Darren Aronofsky's Mother!

[Bad Ambassador]

CinemaScore gave it a much-coveted F.

This means it was way too esoteric for a Friday night audience and was massively mismarketed.

[Crabwalk]

They should've cast Tommy Wiseau instead of Javier Bardem. Would've been more apt for this honking, overripe pile of toss.

Polanski, Kubrick, Von Trier and Fellini make it look easy don't they, Darren?

[hewantstolurkatad]

Polanski, Kubrick, Von Trier and Fellini make it look easy don't they, Darren?

Haven't seen this yet so I can't comment entirely, but I feel like Aronofsky's weakness is that, unlike the directors he seems to most admire, he's a pretty grounded regular enough dude. You can be as technically proficient as possible, but if you're not actually a bit of an unhinged creep there's always going to be a limit to how good you can do this kind of shit.


Cinemascore F is a good sign though, if it's terrible there'll be at least something to dissect about why that is so.

[QDRPHNC]

Polanski, Kubrick, Von Trier, Fellini and Darren.

[Shit Good Nose]

Everyone speaks in hushed tones about Darren and his next film.

"They say Darren has convinced Daniel Day Lewis to come out of retirement."
"Darren's next film is a shoe-in for best picture."
"You can tell it's a Darren film within the first five minutes."
"It's Darren-esque."

Legend Darren.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Risible Darren

[CaledonianGonzo]

Can someone refresh my memory.  Is it the first act of violence (i.e. Cain and Abel) that opens the portal to Hell (i.e. the oil tank in basement)?

[Billy]

Saw this in Melbourne at a surprisingly busy screening for 11am on a Monday morning (30+ in the audience), although the ticket price only being $7 (about four quid) helped I suppose. Feeling like a right idiot that I didn't get most of the early symbolism at all (Ed/Michelle and the Gleesons), until it got really obvious in the second half.

Hailed as a potential Oscar contender by a few early in the year, but guessing the early release (away from "peak" Oscar season) and mixed reviews has killed all chances. Doesn't seem to have caught on with a wide audience like Black Swan did either.

[Keebleman]

It took me until at least two-thirds of the way through before I sussed out the analogy too, but one of the strengths of the movie is that it works pretty well on a realistic level too, as an examination of a relationship where one member is too narcissistic to pay attention to the other, plus as a very black social comedy.  Of course once the mayhem goes up to 11 these readings no longer apply.

[Talulah, really!]

Naturally enough with my terrible taste I really liked it but viewed it as a black comedy pretty much from the 'We don't smoke-", "Good for you","-in the house", exchange between Lawrence and the sublimely sour Ed Harris. Admittedly we seemed to be the only ones laughing even, in fact especially, as the film ups the ante again and again.

It perhaps suffers from trying to mould two separate genres (psychological horror/comedy of manners) that work against each other and also any allegorical bones sticking through are probably there for structural purposes rather than the actual point, they give the narrative something to hang onto and are probably somewhat tongue in cheek or if you like, in trying to say too many things it fails to say anything.

Certainly reading around some of the reviews show it to be open to a very wide range of interpretation both of meaning and in tone.

[SteveDave]

I've just read the plot for this on wikipedia and had a laugh. I've also saved myself £11-15.

[Shit Good Nose]

I don't think Legend/Risible Darren himself can make up his mind/knows what it's about, given that he seems to describe it differently in different interviews.

One of those "whatever the audient wants it to be" films I think.

[neveragain]

It seemed like a feature-length version of the Visitors Sketch from Monty Python.

[Johnny Textface]

Soundtrack was the best thing about this.

[Bhazor]

It seemed like a feature-length version of the Visitors Sketch from Monty Python.

I've always found that sketch genuinely upsetting and nightmarish.

[Shit Good Nose]

It seemed like a feature-length version of the Visitors Sketch from Monty Python.

Just reminded me of Graham Chapman's reaction to getting shot.  Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[colacentral]

They should've cast Tommy Wiseau instead of Javier Bardem. Would've been more apt for this honking, overripe pile of toss.

Polanski, Kubrick, Von Trier and Fellini make it look easy don't they, Darren?

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing as I was watching it. The actors were doing that pretentious theatre actorly thing of saying their awful hammy lines quickly almost over each other.

My favourite Bardem line in this was when he said "I invited them to stay they had nowhere to go they lost two sons he's a proud man I like that about him oh hi Mark."

[Sebastian Cobb]

The sheer amount of different people laughing at how wank it is means curiosity dictates I must see it.

[TrenterPercenter]

The sheer amount of different people laughing at how wank it is means curiosity dictates I must see it.

Yes go and see it and you'll realise how totally warped some reviewers are.  Is it the worst film of the century? No it's a well enough made allegory.  Is it the best film of the century? No it's not well enough made.

It is an interesting metaphorical tale that isn't too hard to get but if you don't then you are going to think it is really shite and confusing.   It's not as good a film as Black Swan, The Wrestler, Pi or Requiem for a Dream but it is still worth watching (the metaphors are solid, intriguing and dark).  Ignore those that can't actually critique or discuss the films actual qualities and failings as I'm not sure I've seen a film ever get so much needless hate or praise for a longtime.

If you are interested in atheism, religion, the Gaia principle then go and see it.

3.5/5 for me

[TrenterPercenter]

My favourite Bardem line in this was when he said "I invited them to stay they had nowhere to go they lost two sons he's a proud man I like that about him oh hi Mark."

This line was never actually said btw. 

I heard two ladies leaving the cinema give they'r review

Lady: "Shit, prefer to wotch Thor"
Mate: "yeah I'd rather wotch Jumanji"

Have you considered watching Thor or Jumanji?

[Thomas]

I've just seen this, and I thought it was really good. Going in, I had no idea at all what it was about - only that it was apparently 'divisive'. I had no idea whether it was going to be an A to B to C horror, or something more dreamlike and unclear. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence's presence suggested to a lot of people that it would be the former.

In the event, I thought it was an engrossing nightmare of a film, full of details to unpack about the human race's relationship with nature. Sort of like if David Lynch was an environmentalist. I liked it. A*.

A lot of fellow cinemagoers didn't seem to agree, though. One couple left. I do think the 'divisiveness' might be down to people not realising it's not supposed to be a conventional horror narrative (I've not seen the trailer, so I don't know what the marketing implied). Fair enough if you think it's a shit allegory worthy of an F rating, but I suspect that a lot of any major slating might be down to people missing that it's metaphorical. As Trenter says, at some point it's got to click that, oh, this is all metaphorical, otherwise it'll seem like a load of plotless nonsense. Like looking at an MC Escher painting and thinking it's shit purely because the stairs are unworkable.

[Shit Good Nose]

To be fair, it does get a little hard to take even as metaphorical when the SWAT team bursts in...

[Crabwalk]

For me, one of the main problems is that when all that shit happens it only functions as metaphor. It's not logically grounded in the reality that the film represents, rendering events two dimensional and silly. You don't care about the characters as they only seem to exist in a fictional universe invented to lecture us from. The film has the weight of a dream but none of the grace.

[colacentral]

For me, one of the main problems is that when all that shit happens it only functions as metaphor. It's not logically grounded in the reality that the film represents, rendering events two dimensional and silly. You don't care about the characters as they only seem to exist in a fictional universe invented to lecture us from. The film has the weight of a dream but none of the grace.

Completely agree; absolutely average and it doesn't work as a film in its own right. The early stages had an enjoyable 70's cinema feel to them, but the pretentious and intelligent metaphor ruined it for me. I would never rewatch it.

[TrenterPercenter]

To be fair, it does get a little hard to take even as metaphorical when the SWAT team bursts in...

All of that stuff isn't really a metaphor though, at that point the film shifts to an allegorical retelling of human history.  I agree with Crabwalk though it could have been handled better, there is probably a point to why he choose to direct it in that way but a failing of the film is that you don't give a shit enough to give it any much thought (though perhaps that is the point ahhhhhhhh - no I think he was being a bit overly ambitious).

[colacentral]

Completely agree; absolutely average and it doesn't work as a film in its own right. The early stages had an enjoyable 70's cinema feel to them, but the pretentious and intelligent metaphor ruined it for me. I would never rewatch it.

I can't edit this anymore, but suffice to say I didn't mean to write "the pretentious and intelligent metaphor." Sorry readers.

[Thomas]

For me, one of the main problems is that when all that shit happens it only functions as metaphor. It's not logically grounded in the reality that the film represents, rendering events two dimensional and silly. You don't care about the characters as they only seem to exist in a fictional universe invented to lecture us from. The film has the weight of a dream but none of the grace.

I think I disagree. Jennifer Lawrence's performance, and the way the early scenes centralised her, grabbed enough of my empathy to persist through the mad, Children of Men-esque sequences and out the other side. I think we were grounded with her emotionally from the beginning, which is what we hold onto as the allegorical imagery enters warp speed. An emotional core rather than a logical one. A film like Melancholia, for example, has both all the way through (and is beautiful for it), but I don't believe a film needs to do that.

I'm not saying you believe it does - maybe you think Darren Aronofsky's attempt at substituting emotion for logic is specifically what fails, and therefore the whole film collapses, which is fair enough, but it didn't for me. I was with it all the way through. I suppose it climbs into another level of subjectivity when a filmmaker is going for emotion over logic, without a grounded sense of cause-and-effect reality. The film can succeed or fail on your own feeling. It succeeded for me. I was in and out of dreams about it last night.

[Repeater]

For me, one of the main problems is that when all that shit happens it only functions as metaphor. It's not logically grounded in the reality that the film represents, rendering events two dimensional and silly. You don't care about the characters as they only seem to exist in a fictional universe invented to lecture us from. The film has the weight of a dream but none of the grace.

Yeah, very quickly it shifts from grounded in reality to purely allegorical (when they come home from the funeral I reckon - timeline-wise that's the first strech). From then, if you're not already primed to consider the whole thing a metaphor, you're well on the path - everything is allusion. Ehm, I think I hated this but it'll stick with me. I felt incredibly anxious when the people invaded her house. I don't like parties so aye, even just people being a minor nusiance was causing me to wince. The misogyny in the beginning was galling and obviously only got worse. What is the 'twist' people refer to? That the film is a re-telling of, I guess, 'mother' Earth, humanity ruining everything etc.? Is there more to it?

[Repeater]

I guess it could be justified by Darren but I was not on board with how horrifically they treated her, the violence and stuff. I get the point but I'm sick of seeing gratuitous violence against women in films nowadays.

[Glebe]

So I finally got around to seeing this a few days ago (and with two viewings of BR 2049, I've gone cinema 'crazy' this week!)... wasn't completely bowled over by it, but it's an interesting film nonetheless. I was aware it was gonna be allegory-type gubbins going in, although I don't think I expected things to become quite so surreal so quickly ... appears to be a comment on a lot of big issues; society (and current events in American society, in particular), the environment ( 'Mother' Earth), individuality, celebrity, religion, personal responsibility... the intensity and gruesome nature of the finale reminded of Requiem for a Dream's similarly horrible ending, talk about a visual/sonic assault... so yeah, no masterpiece, but an interesting experience.

I guess it could be justified by Darren but I was not on board with how horrifically they treated her, the violence and stuff. I get the point but I'm sick of seeing gratuitous violence against women in films nowadays.

Yeah, shock value can only go so far with getting a point across.