( +3 hidden )
September 20, 2017 at 7:29 am #1202219196
Stunningly bad film!
Spencer ShannonSeptember 22, 2017 at 9:21 am #1202221100
I really really enjoyed this. It’s a clever take on the toxicity of relationships, their ups and their downs. Seeing the little chips dig away at the couple, life being made and an ultimate betrayal before it’s time to call it quits and let your heart be ripped out of your chest and mend.
Add to that, the narrative on the impact that the construct of celebrity, immediacy and social media is having on us as a society.
The performances are all very good. Unsure if any will make my personal lists of the year, but that isn’t because they aren’t good. It’s a complete show off for Aronofsky, unlike some of his previous films where performances take centre stage. Here it is all direction and writing – and it works. It never feels overly pretentious, everything is done with a motive and emotion.
I do understand why some people don’t get it, but for me it was a great watch. Sure to stay with me.September 23, 2017 at 9:52 am #1202221935
^ is that supposed to make people want to see it?September 23, 2017 at 10:14 am #1202221953
I saw this last night and I think going into it with no expectations and an understanding that the story is to be understood allegorically made this a much more enjoyable watch. I kind of caught onto the allegory about thirty minutes into the film, which made the rest of the experience trying to stay one step ahead of the film and nodding along as it checked off the beats on the list. In that respect, I found the premise very interesting and captivating once you stop looking at the movie on the surface level. It is entirely engrossing too. I was captivated and laser focused for the entire film, especially the last hour. Visually, it is a risky film and occasionally stunning. It is supposed to be shocking and provocative, and I understand people who are extremely uncomfortable with this film, but the allegory is taken to such extreme heights that it almost has to be this tough to watch. Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer were good in limited roles, and Pfeiffer in particular is a great antagonist (even if she isn’t meant to be). Javier Bardem tip-toed a fine line the entire movie of being awful with no motivation, but the allegory dictates his every move and makes his performance very interesting. But this is Jennifer Lawrence’s film and boy, does she run with it. It’s an expressive, exhausting performance and I actually think a lot of her choices help the audience figure out this film’s true intentions. The final hour puts her through the ringer, and she sells it beyond just a simple “damsel in distress in a psychothriller” manner. She would be a great Best Actress contender, but the divisive nature of the film will hurt her odds tremendously. I’m not counting her out though. The film would also be a good bet in technical categories, particularly sound, and I don’t think the film’s bad reputation would necessarily hurt it there. Overall, I understand why people are mad about the film but I think simply understanding the allegory makes it a much better watch. Maybe that is why JLaw and Aronofsky have been more upfront about it in recent weeks (I tried to avoid spoilers for the most part). If you don’t make an effort to understand what is going on beyond the story as it is laid out, I totally see why you would be disappointed and call this movie awful. But what it actually gets at…I’m tempted to call it genius, but I’m not entirely sure about that yet. It’ll require multiple watches to decide if that’s the case.September 23, 2017 at 11:21 am #1202221958
That would be a good FYC campaign if it actually had a chance.September 23, 2017 at 1:47 pm #1202222012
Even Rex Reed’s 0-star ‘Worst movie of the century’ review is quoted in that poster. LolSeptember 24, 2017 at 10:53 pm #1202222739
Having seen this I have to say that Jennifer Lawrence’s performance was phenomenal. It was beautifully nuanced, expressive and then ferociously intense. And she does it without a score and without the respite of a wide shot. You do not realize how important those things are to selling a performance until you see a performance where the actor does not get the benefit of that assistance. She has to sell virtually every moment of the movie which we experience in her face and she has to almost dance with the camera. I consider this one of the great performances of the decade. I think we are at a stage where people are trying to talk themselves out of appreciating Lawrence’s talent. Not sure if this is the typical star cycle for such a big star or not. But I do not see how this performance does not stand well above what for example Emma Stone did in La La Land. The technical and emotional challenges of this role are very rare to see. I realize she has never been the awards forecaster’s darling. But I think people are way too eager to set up narratives to try to shove aside what she achieved here. Be it box office, or the radical nature of the film or cinemascore. Are we looking at these things objectively or are we trying to find an angle to dismiss this performance to protect other contenders? Was this type of film supposed to be a box office hit? Was the cinemascore (always based on a very small opening night sample) that surprising when this type of movie opened wide on an unsuspecting public? Now maybe all the factors mentioned will matter in the end. Maybe there won’t be a nomination. Maybe the film is too out there. But it seems to me when you have had such an extraordinary performance in such a challenging, risky role people are being too quick and maybe a bit unfair in trying to establish reasons to brush it aside. Because I have a feeling her fellow actors will truly appreciate this one. I know I did.September 25, 2017 at 4:44 am #1202222895
Not a big fan of Lawrence but despite all the -ve reviews, I’m still excited to watch it later this week. I don’t know why. Maybe I’m just a sucker for psycho thriller.September 26, 2017 at 6:23 am #1202223782
I saw mother! for the first time 12 days ago and have thought about it every day since then. I went to see it for a second time two days ago and it was a very clarifying experience. I can’t remember the last time I watched a movie where I legitimately had no idea what would happen next from moment to moment, or the last time I watched a movie that stayed with me for so long afterwards. Hands down my favorite film of the year so far. I know that it’s divisive, but even people who didn’t enjoy it can’t deny the expert craftsmanship of its filmmaking. I think mother! deserves to be nominated for:
Best Supporting Actress
Best Original Screenplay
Best Film Editing
Best Production Design
Best Sound Mixing
Sadly, it won’t get anything. But then I remember that The Leftovers never won an Emmy either and I don’t feel so bad.October 2, 2017 at 8:37 pm #1202228648
I saw this film 2 hours ago.
In “Mother” Jennifer Lawrence is incredible, near perfect.
Michelle Pfeiffer was amazing.
This film was made for people who love the art of cinema.
There were aspects of “Mother” reminiscent of Polanski and Lynch and Fellini and (mostly) Aronofsky.
An A grade is deserved.October 4, 2017 at 12:17 pm #1202230057
After all these praises, I feel bad almost coming in saying I found it to be so much hot garbage. I really hated it, outside of Michelle Pfeiffer. I think it suffered once she left. Yes, I know what he was going for overall but I just didn’t like it. I didn’t like Lawrence’s performance and I usually adore her. I didn’t like the writing, I didn’t like most of the acting, I hated the directing. Even though they had just a few lines, I thought the acting from the visitors was bad, like church play bad (to keep with the allegorical nature of the movie). Was part of it the marketing? Maybe. The commercials and trailers really were opposite of what the movie actually is. Movies like this are bound to be divisive. Either you buy into what the director is selling, or you don’t. I didn’t. But then again, I hated Black Swan as well, so maybe it’s an Aronovsky thing with me?