Problem with this movie is that it doesn't have a reality of its own. All it is, is a retelling of Bible events with metaphors. In order to enjoy a movie, you need to make yourself believe the characters in the movie are real yet in this movie, we all know they are not real because they are all metaphors and symbolic of the Bible events.
If the director had written the characters to actually be real in a real setting while still having biblical metaphors then it would have been enjoyable.
>interpret the movie as a criticism of organised religion
>turns out the bible references are gimmicks and the message is actually "humans hurt nature"
I liked the film, but finding that out was disappointing. I gave the director too much credit.
t. Mike
Enjoying that Disney cock?
the problem was everyone has seen the lead (((actresses))) arsehole so no one took her seriously. maybe if she went full heath ledger and offed herself then maybe her movies would be cared about. in twenty years.
Pretty interesting you know what parentheses do yet you don't know what apostrophes do.
You don't have to be a capeshitter to hate this dreck.
Thanks for this OP. Didn't catch the RLM review of it so its nice to have some random user parrot their opinions on Sup Forums
Is that jennifer lawrence? Never hears of the flick but I'm sure it's garbage if she's in it
>Doesn't understand a hollywood blockbuster
>Stil tries to shit on religous people
Where the fuck did I say I hated the movie? All I said was I wish the movie had actual real characters in a fictional setting.
Believe me she acted really great in this and no idea why people criticized her tits because to me she has some of the best celeb tits ever; perfectly round with no extra lose fat hanging like Emilia Clarke which is by far the most revolting when seeing nude.
But yeah I loved her acting in this. I disagree with RLM when they say she never displayed true anger because she surely did when you watch the movie.
How am I shitting on religious people? I'm religious myself.
Are religious people not allowed to interpret a film as being anti-organised religion or something?
>interpret the movie as a criticism of organised religion
It's not bashing Christianity at all. To me it didn't.
The baby scene is symbolic of religious people who call themselves righteous yet are in fact very sinful and evil. They all cry when the baby dies and begin to eat it because they are trying to redeem themselves and God tells mother nature/Mary that they all need to be forgiven.
I do like how they ended the movie because it is symbolic of "HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF".
>No matter how horrid a war is, humans will always return to being violent.
Also I disagree on RLM when they say that in order to enjoy this movie you need to pretend it's not religiously symbolic. Actually I enjoyed it more knowing the plot twist and could relate to the God character very well.
I will give this movie another chance in future. It had potential to be really really good but something about it just didn't quite do it for me but it does deserve to exist.
60 year old man with 20 something woman.
The baby scene is symbolic of a lot of Christians.
>"I love Jesus yet I cannot live by his teachings and lust and sin nonstop."
Remember we are seeing this movie through the perspective of mother nature and not God.
Mother nature tells us to not eat animals and become vegan because it harms animals but is this actually the way to live? No God tells us we can eat animals.
btw I am referring to actual life now and not the movie. Mother nature is meant to be this pure thing that is pro life but of course we humans need to eat meat as well as God telling us we must not lust because it has caused so many problems.
>we humans need to eat meat
[citation needed]
My point was: look at Jennifer Lawrence's character has like a vegan feminist who hates all life.
The scene when they are helping paint her walls is symbolic of humans building freeways etc for them yet mother nature is against this.
>"GET OFF THE SINK BECAUSE IT WILL BREAK"
Symbolic of stop cutting down trees because you are destroying nature.
Of course God understands humanity and doesn't judge the for these actions because they cannot help themselves.
we are animals fact
and if a lion can eat a zebra I can eat whatever fucking thing I want.
haven't you seen that webm of the chicken taking a cats kill.
See my post here
Do humans need to build freeways? No but it helps their life and they are so used to eating meat and lusting hence why "Him"/God in this movie let's them all in and doesn't criticize them yet Jennifer Lawrence (Mother nature) does because she is anti human basically.
This movie isn't anti God or anti Christian at all once you understand what it's actually meant to be saying.
>It's not bashing Christianity at all. To me it didn't.
I don't necessarily mean just Christianity, but I guess that's the only religion in particularly familiar with.
God writes his poem which Is 'beautiful'. Everyone can see how beautiful it is. But then people start having different interpretations, and stop listening to the poet. That's when the house/paradise gets overrun with people who chip away at the paradise, stealing and fighting. You see wars, (I presume the metal fences were) concentration camps, etc.
I thought the film was showing that people weren't following what God had written, which led to the destruction of paradise.
But apparently it was just 'man destroys nature'. So I don't see why the bible references were included. I just can't help but feel that it was to give the film false depth - if it wasn't commenting on religion (either positively or negatively), why was it there? Why was it so obvious and so prevalent?
Again you are missing the point: it is showing that no matter how righteous humanity began as, they will fight over each other even if they had seen God face to face.
>Human trafficking
>Rape
>Wars
>Violence
>Protestors
All this is shown in the house as it represents our day to day life and not all these problems are due to religion but humanity's selfishness and lust.
Also, when they are crowd surfing the baby, someone randomly shouts out "ALLAH AKBAR" (as if you are familiar with Islamic faith, Muslims also believe in Jesus but of course just consider him a prophet created by God but still the Qur'an details Mother Mary giving birth to Jesus under a tree).
Every time you watch a movie you know that there's a film crew out of frame and the actors are just pretending. Movies aren't real, the characters don't actually live full lives, their existence and their world only extends to the scenes that were filmed. In order to genuinely appreciate film requires accepting that you're watching an elaborate metaphor. This isn't something exclusive to 'artsy' movies, they all work like this regardless of whether you want them to or not.
>not all these problems are due to religion but humanity's selfishness and lust.
I know, I'm trying to say that despite humanity knowing the 'beautiful' words of God, they weren't following what he had said, or even had their own interpretations. And God himself was not doing a good job of stopping man.
It was man that actively destroyed the paradise - be it through their own interpretations, or outright ignoring God's word. Mother Nature/Mary/whoever loved the word of God when she read it. But when that word was shared with the 'fans', that's when things really went to shit.
I didn't notice Allah Akbar to be honest. In my defence, someone with special needs was sitting behind me repeating "that's disgusting"
>go to watch a movie about the Bible
>it's actually about the Bibble
>jlaw is barefoot the entire filn
What did aronofsky mean by this?
Way to copy the rlm review and post it here. Great post
She has the dumbest face
She has the "real life" woman face and not hollywood face
>real life woman face
No
You don’t go out much so you
Mother nature is not prone to wear human shoes but to feel the ground of humanity with her own feet.
It's a nice excuse for blatant footfagging
Did anyone else think Michelle Pfieffer looked really hot?
>those stockings
More than you, but that's not saying much.
I haven't seen the entire film, but I'm fairly sure the baby cannibalism scene is a reference to transubstantiation, rather than a commentary on veganism. Either way, its retarded and all the biblical imagery in this film is far too explicit and heavy-handed, there's no room for ambiguity or multiple interpretations. The religious stuff gives the movie a pretence of depth, but its all totally superficial and doesn't engage with the source material in an innovative or original way. The director literally crushed any interest I had in seeing this movie when he ruined the entire premise in an interview. We all know for a fact he came up with this idea in about 5 minutes and then refused to develop or complicate it in any way.
>Afaronofksy
Into the trash. Never made a good film.
The baby scene is both of those things. This isn't even the first (or second) time Aronofsky has made a film in which one of the primary thematic subtexts is "meat is murder". It's a pretty straightforward stand-in for both Jesus and man's need to consume.
The problem isn't this subtext - the people saying the movie is bad because they disagree with its message are retards (it's not like you have to agree with a film to see its artistic merit). The problem is that the movie is so anti-subtle about it, and Aronofsky retreading this same material AGAIN in a less-compelling and thought out manner.
Mother! fancies itself to be a Bergman-esque play on biblical stories told through a nightmarish lens, but in reality it's like an exceptionally edgy episode of Veggietales.
Problem with this movie is the OUT OF TOUCH CRITICS don't know what the TRUE FANS want so this dirty lil R-rated summer fun horrorkino isn't getting the LOVE AND SUPPORT it DESERVES.
>Mother nature tells us to not eat animals
I guess she forgot to tell these guys.
With the exception of The Wrestler (which is a fucking awesome movie) Aronofsky is the most overrated director of our times
Problem is you don't know what subtext is. It's a self-reflexive indictment of the artist himself and the creative process of writing and rolling out a film, fucking/casting the lead, media and public reception etc.
It's very simple stuff.
Problem is Aranofsky is a fucking hack that has a subtlety of a fucking Saturday Night Live sketch. How is he considered any sort of an auteur is beyond me. Black Swan was straight up intelligence insulting, and this appears to have doubled down on that.
>subtlety
Why are autists obsessed with this word? Do they just hear it here and parrot it?
Problem is CRITICS don't understand how #litty the SUBTEXT and SUBTLETY in this FUN LIL SUMMER FILM is.
What's the joke here?
What !? “Give a dude too much credit” .... ? Who are you anyway ???
...