Just watch Mother!

WTF did I watch? Was it criticising communism? Is the poet god? Is his waifu a crystal girl like that Lustrous anime? WTF?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DS0vuwr5bV8
youtube.com/watch?v=X0DeIqJm4vM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

this thread reeks of brainlet wojak

Tell me high IQ, pickle chan!

the movie was just a an excuse to have JLaw show her tits. don't think about it beyond that

According to google and vanityfair, it's the abridged version of le bible.

its aronofsky whining about christians and how we treat the earth

he basically had an autistic fit on film

i loved it desu

Yeah if you've never actually read the Bible and I highly doubt 99% of Hollywood types have ever read it

>WTF did I watch?
From the title of the thread, I'd guess it was Mother!

God is not a Mexican.

Did Al Gore fund it?

It was something you had to experience in the theaters.

God was an indian prince.

the poet was god, JLaw was mother nature, and the house was earth

>this
The cunts in my theater were furious at all the men in attendance for all the violence towards JLaw

>the house was earth
I didn't start the fire.
youtube.com/watch?v=DS0vuwr5bV8

i watched this movie with my mom lol
big mistake

Mein gawd. Feminazis watch movies made by mansplaining?!?

>Was it criticising communism?
Mass consumerism if you wanna go there. But it's more about the human nature of taking everything.

>Is the poet god?
Yes, he starts as a nondescript "Creator" but by the end he's pretty clearly the Christian God. (Has a child that humanity worships, kills, then eats its body)

> Is his waifu a crystal girl like that Lustrous anime?
The waifu is literally Mother Nature. The house is our Enviroment. Poetry is God's touch and love, his followers start a religion in his name that he doesn't really accept but he needs the love of humanity to exist.
Mother Nature gets increasingly pissed at the strangers (humanity) fucking up the house (enviroment) and God's lack of ability to do anything to Humanity.
At the end she's pushed to her boiling point and blows up the house (Enviroment) killing the invaders (Humanity). And the cycle of violence continues.

The movie isn't really anti-religion or anti-consumerism, it's an enviromental apocalyptic message that's more anti-human than anything.
P. good horror story tho

They saw the title and thought it was a love story

did you fuck?

dude the bible lmao

Life is not a hentai. youtube.com/watch?v=X0DeIqJm4vM

nah but i fucked your mom

Thanks for the mansplain, brah.

pretty much this

I didn't think much about what it meant while i was watching it, i think the film stands up well purely as visceral extremely well crafted entertainment. The pull between tension and comedy in the first half is brilliant and then the madness it descends into is equally entertaining and well executed. J Law's performance was really good.

What I don't get about most of the criticism of this film, is why can't people that didn't like it admit it's at least a well crafted film. Whether it's those that are triggered by the analogy or those that are triggered by jlaw getting fucked up, critics seem to pan it as absolute garbage, which is just not a credible position. I can understand not liking it, but it's clearly a well made film and anyone that won't admit this probably doesn't really like film, or have any taste. They're far more interested in their agendas. It managed to trigger Sup Forums and /sjw/ for opposite reasons and out them both as tasteless plebs.

I heard about the gross-out shit with the baby in it and didn't know if I wanted to subject myself to that so I avoided seeing it just because of that.
I was eager to see another Aronofsky film, but the idea that a scene like that was going to be made as unforgettable as possible made me reconsider.

Meh. I know that the Christian environmentalist interpretation is the 'official' one, but I think the movie is much more enjoyable if one takes it as commentary on the migrant crisis, or the problems of the famous, or Aronofsky's relationship issues, or pretty much anything else really.

Eh, that's the thing about art, you can interpret it how you want. The authors intent, and the author themself are best left as abstract and irrelevant.

The only really wrong way to interpret art is seeing everything as what triggers you.

>but the idea that a scene like that was going to be made as unforgettable as possible
What do you mean?
>I was eager to see another Aronofsky film
Black Swan & Requiem are both pretty fucking dark as well.

Many highly acclaimed and loved films feature violence against women and children, I think what many people found so confronting about this is that the large cast of people beating J law, and eating her baby, represent humanity, so theirs is kind of the perspective of the audience. The film definitely doesn't say 'this is ok' though. It just presents it all in a very confronting way. It accuses the audience of complicity. It's a highly original film. I think it's alright not to like it, i can really get with that, but watch it. It's interesting and it's well made. Just don't say 'this is complete garbage' like so many do, because that's just wrong.

>What do you mean?
as a master of his craft, anything he turns his hand to is going to burn those images into my memory whether I'd like them to remain there or not. in this case - given how extreme the imagery was described to me as being - I chose to cautiously opt out of that experience.
>pretty fucking dark as well.
I've seen everything he's done except Noah and this one. I'm not bothered by a director confronting the audience with hard questions - I thought Haneke's Amour was one of the most powerful films of 2012 and didn't mind what he put me through. in this case however, the more abstract subject matter made me wonder if being subjected to something like that would have a similar compensation or if it would amount to painful images inflicted upon my psyche for no good reason.
>Captcha: Eden Hotel

amour is so fucking dark

that scene at the end when he chases the bird around for ages wrecked me

>that scene at the end when he chases the bird around for ages wrecked me
I was thinking about that scene just earlier today - it's truly unforgettable.
lots of films lose impact with repeated viewings, but I know that film is only going to accrue meaning and force throughout my life. as hard as it was to watch as a young man, it's going to just increasingly brutalize me as the decades pass.
another film I can't help but tie together with Amour in my mind is Kurosawa's Ran. for me, one of the many things that film is about is the dying process. see it, if you haven't already.

Yeah, i've seen it, it's great. Ikiru is another Kurosawa film about death, probably my favourite film of his.

if I could only have two Kurosawa films, Ikiru and Ran would be the ones. if forced to choose I'd probably give Ran the edge, but since they'd both land in my top 10 anyway I'd just be splitting hairs.