Messofanego
Banned
Not a good idea to be this defensive over duckroll correcting your assumptions and facts and calling out his mod abilities.
'mother!' earns rare F CinemaScore
- Thread starter LordOfLore
- Start date
He outright called me a terrible person for having any slight critique/ill view of Aronofsky over these matters. I'm not getting "Defensive" over any "corrections" (though they aren't even accurate). I'm questioning how his behavior is at all in line with what a mod should even be doing when his behavior and actions have been outright antagonistic to a heavy degree from the beginning. That's all. And at this point, he's just succeeding in derailing the thread further when I have already asked we move on. I won't give him his bait anymore, just wanted to bring to light that I think his behavior has been out of line.
More_Badass
Member
bless. Excited to see this villainess after those gifs
I'm still waiting for the receipts. You came into the thread to point out that you are happy that the movie seems to be failing even though you have nothing to add to the discussion of the movie itself, clearly because you intended to take a swipe at the director. That's not off topic, that's not a derail, that's you making a claim that the director has done something reprehensible. So when called out on it, you should back up your claims. Otherwise you are simply making up stuff and using Kon's tragic death as a tool to talk shit about someone else. How is that not reprehensible? Taking advantage of the fact that someone died to make someone else look bad is pretty shitty.
You have introduced no fact to the claim that Aronofsky lied about his inspirations, shown no examples of him actually taking advantage of Satoshi Kon or having any sort of malicious intent. There is no evidence introduced that Kon remotely feels this way about Aronofsky's work. Or that Aronofsky befriended Kon to get rights to Perfect Blue. That's all stuff you introduced to this. When you say something, you should back it up, especially if you're talking about the character of another person. I am calling you out based on how I see your actions in this thread. If you don't care to defend them, well, everyone here can see how much worth your words have then.
I already stated I've covered this before. I don't see much point in doing so further when it's been laid out in threads past and is honestly pretty easy to look up as is. I briefly laid out for those wanting to know and I said to move on. As I didn't want to continue this in the first place. I expressed joy over a negative review for a film from a director I don't like. That's all. You're the one dragging this out with personal insults and claims that I'm abusing the death of a creator I respect and adore like it's just some tool to fling around loosely. I don't say it loosely and the insinuation I do is insulting. As is your immediate jump to calling me a terrible awful human being for at all having a critique on Aronofsky regarding this. This is, again, unprofessional, duckroll. Or rather it seems that it should be.
You're the one making personal accusations about a fellow poster as a human being all over their view of a director. All over known facts regarding Kon and Aronofsky's friendship (hell Aronofsky wrote a message regarding his relationship with/respect for Kon in a book about Kon's life), All over known interviews of Aronofsky downplaying the influence Kon had on him around the same time he was dying. All over etc. etc. What worth does your word have to me in this thread outside of knowing you immediately try to look for any reason to go out of your way to insult me and conspiracy theory about how little I value the life of an artist I hold dear? Again: Where Do You Get Off Here? You keep on avoiding this and it makes me question why I should bother further when you actively have gone out of your way to insult me and drag this on and on. Seriously duder. I don't have anything else to say to you at this point.
ricardo_sousa11
Member
Just came from the movies, movie is absolutely stunning, brilliantly made, and probably one of the most violent movies I've ever seen.
With all this being said, I can understand why it would have terrible reviews, even amongst my group, one person absolutely hated it, saying it was the worst movie he's ever seen.
With all this being said, I can understand why it would have terrible reviews, even amongst my group, one person absolutely hated it, saying it was the worst movie he's ever seen.
I don't know if I liked it or not, but my friends and I had a discussion about it afterwards. Not like our usual "Did you like it?" and the usual listing of favourite parts.
One person walked out midway through, and the entire theatre was dead silent through the whole thing. I can definitely see why it would get that CinemaScore.
One person walked out midway through, and the entire theatre was dead silent through the whole thing. I can definitely see why it would get that CinemaScore.
tearsintherain
Member
The trailers for this movie during the It screens around my area were definitely WEIRD, it kept almost daring viewers to see a disturbing movie and just was extremely off putting and weird. I don't know who setup the marketing for this movie in the states but they did the absolute worst job possible. Its a cult movie some people will love and many will hate, but setting it up as the next Blair Witch or Saw movie in the marketing was the absolute WORST idea.
I finally kinda saw the movie today, I walked out about halfway through since it was clearly not a movie I was going to enjoy or like (free moviepass ticket so no real investment other than time). I absolutely detested the Fountain and other "artsy" movies though so not a real shock, and I can understand why other people may absolutely love it. I did love Requiem and Pi, hated Black Swan and Noah, so I guess there isn't much really to say there other than some of his movies I like, and some I don't. Wasn't bothered by the religious stuff, just thought it was an extremely pretentious movie. I do know how it ends, read the movie spoilers and stuff and just sorta reinforces my opinion. Felt Noah had very similar issues, but this one seems to dial it up to a 10.
I finally kinda saw the movie today, I walked out about halfway through since it was clearly not a movie I was going to enjoy or like (free moviepass ticket so no real investment other than time). I absolutely detested the Fountain and other "artsy" movies though so not a real shock, and I can understand why other people may absolutely love it. I did love Requiem and Pi, hated Black Swan and Noah, so I guess there isn't much really to say there other than some of his movies I like, and some I don't. Wasn't bothered by the religious stuff, just thought it was an extremely pretentious movie. I do know how it ends, read the movie spoilers and stuff and just sorta reinforces my opinion. Felt Noah had very similar issues, but this one seems to dial it up to a 10.
ForsakenLotus
Member
I respectfully and honestly would like to see some quotes that backs up your side of the story - even just links would work. Consider me a blank slate that you have the opportunity to enlighten and even possibly convert into the anti-Aronofsky crowd.
I don't say this antagonistically, but surely you can understand when you have such aggressive claims without backing them up, and then continue to not back them up when a mod calls you out, that it's very difficult for somebody to accept what you say at face value.
So, sincerely, please reply with some articles or something that backs up your statements. If you ignore a moderators request for receipts, and a pretty humble request from a random poster who hasn't called you out at all...well I'll assume Duckroll's interpretation is accurate.
Gotta have that mass market appeal man, it's the same thing with Marvel movies.
Sure, they can be enjoyable films, even good films. That being said, it's obviously dumbed down to appeal to just about anyone.
It wouldn't be so bad if the good, smart films didn't usually flop.
I remember seeing that in theaters it was god awful and about halfway through the half dozen of us in the theater were mostly just talking to each other from across various rows, ignoring the couple basically fucking off to one side, and waiting for the damn thing to end. The various real events it's based on are the perfect setup for the movie it wanted to be but by god was it not that movie.
Messofanego
Banned
Psychological thriller, one of my favourites. Michael Shannon has schizophrenia in it (much like in Take Shelter), but this is the more aggressive conspiracist kind. If you liked mother!, you'll like Bug cause it goes all out in certain sequences. Ashley Judd is excellent in it. It's directed by William Friedkin (The Exorcist, Sorcerer, Killer Joe, The French Connection).
Compsiox
Banned
Thats like It Comes At Night. They market it as a horror because horror movies make more money than suspense.
Aquavelvaman
Banned
Yeah I hadn't heard of this movie but it sounds like something I'd watch
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
I think you're right to some degree, but I would definitely put Lawrence ahead of Emma in terms of star power. Her & Pratt are definitely the two biggest young superstars out right now.
The salt from gaffers that hate on Nolan only makes him stronger. And always makes me laugh at them like this poster. What a time.
JamminSalmon
Neo Member
A lot of reviewers throw out the word "pretentious" to describe this movie. What does that even mean any more? I see it used all the time, in so many different contexts. It seems to just describe something that inspires thought or analysis.
Aronofsky is the perfect director for a live action Neon Genesis Evangelion. I'm sure him and Hideaki Anno would get along fine.
mavericktopgun
Member
But is it the mother of all films?
it's hot shots, of course
my second choice after anno. above lars von trier though
GifGafIsTheBestGaf
Member
i hope they reconsider putting her a mystic
I came out of the movie unsure how much I "liked" it, but thinking it was good none the less. Watching the general audience backlash is making me "like" it more though. It was kind of fun listening to how angry everyone was at my screening on Thursday night. A large group walked out upset, but a few people stayed behind in the theater talking about what just happened. Never had that happen before.
It was an interesting movie going experience, even more intense than the backlash I overheard at It Comes At Night.
I kind of want to see it again at the theater because of this, but I'm afraid the second week viewing will probably be mostly empty because of the word of mouth.
It was an interesting movie going experience, even more intense than the backlash I overheard at It Comes At Night.
I kind of want to see it again at the theater because of this, but I'm afraid the second week viewing will probably be mostly empty because of the word of mouth.
ElectronicOldMen
Banned
I love Satoshi Kon's work, Perfect Blue included although I prefer Paprika, I really really don't think there's any weight to the argument that Aronofsky is somehow amorally stealing from Kon's work. Like, Perfect Blue and Black Swan are thematically very similar and loosely share some visual ideas but if we're personally admonishing directors who take a lot of influence from other films or directors to do their own thing, as morally or creatively bankrupt, that really hurts cinema as a medium I think. Artists should be free to take and use inspiration from those who've come before them to make and say their own thing.
(and besides if there's anyone Aronofsky most often borrows ideas from, it's probably Andrzej Zulawski or Roman Polanski)
(and besides if there's anyone Aronofsky most often borrows ideas from, it's probably Andrzej Zulawski or Roman Polanski)
Latvian Hitman
Member
That sums up pretty well what my first public screening of The Fountain was like. That was another movie of his that the studio didn't market very honestly. Kind of a tough thing, though- many of his films don't fit neatly into any one particular bucket.
thekillermuffin
Member
My theater group in college did a production of Bug (the movie's based on a stage play). I played Michael Shannon's character, it was an absolute blast. Went up Halloween weekend, and the ending scenes used a TON of fake blood and intestines.
Big shoes to fill! Sounds like a great time though.
afternoon delight
Member
I'm not sure I'd give it an F ranking, but it's close. And I saw and liked Pi before you did so don't tell me I don't get "it".
An F is harsh though. At least they were trying with something like this. It's shot like someone knows what they're doing with a camera, and the sound design is wonderful. Great sets, special effects work. A film with such technical merits basically disqualify it from F status I believe.
Still wouldn't advise anyone to even rent it though.
An F is harsh though. At least they were trying with something like this. It's shot like someone knows what they're doing with a camera, and the sound design is wonderful. Great sets, special effects work. A film with such technical merits basically disqualify it from F status I believe.
Still wouldn't advise anyone to even rent it though.
theifofdreams
Member
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but this Mother synopsis from reddit is *finger kiss*
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/70tvdc/mother_for_dummies/
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/70tvdc/mother_for_dummies/
Messofanego
Banned
It's always been an empty word when there's nothing to back up that point. Same for "style over substance".
Messofanego
Banned
The F ranking doesn't really have to do with the quality of the film...it's the marketing.
As generally are good, Bs generally are shaky, and Cs are terrible. Ds and Fs, they shouldnt have made the movie, or they promoted it funny and the absolute wrong crowd got into it - CinemaScore founder Ed Mintz
afternoon delight
Member
Gotcha. I honestly don't know how they could have marketed this without using deception though.
More_Badass
Member
Watching the trailer for this and Black Swan, I think the tone and presentation were pretty similar, in presenting mother as a psychological thriller. It's the later ads that went the "mainstream horror movie, omg you won't believe how scary it is" route
But when you watch the first trailers, I think "deception" is too strong a word. That story is what happens in the movie. It's just that the story is revealed to be something else in context, and there's no twist or grand reveal to bring you back to reality. It's not a switch in genre, like how It Comes At Night or Crimson Peak were marketed, but a matter of expectations. People expect a twist, a reveal, an "oh, aha, that's why this is happening". It was all in her head. She's going crazy. It's a sinister cult. It's all an elaborate gaslighting. Something like that
It's still what the trailers showed, a dark psychological film with horrific and disturbing imagery about a husband and wife in a house where weird strangers begin inexplicably showing up and surreal things start happening
This was the first movie I've ever seen in the theater where a big chunk of people walked out. I didn't blame them one bit. The movie was definitely not what was advertised.
That being said, I thought it was interesting. I wish that the actual story being told could have stood on its own instead of being nonsensical and just a vessel to retell biblical events, but I'm assuming that the shock of how random and weird things would seem until you get the references was important to how Aronofsky wanted things to go. I'm glad it exists as it is I guess, this kind of movie doesn't come along all that often so more power to the man for getting funding for this crazy thing.
That being said, I thought it was interesting. I wish that the actual story being told could have stood on its own instead of being nonsensical and just a vessel to retell biblical events, but I'm assuming that the shock of how random and weird things would seem until you get the references was important to how Aronofsky wanted things to go. I'm glad it exists as it is I guess, this kind of movie doesn't come along all that often so more power to the man for getting funding for this crazy thing.
Father_Brain
Banned
I quite liked this. No idea how such an arty, allegorical film got a wide release and the backing of a major studio, though.
Aronofsky is going to helm the next Fast and the Furious movie as a change of pace.
I don't know how this can be graded an F because on a technical level it's superb. I appreciate as a complete package it will be polarising but it's by no means a terrible film. I am concerned on the flip side how many high scoring reviews it has had too.
I need to let things brew for a while as it will take some time for me to collect my thoughts on the film.
I need to let things brew for a while as it will take some time for me to collect my thoughts on the film.
Agreed. From a technical standpoint alone it's an astounding movie, even if someone didn't like it. "F" means there's utterly no value seen in it whatsoever and that's just not the case. Not liking something isn't the same as it being bad, though, so I'm not sure how Cinemascore factors that in. I can't say I liked the movie, but damn do I admire some of the things it was working with.
Turin Turambar
Member
Well, there were snippets near the end of the trailer that already hinted it wasn't a simple home invasion thriller.
Fluffhead14
Member
after watching the trailer and everything surrounding this movie, i feel compelled to see it. like i so badly want to click the spoiler thread. not sure i can drag my wife to see it but there's no way i can wait til it's streaming.
It's a movie that is going to evoke a response right away, and for mass audiences it's going to be bad. I think most actually understand it (or most of it) and what it's all about, it's just they don't like that.
My take for it is essentially that it's well-made but it loses the human element and connection it desperate wants to give us because it's more focused on an allegorical premise than a narrative one. It went too far in one direction for me and the balance that Aronofsky can find in most of his films becomes lost - he isn't just missing that layer but doesn't even bother with it all this time around.
It's a movie that I absolutely would recommend to someone, but with the caveat "Just know, you might not like it and don't expect your assume understanding of what a movie is or isn't going in." I think people should see it, but I think there's better examples of this type of movie even from Aronofsky himself.
Similar threads
- Locked