mother! (Darren Aronofsky)

Mr E

A trailer tease for the full trailer, due August 8th. Written, produced and directed by Aronofsky.

The movie stars Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Michelle Pfeiffer, Ed Harris, Domhnall Gleeson and Brian Gleeson.

Centers on a couple whose relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.

Out here mid-September I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0NF2YP7SU8

johnnyskeleton

Is it about Mother Teaser of Calcutta?

alchemist33

Good of them to remind me of Black Swan in the trailer so I can avoid this.

correction

Expect this to be pretty great, excellent cast and one of the best directors of this era. Trailer suggests it'll be an eerily creepy movie which I can get behind. Wouldn't be surprised, given the release date, to see plenty of Oscar nominations.

S.M.B.

Didn't realise the release date was so soon when there was such little info about.

Nice.

Mr E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpICoc65uh0

Arghus

I'll give it a go. I'm not really a fan of Jennifer Lawrence, right from Winter's Bone onwards I've always found her a bland and uncharismatic screen presence. I find it curious how she has a tendency to be cast in movies, directed by middle aged men, where her love interest tends to be a man about twenty years her senior.

But based on that trailer, I'd watch this movie.

S.M.B.

That's a fantastic trailer. Interesting to see that he's using Denis Denis Villeneuve's recent go to guy for the music. Nice choice. I'm assuming he had some involvement in the trailer.

JP Liz V1

Arghus wrote: »

I'll give it a go. I'm not really a fan of Jennifer Lawrence, right from Winter's Bone onwards I've always found her a bland and uncharismatic screen presence. I find it curious how she has a tendency to be cast in movies, directed by middle aged men, where her love interest tends to be a man about twenty years her senior.

But based on that trailer, I'd watch this movie.

I think Jen and director Darren are now a couple

MisterAnarchy

Arghus wrote: »

. I find it curious how she has a tendency to be cast in movies, directed by middle aged men, where her love interest tends to be a man about twenty years her senior.

Its getting ridiculous really.
Bardem is old enough to be her father.
She is at least ten years too young for the majority of her roles over the last few years.

bnt

Arghus wrote: »

I find it curious how she has a tendency to be cast in movies, directed by middle aged men, where her love interest tends to be a man about twenty years her senior.

Well, her real-life love interest is a middle-aged man, about twenty years her senior: the director, Darren Aronofsky. So, go figure ...

evolving_doors

First one without Clint Mansel. Johan Johnson has a similar feel though so I'd watch it just out of curiosity about the music.

This was just on rte tonight with JJ's music. I get the feeling ive heard that theme before but never knew where it came from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhxCFOH1-Bo

Edit: yegads, that was cinematic orchestra not Johan johannsson

Outkast_IRE

Reviews are coming in thick and fast today.

Seems like its love it or hate it type stuff, very few reviews in the middle ground.

Seems like an interesting film so might give it a go next weekend

pheasant tail

Watched this last night, first half of the film was quite good with loads of suspense and anticipation, second half crossed way too many lines and it turned into a total mess. Terrible film. Will certainly get people talking but i certainly wouldn't be recommending it to anyone imo.

Fysh

pheasant tail wrote: »

Watched this last night, first half of the film was quite good with loads of suspense and anticipation, second half crossed way too many lines and it turned into a total mess. Terrible film. Will certainly get people talking but i certainly wouldn't be recommending it to anyone imo.

In the context of Aronofsky's filmography - are we talking a Fountain-style mess? Or a deliberately slide into fractured coherence as the protagonist is put under greater strain a la Pi or Requiem For A Dream?

Also, when you say "crossed too many lines", what do you mean? Plot contrivances & character reversals, or unexpected/shocking scenes? Pi's scenes with the hand drill or Those Scenes in Requiem For A Dream were pretty grim and graphic, so to a certain extent it's regular territory for Aronofsky...

pheasant tail

Fysh wrote: »

In the context of Aronofsky's filmography - are we talking a Fountain-style mess? Or a deliberately slide into fractured coherence as the protagonist is put under greater strain a la Pi or Requiem For A Dream?

Also, when you say "crossed too many lines", what do you mean? Plot contrivances & character reversals, or unexpected/shocking scenes? Pi's scenes with the hand drill or Those Scenes in Requiem For A Dream were pretty grim and graphic, so to a certain extent it's regular territory for Aronofsky...

I haven't seen Pi so I can't comment on that. Might have rushed with a consensus on this as I've still been processing it today so it definetly left its mark. Probably wrong calling it a terrible film, the casting is excellent, it's technically brilliant and gripping throughout but it just felt very disconnected between the two halves of the film. Needlessly left me frustrated. In relation to crossing the line, I don't want to say too much but yes I feel it did, not in relation to cinema as a whole but the context of the actually film and some of the imagery, shocking yes but I just asked myself why.. needlessly pushed certain things for I can only imagine his own reasons and not the films benefit, the whole combination of art and horror didn't do it for me. Did I like it, no! Certainly don't think it'll appeal to the masses, and I'm certainly not mainstream, but check it out on the big screen, some people applauded, more booed, it will definetly play with your mind and leave food for thought

Slydice

stuckmann giving it a good review (A-) saying the second half gets really messed up and he understands why some folks won't like it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDvy0ybpOUI

moviebob cackling manically at the start of his video, giving the film praise and highlighting that it gets messed up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiqbVZvEi-Q

aside from that, all else I'd heard was that people are either saying it's a really good film or really bad... and the messed up stuff in the second half seems to be what is driving the negative reviews

gazzer

I read somewhere (cant find the article now) that the second half is similar in 'messed up' stuff to Martyrs? Any truth in this?

gmisk

Good that was absolutely brutal, I actually didn't mind the first half, but come on. I liked the fountain....but this was just brutal a waste of a terrific cast.
I don't think crowd I saw it with were fans I heard laughs at the end, can't see it having great word of mouth.

hmmm

Holy mother of god, at the end of that the entire audience burst out laughing - with a mixture of bewilderment and shock. I can't decide whether it was brilliant or brutal - probably both. There is an extended scene in the second half that is spectacularly chaotically manically madness.

It will definitely get you talking, but don't bring someone who likes robots and lasers in their movies. I thought it was amazing, I don't think I was bored for a minute. I can understand that perhaps half the audience will absolutely hate it.

thebostoncrab

I think we were in the same viewing (6:30 in Cineworld by any chance?) because I had a guy beside me and a row behind me full of folks laughing at every little bit of the film, which really took me out of it. Even if it was close up someone's face they just started laughing.

I may watch it again at home when it gets released.

johnny_ultimate

Well, it's the maddest thing a major studio has been tricked into financing since Mad Max: Fury Road if nothing else!

Mother! is obnoxious and confident, adolescent and accomplished, repulsive and playful. It is a film seemingly designed as a contradiction, determined to divide, annoy and bewitch pretty much at the same time. It is an unholy mess of allegories and symbolism - throw any reading at it and you'll probably find something that sticks. It feels like it is at once a damning critique of the male ego, and a cheeky celebration of all-encompassing creativity the same time - how much of himself Aronofsky put in here needs someone more versed in psychotherapy than I am!

Jennifer Lawrence is front-and-centre in relentless close-up, and the camera has the same level of affection for her as it had for Rachel Weisz in The Fountain (don't remember the camera ogling quite so much there tho). It would be foolish to think of these 'characters' as human beings - they are concepts first & foremost, in service of a cacophony of themes as opposed to any relation to actual reality.

Things start almost like a vaguely horror-ish rift on Bergman chamber film, before taking a mid-film turn towards the demented. It doesn't even remotely work all the time - it takes an age to kick-off, especially when there's not really any investment to be had in a bunch of broad caricatures where you'd usually have people. But it does lead up to... something interesting. There's obviously one scene everyone will be talking about and with good cause - it collapses all typical norms of cinematic space & time with giddy abandon, and is one of the most impressive examples of a filmmaker just really wanted to make the audience feel as ****ing uneasy and stressed as possible for an extended period of time. It's madness, and I'm not at all convinced there's anything majorly interesting, or at least anything actually coherent being said here. But the ride, when it reaches its delirious peak, is a blast even in spite of its occasional eye-rolling indulgences.

It's crass, it's uneven, it's the kind of film that you can feel the weird energy in the cinema as the audience tries to digest the damn thing. It'll be unpacked with varying degrees of enthusiasm / vitriol in the coming weeks, months and years - and that's ultimately a pretty respectable outcome for a film that prominently boasts the logo of one of the big five movie studios.

evolving_doors

Was the soundtrack any good?

Outlaw Pete

One of the most irritating films I have ever seen.

Not that it really matters but I felt......... forget about it, I got bored thinking about it.

johnny_ultimate

evolving_doors wrote: »

Was the soundtrack any good?

The sound design is very strong, but the score is more an ambient accompaniment than anything that really stands out.

kefir32

one of the worst movies ever, had high hopes with such a talented cast and the mystery and buzz in the weeks up to its release. completely bonkers self indulgent rubbish.
only positive i can draw from sitting through this pile of muck was the fantastic and under utilised michelle pfeiffer. hope to see her talents put to better use in the future.

Slydice

grace tears it a new one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-wVlORDq_E

implies? nah.. says straight out it's Aronofsky bragging that he's sleeping with Jennifer Laurence

Goodshape

Well, I liked it a lot. Thought the religious allegories worked well, and a really interesting film and filmmaking.

thebostoncrab wrote: »

I had a guy beside me and a row behind me full of folks laughing at every little bit of the film, which really took me out of it. Even if it was close up someone's face they just started laughing.

Also had that problem tonight in Light House, Dublin. I'm not sure were people there for a laugh because they heard it wasn't good or they just went in the mood for a schlocky horror movie, but laugh they did. Destroyed the build up of anxiety and tension more than once, which was a real shame.

charlie_says

Good cinema. Challenging stuff.

As said above it takes a long while to get going and once it gathers momentum the foot does not not come off the accelerator. Similar to Requiem for Dream levels of intensity, however the beginning left me guessing which way it was going to go and wasn't very interesting whilst doing it. Wasn't sure if it was a house of horrors, pysch thriller or something akin to Antichrist - a very dark relationship breakdown drama.

Sound was pretty excellent, it really was the metronome to the chaos. I'm not sure JL was the correct casting for this film though.

I can see how many will think this is a disgusting and violent piece and ignore all of the good stuff that it does but for me I love visceral and shocking film as when well done it leaves you question yourself are you wrong to like it?

edit: forgot to mention I though Rosemary's Baby and Carrie more than once throughout.

Em I'm not really sure what I thought tbh. I didn't hate it and it definatly wasn't the worse film I'd seen.

I'd call the movie an experience. Could have done without the one scene everyone is talking about alright but all in all it was just a mess that I'm glad I saw

I know the above makes no sense but I just can't articulate what I thought!!!

evolving_doors

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One of the most irritating films I have ever seen.

Not that it really matters but I felt......... forget about it, I got bored thinking about it.

I haven't seen it yet but I also thought the same of requiem for a dream. It also had a 'rosemary's baby' tension to it that just became pretentious.

Agent Coulson

Paramount’s worldwide president of marketing and distribution Megan Colligan released a statement addressing the critics and audiences who were disgusted that the studio would release such a......

Colligan basically says that Aronofsky is an auteur, Jennifer Lawrence is a star, and not everything has to be palatable

“This movie is very audacious and brave,” Colligan said in an official statement, defending the film against audience backlash and the muted box office. “You are talking about a director at the top of his game, and an actress at the top her game. They made a movie that was intended to be bold. Everyone wants original filmmaking, and everyone celebrates Netflix when they tell a story no one else wants to tell. This is our version. We don’t want all movies to be safe. And it’s okay if some people don’t like it.”

http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/paramount-shades-netflix-in-mother-backlash-response.html?mid=imdb

hmmm

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Paramount’s worldwide president of marketing and distribution Megan Colligan released a statement addressing the critics and audiences who were disgusted that the studio would release such a......

Colligan basically says that Aronofsky is an auteur, Jennifer Lawrence is a star, and not everything has to be palatable

I don't think I've ever liked one of the big distributors before now. Well done Paramount.

MilesMorales1

I think you need a really big ****ing head to make something that awful.

dinneenp

Spoiler:

Detailed explanation https://www.google.ie/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/mother-meaning-spoilers-biblical-references-ending-explained/amp/

charlie_says

hmmm wrote: »

I don't think I've ever liked one of the big distributors before now. Well done Paramount.

No doubt that was a carefully made decision for them to release this as it's extreme for a major picture. I expect there to be (if there isn't one already) a big backlash against it by the easily offended. In fairness that will probably promote it for free and get more ticket sales. So much money in controversial material nowadays.

Fysh

Got a chance to see this tonight, and that was fully as barmy as expected. I can't recall when I last saw a film that so successfully made the audience feel tense, anxious and uneasy for so long, especially not with such sparse characterisation.

Definitely some elements of Von Trier in there, various bits in the latter half of the film could easily have been penned by him IMO.

I can see why some people might not enjoy it, but really, anybody familiar with Aronofsky's past films can't really complain about it being "out there". IMO it's unambiguously an Aronofsky film, and for me the biggest deviation from his normal approach is the comparative lack of music or score.

Telecaster58

I really enjoyed it, but doubt I could watch it again.
The first two thirds of the film were excellent and really funny. Michelle Pfeiffer was superb and carried off the malevolent role well. The last third just came out of left field but I got into it and went along for the ride. Jennifer Lawrence's reaction through that bit was not unlike the audience's, total bewilderment! All the main players deserve plaudits.

homerun_homer

The one time Cineworld don't have adverts and trailers for over 20 minutes and it's this bloody film. I arrived at my usual time which allows me to avoid all the ads but see all the trailers, I walk in and the film was already on and my seats occupied. It annoyed me, especially since I knew that this was the type of film where if I missed even one minute then I'd miss out on something potentially significant. By the time the ending came around it was obvious how the start played out but still... Pain in the arse.

It's hard to say I enjoyed the film. It's certainly as jarring as everything I've read about. The whole way through I was trying to figure it out and feeling dumb for not fully understanding, but then I am not the only one. When I came out of it I had a sense of what some of it stood for. It's a good film to digest and mull over the symbolism and meanings behind it. However I don't think it's a film I'll be jumping to watch over and over. The acting was fantastic from all the main cast.

MilesMorales1

homerun_homer wrote: »

The one time Cineworld don't have adverts and trailers for over 20 minutes and it's this bloody film. I arrived at my usual time which allows me to avoid all the ads but see all the trailers, I walk in and the film was already on and my seats occupied. It annoyed me, especially since I knew that this was the type of film where if I missed even one minute then I'd miss out on something potentially significant. By the time the ending came around it was obvious how the start played out but still... Pain in the arse.

It's hard to say I enjoyed the film. It's certainly as jarring as everything I've read about. The whole way through I was trying to figure it out and feeling dumb for not fully understanding, but then I am not the only one. When I came out of it I had a sense of what some of it stood for. It's a good film to digest and mull over the symbolism and meanings behind it. However I don't think it's a film I'll be jumping to watch over and over. The acting was fantastic from all the main cast.

This happened to me to! The cineworld thing I mean.

bkrangle

homerun_homer wrote: »

The one time Cineworld don't have adverts and trailers for over 20 minutes and it's this bloody film.

This happened when I saw mother on Sunday and close encounters on Monday.

Not sure if something has changed in cineworld

Dr Crayfish

Just back from viewing. That was f**king nuts! I really enjoyed it though. I'm not going to try and analyse it too much or look into what it's supposed to mean but it was an enjoyable ride, I thought J Law was very good. Brilliant.

ancapailldorcha

It's a weird one alright.

The film perfectly elicits a feeling of oppression from the viewer via the various over-the-shoulder shots and close ups of the characters.

The film's central premise is that it has taken various bible stories and repurposed them through a story of a couple renovating a home.

I think people will either be impressed by this for 120 minutes and enjoy (if that's the right word) the film or not and just wait for the cycle of events to play out. In that respect, I felt that the end was a bit predictable though I did enjoy the last few moments of the film.

I have no idea if I'd call it a good film or not. I don't regret watching it and it's certainly original in a sea of superheroes, cookie-cutter action flicks and rom-coms if nothing else.

El Duda

mother! - 8.5/10

This has understandably been getting a lot of press with reports of walkouts and general negative feedback. I went in expecting some real extreme cinema, perhaps in the same vein as Martyrs, Irreversible, requiem for a Dream etc..

I actually really enjoyed it. Although it was a tough, thought-provoking and challenging film, I didn't find it disturbing at all.  Some of the negative response from critics is baffling. Aronofsky should be praised for making something that goes against the grain of modern cinema conventions.

I found the tone to be very ethereal and dreamlike in a Lynchian way but without the absorbing atmosphere. It plays out in such a way that I very much felt like I was sat on the outside looking in, observing something rather than being wrapped up inside it

It completely lacks the subtle ambiguity of Lynch's work and the metaphor the film is portraying is dealt with in an extremely heavy handed manner. Some of it's imagery is so blatant and on the nose that it must be intentional. There are other ways you can read the story but there is a framework in place that it rarely detaches itself from.

I can't help but think that it may have benefited from a better female lead. I think someone like Emma Stone has the acting chops to add a few layers to the character.

Aronofsky puts Noah behind him and cements his place as one of the most interesting directors working today. A real wild ride.

SPOILERS

My initial thinking was that it was one big metaphor for rape and the way Man dominates Woman. I have read a few pieces on it and it seems that it's more about Mankind's destructive relationship with Mother nature.

pumpkin4life

I was bored to death by this. It was like a really bad parody of a David Lynch movie. Everything was just so on the nose and either boring or just flat out irritating. Hatred? Yeah, if you hate a movie, maybe its doing something right because you're getting an emotional reaction to it. For this? Nothing really.

Though I've never been a fan of Afonofsky tbh. Every movie of his, feels cold, boring, pretentious; like you're being given a lecture from some spoilt brat film school dickhead who has never worked a day in his life on the "art of the film and this is how it is to be done and what you're seeing is super important and address the human condition blah blah blah" when in fact he's never even bothered to get behind a camera. Like the "drugs are bad mkaaayy" bum of Requiem of a Dream. Like when lads be using big words to feel good about themselves and a **** can spot it a mile off.

Avoid it lads.

Look, if you want the whole, fear of having a kid issues with pregnancy and a family things, watch Eraserhead, which is one of the best films ever. Mother! is just bum.

pheasant tail

Anyone figured out what the yellow drink was she was taking or what it resembled?

dinneenp

pheasant tail wrote: »

Anyone figured out what the yellow drink was she was taking or what it resembled?

From a link I posted earlier in this thread-

Throughout the film Lawrence is seen pouring a yellow powder into her water, which makes the water come alive with a magical CGI glow. It’s the one aspect of Mother! that is never properly explained, though The Daily Beast has suggested it could be a reference to Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s classic short story The Yellow Wallpaper.

The story finds a young woman driven slowly mad due to the submission insisted upon her by her husband, and Lawrence’s mystery elixir, which helps her recover from random bursts of pain, could be a subtle reference to it.

Tar.Aldarion

Great film, loved the religious/mother earth engine bit this film could be about anything you want, whatever you take from it. Be it the actual feeling of being a mother, loss of control, being in an oppressive relationship, narcissism, mental health, depression, you name it and you could make it fit based on your own life experiences or thoughts.

Most enjoyable 2 hours of frustration and anxiety I could ask for.

ERG89

I just watched this tonight. I thought the couple that turn up early on would have a bigger role in the ending. It built up in a way where I spent a lot of time guessing what the inevitable plot twist was going to be as there was a lot to think about. I don't know what to think after that last half hour though. It was like a commentary on a lot of topics, some of which I'll admit went over my head. Far more than the endings to Black Swan or The Wrestler things got out of hand and I don't know how to feel.....looking into what was happening with the lead & director I felt a lot of it was maybe changed close to and/or during filming. I could be way off though.

It did leave this quote which was a great gutpunch penned by a person who likely felt this once:

"You never loved me. You just loved how much I love you."