mother!

[Human_Paraquat]

... as in the new Darren Aronofsky film starring Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem.

This is going to be a polarizing film, in part because it has been marketed in such a way that viewers will go in expecting one thing and get another. Actually they might not get it at all, and I don't mean that to sound pretentious or judgmental. There's a lot to process and I found it hard to do so in real time.

I thought it was great. Maybe DA's best, and I've been a fan of everything back to "pi."

Anyone else seen it yet?

 

[Vombatus]

I've seen everything of JLo.

 

[typefitter]

I walked out after 45 minutes. I thought it was ponderous, self-indulgent, uninteresting, and hugely annoying to watch both for the terrible ****ing camera work and the noise. Part of me after thought, Well, that's something, how it got such a visceral reaction out of me, but then I was like, No, **** that, it's pretty easy to make something really awful to watch and call it art.

I say this as someone who likes most of Aronofsky's work and loves Javier Bardem: It was the worst cinematic experience of my life. I hated everything about it, including the lower-case m and ****ing exclamation point in the title.

What a piece of ****.

So, yeah. Pretty polarizing, I guess.

 

[Batman]

I've seen everything of JLo.

You talking about her film career, or what was released during The Fappening?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Bargain night tomorrow. Was thinking of taking in It and mother! back to back. This thread is convincing me that is the right call. I can always walk out like typefitter if two movies is one too many.

 

[Vombatus]

You talking about her film career, or what was released during The Fappening?

Yes.

 

[Spartan Squad]

You talking about her film career, or what was released during The Fappening?

You had to ask?

 

[outofplace]

Even the positive reviews of this one make me think I'm not going to see it. Maybe on HBO or Netflix.

 

[MisterCreosote]

As I mentioned on the other thread, I want to see it, but the more I hear about it, the more I think it might be too ****ed up even for me.

I love Aronofsky, though. Requiem for a Dream is easily in my all time top 5. And I keep thinking mother! can't possibly be more ****ed up than that was.

 

[Songbird]

Is it anywhere along the lines of The Brown Bunny (which I liked) in terms of artistic?

 

[typefitter]

Is it anywhere along the lines of The Brown Bunny (which I liked) in terms of artistic?

Apparently there's a sex scene. I didn't make it that far.

 

[Vombatus]

Apparently there's a sex scene. I didn't make it that far.

Then they should advertise that it will occur at the 1 hr, xx minute mark.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Is this in the movie?

 

[Chef2]

 

[Chef2]

In the soundtrack?

 

[Songbird]

Mommy!

 

[Fly]

No Danzig references yet? For shame.

 

[Human_Paraquat]

Bargain night tomorrow. Was thinking of taking in It and mother! back to back. This thread is convincing me that is the right call. I can always walk out like typefitter if two movies is one too many.

Wow, that's a commitment. Hope you're not emotionally spent from "It" before "mother!" even begins.

 

[Human_Paraquat]

I walked out after 45 minutes. I thought it was ponderous, self-indulgent, uninteresting, and hugely annoying to watch both for the terrible ****ing camera work and the noise. Part of me after thought, Well, that's something, how it got such a visceral reaction out of me, but then I was like, No, **** that, it's pretty easy to make something really awful to watch and call it art.

I say this as someone who likes most of Aronofsky's work and loves Javier Bardem: It was the worst cinematic experience of my life. I hated everything about it, including the lower-case m and ****ing exclamation point in the title.

What a piece of ****.

So, yeah. Pretty polarizing, I guess.

Honestly, I felt the camera work enhanced the suspense and building uneasiness of the film. The entire film, except for a couple of shots, is either of Lawrence's face or shot from her perspective.

But I understand why someone would be put off by it, to some extent, as well.

Rotten Tomatoes currently has this at 68 percent approval from critics (72 percent top critics) and 42 percent from the audience. Rex Reed called it the worst film of the century (so far). Peter Travers and Michael Phillips among those giving positive reviews.

 

[Baron Scicluna]