creativity to please his fans for his own egotistical gain
 
Lights and Waves said:
I understand that
biblical allegory, but my first thoughts were:

The poet represents an artist
JLaw represents creativity
The baby is the artwork that they produce
Fans come to worship it, they want more, the artist can't get enough attention, he abuses his creativity to please his fans for his own egotistical gain
Click to expand...

i felt something like this too, i also picked up a vague notion that Aronofsky is making a statement about creating something "for" the fans, destroying it in the process while the audience never even attempts to make sense of it -- lots of time was dedicated showing the visitors' sense of entitlement towards the creator's art/creations/possessions/privacy
 
I had such a good time watching this.
Need more time to digest but just dropping by to say Michelle Pfiefer still has it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Amazing remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark in the early 80’s
3
594
Evil Calvin replied
So I've been to Venice
39
3K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
Where does your nickname come from?
Community  2 3
105
2K
John Bilbo replied
An announcement from Iron Maiden
10
971
AJUMP23 replied
Sit back and enjoy the view - Aurora from space station
1
249
N0S replied
Top Bottom