One of the worst movies in modernity. Spare yourselves from this trash. It beats you in the face with basic pop culture level biblical allegories and mankinds relationship to climate change.
For bonus points it touches on fame and a few other things for all of a minute or two each and does nothing with them.
Other urls found in this thread:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
telegraph.co.uk
telegraph.co.uk
rottentomatoes.com
topdocumentaryfilms.com
twitter.com
>lefties more concerned about earth entering another natural warming cycle than estrogen in water, a population boom happening in Africa with an unstable population and growing wealth disparity and political polarization
Nope, it's Kino. Next topic.
>warming rate order of magnitude faster than previously recorded
>natural cycle
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
>Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.
>As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
>horror movie is heavy handed
I heard this was screamingly terrible.
Like Mac & Me bad, but worse because the director thought it was a good high brow film.
Loved this movie so much. Kino, through and through and I've seen it 3 times.
That is until Rich and Jay gave me my opinion of it. Such pretentious traaaaaash
>In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius,
Is this seriously what everyones panties are in a twist over? Less than 1 degree celcius in 100 years? What the fuck?
What do you people want anyway? No technology? I get it comes from an anti-capitalist thing but I don't get what your solutions are for this supposed """"""""""problem""""""""
Of course Sup Forums would pretend this movie is good because of non-stop pretentious biblical allegories and symbolism. They do the exact same with BvS.
But it's really good.
It's getting called bad because normies went to see a Jennifer Lawrence film and were outraged that it was non-literal. A hand full were faux-feminists and are crying about mysogeny because they're retards.
Mother! is a contemporary Hollywood pleb filter.
You worrying about whether or not it's a "pleb filter" is just as bad as general audiences bashing it for being an allegory
The movie will seem trash now but will be considered a masterpiece in the future.
Screenshot this.
Dude just turn your brain on LMAO
I'm not worried about anything other than my friends not understanding that the women at the very start and end weren't Jennifer Lawrence.
>it's bad because of its narrative structure
Literally claiming that it sucks because it isn't a literal plot.
Since the reviews are so universally bad across the board from the paid reviewer mafia that usually means there was some sort of taboo topic (non critical christian themes, muslims portrayed badly, women looking foolish, etc.)
There's loads of religious symbolism and a woman gets taken for granted.
>ITT people who have not seen, and probably never will see, Mother try to outdo each other about how bad it was
>telegraph.co.uk
LOL
>BvS has extremely obvious biblical references
'It's Kino!'
>mother! has extremely obvious biblical references
'It's shit!'
Sup Forums is worst board
I've seen it with Alien: Covenant as well.
>the reviews are so universally bad across the board
Except they're not. Most RT's "Top Critics" liked it:
rottentomatoes.com
rotten tomatoes is filled with pseuds
I liked the movie but it's unevenly balanced in tone. I didn't think much about the environmental allegory until after and I was applying a human allegory to it whilst watching, but it was pretty gripping.
>I'm not worried about anything other than my friends not understanding that the women at the very start and end weren't Jennifer Lawrence.
This was one thing that felt unnecessary to me. There was a lot of left over symbolism that goes nowhere in the first half as well.
Now I have to see it. If this is a shilling tactic, it's working mr shill.
That's a thing most bloggy type critics can't fanthom: movies can have obvious allegory and still be powerful. Generally we are so indocrinated to think "subtle=good" and "obvious=bad", but the truth is, in this case it doesn't really matter. I mean Aronofsky is going on basically an explanation tour, telling literally everyone what the movie is about. He had an idea, he went with it and turned into something powerful. You may not like it, it's fair, but creating a biblical allegory that works at the same time from an enviromentalist point of view works like a charm in this movie. "Heavy handed" is a good criticism but the problem is most people are using this as their sole argument which is really silly, especially if they're saying it's a bad movie. It could knock a point off your "out of 10 score" but saying the movie is bad simply because of that is wrong. There's so much more to a movie like cinematography, acting, etc, than this.
>movie opens with the ending scene of jennifer lawrence burning to death in a self inflicted explosion
>next scene is bardem turning back all the damage done to the house resetting everything and bringing jlaw to life
>Bardem is God
>J law is Mother earth
>Ed harris shows up and is Adam
>Bardem rips out his rib in the bathroom scene and creates eve(michelle pfiefer)
>Their sons cain and abel show up in the form of some unhinged Gleeson brothers and cain murders abel
>shifts from a straight retelling of the old testament for a little bit straight into climate change mankind evils for a while
>people show up, shit gets tilted and jlaw kicks them all out for a little, bardem and her bang and she gets preg.
>everything is peachykeen for bout 8 months and then bardem finishes his book and becomes a sensation
>people swarm the house in a crazed fandom
>The fandom turns into religious madness and people start ripping apart the house just to have a piece of bardem's essence/genius and they worship him
>religious madness continues to an extreme, there is a schizophrenic series of scenes that involves house parties, cops, fame, war, death etc
>jlaw and bardem make it to his room and she gives birth to jesus
>bardem wants to hold the baby but she wont let him, she falls asleep and he instantly takes it and shows it to the crowd of his fanatical followers
>lo and behold the baby crowdsurfs on their hands and it's neck gets broken and then they eat it in an in your face communion allegory
>jlaw freaks out and then gets pummeled by a bunch of the fanatical randoms while u see her titties and hear cunt/bitch screamed at her
>bardem goes to defend her but hes basically insane and she is done at this point
>Mother earth is pissed the fk off at humans and goes down to the basement post asskicking as people chase her and then blows up the fucking house and herself by lighting giant gas tanks on fire with ed harris' lighter.
>Bardem is fine she asks what he is he basically says God
Mother
Tell your children not to walk my way
Tell your children not to hear my words
What they mean
What they say
Mother
>crispified Jlaw is carried in his arms
>he asks for her love in one of the dumbest verbalized scenes i have ever had the joy to witness
>he reaches into her chest, takes out her ashy dead heart, breaks it apart and finds the soul diamond that he used at the start of the movie to breathe life back into the house and create Jlaw
>Movie ends with him putting the stone back into the same spot, which then repairs the house in a repeat of the first scene and creating a new woman in his bed in the place of Jlaw starting the entire process all over again.
A laughable retelling of the old testament in tandem with climate change allegories and an attention seeking god who fucks Gaia. I knew it was probably going to be bad but I had at least hoped it was controversial because it would have multiple layers, it does not, it is a one dimensional telling of the aforementioned. It is shockingly bad and the first third drags on quite a bit so any attempts at a rewatch will feel pretty god damn slow.
If you are an antisocial person who feels uncomfortable with the thought of inconsiderate jackasses traipsing about your house making a mess of things then this will be the ultimate kino horror for you, otherwise hard pass.
All movies are fake obviously and the actors are pretending. That whole argument about hurr durr this is unrealistic and therfore I can't take it seriously is stupid. If it's just a dream it's that. Fuck, iron man isn't realistic, who gives a fuck. They like marvel movies so that the shit?
>That whole argument about hurr durr this is unrealistic
ctrl+f "unrealistic"
>only this post found
>non critical christian themes
Was this movie not against organised religion? That's what I took from it, as a Christian.
I mean you see people taking their own interpretation of the poet's work, which leads to many chipping away at the paradise, fighting, bringing about war etc.
I enjoyed it though. I took some normie friends to see it, and they all loved it. They called it a 'good experience' rather than a 'good film'.
One of them was in awe at how tense the movie was. I said if he wanted to watch another tense movie, he could give The Shining a try. He said it's an older movie, so couldn't be as tense.
GONNA TAKE YOUR DAUGHTER OUT TONIGHT
A meme I keep seeing posted is BRO ITS JUST ROSEMARYS BABY LMAO
But I don't even understand where this comes from? Granted its been a decade + since I've seen it but I don't draw any parallels. Maybe I'll give it a rewatch.
>normies went to see a Jennifer Lawrence film
all signs point to normies NOT going to see this film.
It did terribly bad.
the whole baby thing probably ruined it for most.
Satanists + Baby = Rosemary's Baby. Also the Poster probably didn't help.
the poster
>non critical christian themes
means christian themes that don't criticize Christianity get panned by critics.
If you haven't noticed, this movie is about enviromentalism and the theme of climatechange goes well with religion. Mother earth is getting fucked and humans are bad and especially white people.
Shit movie, people that hype this are the same ones who think crosses in evangelion makes teenage angst and mechs have depth.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought that's what I said.
The film was criticising organised religion (and may as well have been Christianity given it does both testament) - so if it was criticising Christianity, then wouldn't that mean critics would like it?
I mean I've heard that the director has actually explained the film (some mother earth bullshit), so maybe my interpretation is wrong. But in not sure why it would be wrong.
Maybe critics just don't like it because its absolute trash rather than basing their opinion solely on it's negative view of religion.
>estrogen in water
Why are you telling me this? I was just responding to someone who was saying films that have non-critical Christian themes are trashed.
I'm sure people have plenty of reasons for not liking it. I mean I enjoyed it, but I didn think it was repetitive and really hammered its points home too much (for my interpretation). It was also a bit needlessly over the top - fine, show the baby die, but does he need to be pissing himself throughout the scene?
To be fair that's not incorrect, mostly because female birth control gets cycled back into tap water and lines up with the drastic drop in sperm mobility and lower testosterone levels of males compared to 4 decades ago.
>Aronofsky said that the title's exclamation mark "reflects the spirit of the film" and corresponds to an "exclamation point" of the ending. The director discussed the film's unusual capitalisation in a Reddit AMA, saying, "To find out why there's a lowercase 'm', read the credits and look for the letter that isn't capitalised. Ask yourself what's another name for this character?" The characters' names are all shown in lower-case, except for Him.
wat
>I mean I enjoyed it
I genuinely can't fathom how anyone could come to this result.
>implying we have accurate data on mean temperatures as far back as fucking 500 AD
>This is the first Aronofsky film without composer Clint Mansell's involvement.[15]
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING, DARREN?!
shit goes ham at the end. Also everyone in credits is lowercase except for Bardem who is Him which is God. such deep much wow
Why not? I found it fairly entertaining. It was tense in places, the first part was rather intriguing, I appreciated the absurdity (to a point), and overall I just found it a ride.
The acting was good and the sound design was good. Not that this is to do with how good the film is, but I also enjoyed speaking to my friends about it.
Why didn't you enjoy it?
BvS being liked is a meme, kiddo
Thank you. It's so entry level and deserves to be forgotten. Aronofsky is another lunatic that has believed his own hype.
everyone shits on aronfsky for being the laymans allegory movie maker. so he wants to elevate cinema above capeshit and makes accessible artistic movies fuck him right.
Why was the blood seeping through the floor? What did it mean? That was the only part that confused me.
Oil
Did you understand why an organ(?) was being flushed down the toilet?
I didn't care for any of the acting outside of pfiefer, i appreciated the sound design.
Disliked everything else, didn't find it to be tense, found the allegories to be absolutely pointless and left with nothing to talk about because nothing was there other than what was spelled out for you. Condense this movie to her staring at the heartbeat in the wall 5 times and you get a sense of how much this movie attempted to hammer home it's extremely basic story.
I find this very entertaining as spectacle kind of event. It's certainly an interesting movie. Nobody can claim it wasn't creative or different. Just the ! in the title alone is a little revolution that hasn't been done despite being so obvious. Truly genius.
I really miss Pfeifer, she's still good and made Jlaw look even worse.
>I didn't care for any of the acting outside of pfiefer
It's not like the acting was exceptional or anything, but did you not think everyone gave decent performances? At no point did I think "that acting was poor". JLaw mostly acted the same throughout, but I'd say that's down to the director than her.
>left with nothing to talk about because nothing was there other than what was spelled out for you
Well like I said, I had my own interpretation of the film. My friends hadn't picked up on everything, and when my interpretation drew a lot of things together it was fun seeing them connect the dots.
Given that my interpretation is apparently wrong (or unintentional) maybe that's a null point.
>hammer home
Yeah, like I said I thought it got repetitive at times. I didn't think it was repetitive to such a bad degree though - it just could have lost 10/15 minutes.
I think it's supposed to represent the first blood to be spilled that stained the earth, after Cain kills Abel or whichever way round it is
>lefties more concerned about a real thing than retarded made up stuff
haha
I hate her face so much Ican't stand watching anything with her in it
If you ignore all the allegory and just turn your brain off it's not as bad as it would be otherwise. Just lay back and enjoy the visual chaos.
>if it's shown in a graph it means it's true
IT'S TURNING THE FREAKING FROGS GAY!!
cant see the artistic or entertainment perspective of having a baby ripped apart and eaten.
Thanks for the recap, won't waste my time with this.
Not gonna lie, it's beautifully shot, the sound design is amazing, the effects are top-notch, and the acting is good to brilliant.
The actual story, though, is a steaming pile of shit. There were twelve people in the theater where I saw it. By the third act, there were four, and every last one of us left angry. I have never been so insulted by a movie's navel-gazing pretentiousness and muddled metaphors in my whole life. Aronofsky may be a competent director, good even, but he can't write for shit.
GONNA SHOW HER
MY WORLD
Here's the difference. BvS is a true allegory. The characters, including Superman, aren't actually what they're allegorical stand-ins for. Superman isn't a god. In fact, that's just the surface, entry-level symbolism going on in the film, intended to express that in spite of being a man beneath that god-like power, people are coming to see him as a god. Superman is representative of the "alien" in post-911 Western culture.
Aronofsky's "stand-in" for God is actual literal God, which has all the depth of a kiddie pool, yet he feels the need to relentlessly drub us over the head with it. The same goes for Mother and the house.
"Mother!" is just an insult to the audience's collective intelligence. It assumes the audience is, without exception, too fuckng dumb to put the pieces together. BvS, on the other hand, encourages you to, invites you to, and it pulls it off without having to even resort to nameless ciphers as characters.
In other words, just in terms of the deftness with which it executes its metaphors, BvS is ten times the movie "Mother!" is.
It's like a 5 year old wrote it.
>she kills them with global warming after they kill her jesus baby
>Jlaw at the start and end
No, it's different women. It might be Michelle Pfeiffer at the start, in fact.
She was great in this. She made Lawrence look like the no-talent plank she is.
>shit_hose_urinal
You fucker. That's a poop tube.
Mommy was very bad.
...
top kek!
fuck you i'm going to see it this weekend
my shitty utah town only plays it at one theater at one 9:45 showing per day