It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:43 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:35 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Careful out there, trolls online are posting the ending to the film in unrelated film discussions


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Spain
Apparently Mother has been receipt with huge loooong boos. But El Mundo critic has liked it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Dave Kehr tweeted from Venice that the critics will probably kill it, but he thought it was brilliant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 12:47 am
hearthesilence wrote:
Dave Kehr tweeted from Venice that the critics will probably kill it, but he thought it was brilliant.

Glenn Kenny seems to be in the same boat, according to his reaction under Kehr tweet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
Well the reviews have started to come in and well right now it's 86 on Metacritic and a 93 percent at Rotten Tomatoes.

That doesn't strike me as the divisive Lars von Trier-esque cornucopia of controversy it appeared to be. Shocking maybe but I don't think scissors or wood planks are involved here. So good news I guess?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm
Maybe it’s only Winding Refn third act divisiveness: some eyeballs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
I hope not. Another film like that may kill domino.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:10 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
I heard that much of, if not all of Jóhann Jóhannsson's music has been replaced.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Not sure if this is representative of the haters, but David Edelstein calls it a "a second-rate, self-aggrandizing tour de force" that "puts Jennifer Lawrence through the mill for no purpose except nurturing a strain of masochism of which she has been blessedly free. She’s a tough, funny, and smart actress. I’d hate to think of her as just another doll for a director to torture."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:40 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
How many critics named Dave/David are there? I keep thinking y'all are talking about the same guy but that's at least three in this thread alone!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
There are no less than 17 of them, and they all want to protect their sweetie Jennifer Lawrence from big bad acting jobs


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
Although they aren't all film critics you'd be surprised how many Jonathan Rosenbaum's I've heard of. Anyway Aronofsky isn't new to controversy so I don't think the possible controversy surrounding this film will do him in. I also don't think it's a hill worth dying on for critics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Really really hated the trailer that played before It.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:11 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm
So far I've clicked on only a few reviews, and they're written in such a generic way attempting to avoid spoilers. I have to say I find this kind of annoying. I never liked critics who simply summarize the plot, and that's not what I'm advocating for, but if critics can't analyze scenes then it seems difficult for them to say anything beyond: "it's really shocking near the end, therefore good." Usually I don't read reviews til after I see a movie anyway; this seems to bode well for those thinking criticism is now just another branch of marketing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Critics who are writing for more traditional publications are not in the business of deep-diving into films' surprise endings - it's their job to tow that line between giving a realistic impression of what the film is like and not having a detrimental effect on the reader's enjoyment of it. What you're looking for will surely come once the film is out and more people have seen it, but it would do a critic, even one who keeps a personal blog for longer form film writing, no good to spoil the surprises of a film they enjoyed for their readers prior to it even being released.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
The New York premiere ended with a surprise three-song set by Patti Smith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:12 am 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA
Quote:
The New York premiere ended with a surprise three-song set by Patti Smith.

The first Cinerama Dome (Arclight) screening in LA ended with some boos, hisses, and assorted snide comments shouted during the credits ... and a smattering of applause, presumably emanating from employees of Paramount Studios, which is just a few block away.

An ugly, puerile, pretentious mess ... i.e. another Aronofsky film.


Last edited by yoshimori on Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:06 am 

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am
I fail to see how Aronofsky is pretentious. Maybe The Fountain might irk some but I find that a beautiful meditation on death, art and dreams. And Noah was an interesting failure. The only criticism laid against him that I can understand but disagree with is his go for broke mentality. His films are always incredibly personal and human, and for that I always admired him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:39 am 

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 2:01 am
Quote:
The first Cinerama Dome (Arclight) screening in LA ended with some boos, hisses, and assorted snide comments shouted during the credits ... and a smattering of applause, presumably emanating from employees of Paramount Studios, which is just a few block away.

You're talking about a theatre that caters to the lowest common denominator these days. The type of audience that i've witnessed stand and applaud Batman Vs Superman the weekend after opening.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:40 pm 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA
phantomforce wrote:
You're talking about a theatre that caters to the lowest common denominator these days. The type of audience that i've witnessed stand and applaud Batman Vs Superman the weekend after opening.

Yes. But we're talking also about the opening night of an "Aronofsky film". A Batman v Superman screening attracts those who want to see Batman duke it out with Superman. That's not this crowd. In the seats around me at mother! were one group who, I gathered from their pre-screening chatting, were film professors, a low-level cinematographer, and someone who seemed to work in the film industry in some other capacity, and another, four Asian-American guys, who knew the Aronosfsky oeuvre quite well. In the end two of the Asian guys were among those booing and the professors and their friends were among those mocking the movie. Not a scientific analysis of audience reaction, I know, but it felt representative of the overall reaction at this particularly screening made up of at least partly Aronofsky-fans in a gigantic theater maybe two-thirds+ full.

dda1996a wrote:
I fail to see how Aronofsky is pretentious.

My pretention detector went berserk already from Pi. In the latest movie, a stock and juvenile idea -
[Reveal] Spoiler:
man "uses" woman's love in order to "create" - is sillily aggrandized by the cyclical nature of the (cheesy, animated) beginning/end, and the utter irrelevance to that main idea of the whole Rosemary's Baby climactic cult ritual thing is gussied up with images of what Aronofsky seems to think are indicators of contemporary cultural decline (dance clubs, combat zones, bad manners). Look-at-me-I'm-saying-something-important BIG IDEAS, undeveloped or worse. And if the baby is somehow a stand-in for the poet's "work", something that he serves to the people to "nourish" them, one that lets him off the hook for his treatment of the mother, then, whether it's an apologia for the poet's actions or a self-flagellating I-know-I'm-a-bad-boy-but-I-just-can't-help-it-I-MUST-create-great-art criticism of them, it feels super-solipsistic. And that kind of self-obsession rarely works even if one is a real artist (see Carax, Pola X). Which Aronfsky is certainly not.
That, plus shots ripped-off from Solaris.

Love it if you must.

My daughter liked the first twenty minutes, during which, in temporary sympathy for the JL character, she imagined the film was about "the anxieties of real estate development"! But each time JL failed to do what any reasonable person might do - call the police, pack up and haul ass - presumably because she just loved Aronofsky, uhh, I mean, the poet so much, my daughter cringed and muttered "moron".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM
yoshimori wrote:
In the latest movie, a stock and juvenile idea -
[Reveal] Spoiler:
man "uses" woman's love in order to "create" - is sillily aggrandized by the cyclical nature of the (cheesy, animated) beginning/end, and the utter irrelevance to that main idea of the whole Rosemary's Baby climactic cult ritual thing is gussied up with images of what Aronofsky seems to think are indicators of contemporary cultural decline (dance clubs, combat zones, bad manners). Look-at-me-I'm-saying-something-important BIG IDEAS, undeveloped or worse. And if the baby is somehow a stand-in for the poet's "work", something that he serves to the people to "nourish" them, one that lets him off the hook for his treatment of the mother, then, whether it's an apologia for the poet's actions or a self-flagellating I-know-I'm-a-bad-boy-but-I-just-can't-help-it-I-MUST-create-great-art criticism of them, it feels super-solipsistic. And that kind of self-obsession rarely works even if one is a real artist (see Carax, Pola X). Which Aronfsky is certainly not.

I can only assume based on what you've written here that you're missing the larger metaphor at play in the film, which is shocking because it almost could not be more heavily underlined,
[Reveal] Spoiler:
and I'm an atheist who is only passingly familiar with the biblical references the film is making. I'm sure there are many details I'm missing, but there is almost no way that your reading above is what Aronofsky intended (especially your assumption that the poet represents him), and being upset over a lack of realism in Lawrence's responses to what happens further misses the point.

I can see why many people are going to hate this film, but I have always loved Aronofsky's willingness to go for broke and take his ideas (thematic or cinematic) to the utmost extremes, and this might just be his masterpiece in those terms.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:31 pm 

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:35 pm
Yeah, I thought the larger idea was fairly obvious from quite early in the film.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Specifically the point where Ed Harris has a gaping wound next to his ribs and the next morning his wife arrives out of nowhere. Followed by their two sons, one of whom murders the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:32 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm
Quote:
DarkImbecile wrote:
I can only assume based on what you've written here that you're missing the larger metaphor at play in the film, which is shocking because it almost could not be more heavily underlined,
[Reveal] Spoiler:
and I'm an atheist who is only passingly familiar with the biblical references the film is making. I'm sure there are many details I'm missing, but there is almost no way that your reading above is what Aronofsky intended (especially your assumption that the poet represents him), and being upset over a lack of realism in Lawrence's responses to what happens further misses the point.

I can see why many people are going to hate this film, but I have always loved Aronofsky's willingness to go for broke and take his ideas (thematic or cinematic) to the utmost extremes, and this might just be his masterpiece in those terms.

Isn't Arnofsky an atheist too? Can you please elaborate on what you think he's trying to do? One of the critics praising the film called it a Gnostic thriller, or something to that effect, whatever that means...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:42 pm 

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:45 pm
John Shade wrote:

Isn't Arnofsky an atheist too? Can you please elaborate on what you think he's trying to do? One of the critics praising the film called it a Gnostic thriller, or something to that effect, whatever that means...


From what I remember from the press at the time of Noah, he's agnostic but was raised Jewish.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
At it's core, mother! is an environmentalist allegory about mankind's destruction of our planet. Javier Bardem is God, Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Nature, the house is the Earth, Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are Adam and Eve, their sons are Cain and Abel. Bardem's study is the Garden of Eden, his baby is Jesus, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:19 pm 

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:03 am
Location: LA CA
rawlinson wrote:
Yeah, I thought the larger idea was fairly obvious from quite early in the film.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Specifically the point where Ed Harris has a gaping wound next to his ribs and the next morning his wife arrives out of nowhere. Followed by their two sons, one of whom murders the other.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Oh, I didn't miss that. It was just one of many "heavily underlined" references that seemed to lead nowhere. If you're saying this biblicism, gnostic or otherwise, is THE MAIN "lesson" of the movie, then a) the movie should end halfway through or, if the Adam and Eve thing is supposed to be sustained to the end of the movie, then, it (the movie) has been made for a couple of scholars of biblical apocrypha and for the fanboys who'll read some oracle's analysis of the allegory, and b) it's still a rotten movie because even allegories should probably be engaging, dramatic stories that don't make us laugh at the unintentional absurdity of the situations and character reactions.

The gnostic reading alluded to above doesn't seem to work, since there's no cosmic struggle here, since one side (Bardem's) is neither impish, like a gnostic god, nor powerful and scheming; and the other (JL's) is simply ineffectual. And even if we're given a cheatsheet so we lowly mortals can "understand" the penetrating genius of the allegory, I'd think there'd still be a host of questions. Chief among them is probably: why does Bardem need the love of a woman at all? But there's also: the silly crystal (which doesn't seem to be working even before Harris and Pfeiffer break it, and later doesn't seem to be necessary to "get things going again"), the fans (including Harris, which is odd -- how is he a fan of Bardem's previous work, given his, Harris', supposed biblical model?), and the role of the mother! in the post-sacrificial drama. And if, as someone suggests above, Bardem = God, JL = Mother Nature, Harris = Adam, Pfieffer = Eve, Sons = C & A, baby = Jesus, B's study = Eden, House = Earth, etc, then it's also a confusing, confused, mixed allegory that suggests, among other crazy things, that Jesus was born of Mother Nature in the Garden of Eden, that God really likes Adam and Eve and their crazy friends, but pretty much ignores Mother Nature, that Mother Nature somehow gives a fuck about what happens to Jesus, and that God, for some reason, needs the love of, not one, but a series of MNs. If one wants to make a movie about environmental catastrophe -- you know that Aronofsky himself suggests the movie is about climate change, right? -- this seems a rather pretentious way of tackling the issue, and no one I've talked to who's seen the movie intuited that this was what is was about.

The main problem, for me, with this line of reasoning is that none of the supposed cosmic, gnostic, or environmental stuff is really IN the movie. The two biblical sons of the Harris prototype, for example, are relatively insignificant in gnosticism. The Ur-children there are Seth and Norea. The dialogue doesn't feel gnostic or biblical. And the overall tone -- flat and dreary, with art direction out of Restoration Hardware -- is hardly stylized in a way one might expect of such an emphasis. And, I don't know, shouldn't there be a lot of plants and animals in the house?

Gnosticism (or mainstream Judaic mythology or environmentalism) is probably just something, like math and the Hasidim, that Aronofsky thinks is cool and SIGNIFICANT and, so, he throws a chunk of it in his masterpiece.

Whatever! It's still laughable, ugly, and obviously really really about a crappy creator who hate-fucks a never-ending parade of actresses (I mean, mother-muses).


Last edited by yoshimori on Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection