|
IMO heavyhanded is good because it is more fun than subtle.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Black Swan is one of my favorite movies and part of the reason is because it is as subtle as a brick to the face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:Some people criticize this movie for being too obvious while others criticise it for being too obtuse, and a whole lot of people manage to do both at the same time with an extra helping of angry rhetoric about intelligence and who really has it. This. In this thread mostly, but also in the world. A  stomping on a man's face. Forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
I Before E posted:I like how so many negative responses say the movie is heavy handed in delivering its message but few of those responses actually agree on what that supposedly obvious message is. That's definitely my favorite part. It's like when people complain about obvious Christ metaphors in films then inevitably reveal they are totally unfamiliar with any of the vignettes of Christ's life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Overall I quite liked this but the scene where Lawrence curses a fig tree felt really on the nose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
glam rock hamhock posted:Black Swan is one of my favorite movies and part of the reason is because it is as subtle as a brick to the face. Can someone explain Black Swan. It's been a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Can someone explain Black Swan. It's been a while. It's Perfect Blue
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
man this movie is nuts. I'm a big fan of "brick to face" obvious movies (i have a soft spot for Tomorrowland, for instance), and so the incredibly obvious parallel to the creative process was a very nice metaphor to unwrap, but I completely didn't see the biblical stuff until i read through this thread and the environmental stuff didn't really register for me either though I had read that interview with Lawrence where she talked about it so I kinda knew to look for it going into it. I also thought that the pro-woman aspects were obvious too: no movie that isn't pro-woman has that many people angrily calling someone a 'oval office', if you get what I'm saying, and the absurdity of absolutely no one listening to JLaw for the entire movie was the funniest way that played out; Michelle Pfeiffer's entire character in particular was hilarious in a very angering way. also i know it's been harped on a bunch but the Sound Design and the Set Design were on loving point the whole way through. I'm kinda glad I waited until I was at home at night in a room with surround sound, rather than at the theater with other people. It might have been funny if i got to watch people leave in anger in real time, but I think the sound was more effective in a home scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 10:47
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:
I sat in for the first show at our theater and there were about 10 people for that afternoon show. No distractions. The sound design is loving incredible; just absolutely bonkers in 7.1 with the 50 foot screen blowing your face off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
Glad I'm not the only one to make the Curb Your Enthusiasm connection, I wonder what Larry David thinks of this movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
Just saw this and thought it was fantastic. Regardless of what you think the message is, I don't think you can deny the oppressive atmosphere it has. Arnofsky has an extremely fined tuned ability to put discomfort and anxiety on-screen. I also love the look of the film, the shadowy house with all the soft light. Very cool look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Has anyone teased out what the yellow powder is yet? I've watched this three times now and I'm still completely at a loss. If it's a Biblical deep cut, though, I'm not exactly up on the non mainstream parts of the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
I've been catching up on the thread after watching the movie yesterday and this post about the yellow stuff seemed right on to me:BeanpolePeckerwood posted:We held a private screening for a few friends and the main thing I noticed on second viewing was the tiny 'crystal ringing' noise placed strategically throughout certain scenes. I'm under the impression that the almost inaudible ringing represents a sort of feminine memory, a hypnotic and portentous reminder of something that has been wiped out, or of some better instinct that is always there underneath the surface but plastered over and ignored time and again. It also occurred to me that the yellow of the powder/medicine is a very similar color to the one that Lawrence wants to use to paint the living room. She keeps trying to get back there to paint it and she never can. Then when the people take over and start painting it's that drab gray color that she was considering at the beginning before changing to yellow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Has anyone teased out what the yellow powder is yet? I've watched this three times now and I'm still completely at a loss. If it's a Biblical deep cut, though, I'm not exactly up on the non mainstream parts of the Bible. That's the one thing I don't get. The best I can come up with is that its importance is in the fact she gives it up at the time she gets pregnant. Unlike the traditional triumvirate Father who loses nothing of itself by bringing the saviour into the world (conferring all the pain of sacrifice to the Son instead) she does sacrifice something of herself, something which seemed to be soothing to her and possibly related to her divinity. As a result of this sacrifice she is left without its soothing properties when she could have used it the most.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Ah that makes a lot of sense. I missed that part before but had laudanum in the back of my mind after seeing the film too, but didn't really know much about it. I think the connection between the paint colours has to be significant as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:That's the one thing I don't get. The best I can come up with is that its importance is in the fact she gives it up at the time she gets pregnant. Unlike the traditional triumvirate Father who loses nothing of itself by bringing the saviour into the world (conferring all the pain of sacrifice to the Son instead) she does sacrifice something of herself, something which seemed to be soothing to her and possibly related to her divinity. As a result of this sacrifice she is left without its soothing properties when she could have used it the most. That's pretty much my take too. Something of a balancing agent in nature, part of a cycle of disruption and calm, and something that nature gives up for the sake of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
I just gotta vent about this movie. I saw it a few days ago, and I can't get it out of my head. I can't talk about it with my wife because she hasn't seen it, and I really don't want her to see it. We're new parents, and that baby scene just broke me. JFC. something about the vulnerability and uncontrolled humanity of the baby peeing over the crowd right before...Jesus. That was just too much for me. When JL picked up the glass shard and just started stabbing and slicing, I stood up and cheered ( and right then and there started doing the moves along with the main character) That said, I missed all of the religious allegory throughout the first two thirds of the movie, mainly because I was so frustrated with the guests, Him, and ultimately her for not kicking these rude fuckers out on their asses. I actually yelled at the screen several times- why are you doors always unlocked?! Why do you not have a shotgun?! Pack your poo poo and leave his rear end, girl! Go where?Who gives a gently caress.GTFO. I constantly felt like JL's character, and me as a viewer, was trapped in a dream where you have no ability to affect what was happening, and it was increasingly unnerving and uncomfortable. After reading some of the analysis, and especially in this thread, I kind of want to watch this again. But I can't do that to myself. And if I ever meet Arronofsky on the street, I might kiss his face and then slap him. Hard. You wonderful loving bastard. How dare you. Javier Bardem was absolute perfect casting for this role. I would be furious with Him, and then he would pull me right back in. Just like JLaw's character, and just like an abuse victim. The scene in his study where he watches and waits for her to fall asleep reminded me of a wolf patiently pursuing a sick calf. Absolutely brilliant performances from both he and Jennifer Lawrence. And the images in the movie were exquisite, both beautiful and horrific. I remember taking a date to see Requiem for a Dream when it was in theaters. After the movie, she sobbed in the car, yelled at me for being an rear end in a top hat who would take her to see something so foul and cruel, and just wanted to go home and not speak to me for a while. Well this was my karmic comeuppance, because now I'm her yelling at myself after this movie. This was a well-crafted, thought provoking masterpiece that I never ever want to experience again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Bardem really does pull off the whole Gnostic demiurge with ease, even down to the artisanal impulse. He's got a wicked but tortured smile, and I'd say his performance here delivers on the promise he showed in No Country a decade ago. Still, I'd be hardpressed to say he outperformed Jlaw in this movie, because she was simply on another level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:Still, I'd be hardpressed to say he outperformed Jlaw in this movie, because she was simply on another level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
I loved Noah and really liked mother! too. I got that this was a sort of story of religious narrative after the flood scene. I don't have a 100% idea on the yellow powder yet though. The article below has some thoughts as to what that could be in reference too but spoilers are in it... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/mother-meaning-spoilers-biblical-references-ending-explained I think Javier Bardem really evokes a sort of paternal masculine machismo to him and his performance that works well. J-Law did a fine job. I thought the cinematography was very good and Michelle Pfeifer gave a great bitchy performance. My friends and I who were watching were at a total loss until partway through the movie where we started to catch on. What this is trying to say I get the interpretation even if my own is different. God really wants to be loved by his creation but isn't a great "parent" type. I loved the notion of him being a Poet. Mother nature feeling through the house and her heart growing hard and dying was a great touch. I also find it interesting its going with a death and rebirth than a pure "end" if you will. Gatts fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Gatts posted:
That fits with the gnostic demiurge thing, that he is an artisan and a struggling producer (perhaps even imposter) that is distinct from the almighty, and mother being personification of Sophia, the feminine half of wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
I watched this yesterday and quite liked it. I really feel like mother! pairs well with Noah, like both movies elevate each other as different perspectives told in two very different ways about the same events.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:51
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:I watched this yesterday and quite liked it. I really feel like mother! pairs well with Noah, like both movies elevate each other as different perspectives told in two very different ways about the same events. They both feel like they troll unsuspecting audiences, too, in loving magical ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Just got the UHD disc, and in the behind the scenes featurette there's footage of Jennifer practicing the stabbing scene in workout gear in a warehouse and it looked exactly like the fight training they do on Marvel movies or Star Wars. That was weirder than anything in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 09:30
|
|
|
A stunt is a stunt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
It's a huge moment in the movie too, it had to look as real and intense as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
I'm not saying it was unnecessary, just that it was a funny thing to see. Even though a 20min doc is all there is on the disc, it's got really neat stuff on the house sets, plotting camera moves through it, rehearsing the big crowd scenes and shooting that stuff with a fisheye DV camera attached to the real camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
mother! nominated for three Razzies Worst Actress, Worst Supporting Actor Worst Director I mean, I get not liking the movie, but what? Especially worst actress what
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
Yea the only one there I can see maybe justifying if you just completely hate the movie is Worst Director. But come on, even in a movie you hate you gotta be able to recognize solid acting. It's really not that difficult to separate acting quality from the rest of the production, there's plenty of movies I feel have great performances with lackluster films surrounding them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
It sort of reminds me of when The Shining got razzies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Sandra Bullock and Halle Berry get oscars for straight garbage and an actually good movie with strong performances gets a couple noms for razzies? I don't normally follow these people (it seems like they usually pick the obviously bad stuff) but clearly they have no knowledge nor taste. Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jan 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
I also saw some Youtube comments that were negative about mother!, if we're just posting about the most pointless forms of criticism available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Razzies have always been as consistently wrong as the Oscars, it's just that sometimes the "winners" are so obvious that they end up being right. Like the year Catwoman won like every Razzie, can't really argue with that one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Is this just like, crumbs for the maga chuds who were dumb enough to jeer at j law when this movie didn't make as much as a freaking Hunger Games??? It's a divisive movie, and I understand the criticisms that might be leveled at it but this is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Is this just like, crumbs for the maga chuds who were dumb enough to jeer at j law when this movie didn't make as much as a freaking Hunger Games??? Yeah, I'm sure the loving Razzies are really concerned about appealing to the maga crowd, or about anything else beyond getting together and jerking each other off every year
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
You never know with Hollywood liberals but that's prolly a fair point yeah. I'm just baffled and confused here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
The razzies are by idiots, for idiots. They just dunk on flops because they think they’re safe targets and in instances like this make themselves look like utter morons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:It sort of reminds me of when The Shining got razzies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Have the razzies ever been more than trolling and shooting fish in a barrel like Paris Hilton doing a movie? They literally do this just for publicity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Razzies just rail on whatever movies performed poorly without any real consideration. This movie was critically panned, but that reflects the extremely limited range of most movie critics. The reviews for this movie were some of the worst art criticism I have ever seen. It's fine to not like the movie or to outright hate it, but most of the reviews completely fail to make any meaning of it. If you go through rotten tomatoes top critic reviews all of the negative ones amount to something like "this remake of Rosemary's Baby is confusing and unpleasant", and even the more positive reviews don't go beyond "it's saying something about religion or women, idk it's pretty vague". The same was true of Birdman, even in giving it positive reviews critic's ability to write and analyse amounts to stating that they think there is something about ego or art in there. They often covertly admit to not being able to form any sort of coherent analysis, but they phrase it as a failing of the movie rather than their own failure as critic and viewer. Both cases reveal how much these people, whose entire job is to watch and talk about movies, fail when they aren't dealing with something strictly literal. In mother!'s case it was received much worse because it is deliberately an unpleasant and angry viewing experience, which makes for a bad time if you can't find the purpose in that unpleasantness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2018 12:16
|
|