mother! (Darren Aronofsky)

Mr E

A trailer tease for the full trailer, due August 8th. Written, produced and directed by Aronofsky.

The movie stars Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Michelle Pfeiffer, Ed Harris, Domhnall Gleeson and Brian Gleeson.

Centers on a couple whose relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.

Out here mid-September I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0NF2YP7SU8

johnnyskeleton

Is it about Mother Teaser of Calcutta?

alchemist33

Good of them to remind me of Black Swan in the trailer so I can avoid this.

correction

Expect this to be pretty great, excellent cast and one of the best directors of this era. Trailer suggests it'll be an eerily creepy movie which I can get behind. Wouldn't be surprised, given the release date, to see plenty of Oscar nominations.

S.M.B.

Didn't realise the release date was so soon when there was such little info about.

Nice.

Mr E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpICoc65uh0

Arghus

I'll give it a go. I'm not really a fan of Jennifer Lawrence, right from Winter's Bone onwards I've always found her a bland and uncharismatic screen presence. I find it curious how she has a tendency to be cast in movies, directed by middle aged men, where her love interest tends to be a man about twenty years her senior.

But based on that trailer, I'd watch this movie.

S.M.B.

That's a fantastic trailer. Interesting to see that he's using Denis Denis Villeneuve's recent go to guy for the music. Nice choice. I'm assuming he had some involvement in the trailer.

JP Liz V1

Arghus wrote: »

I'll give it a go. I'm not really a fan of Jennifer Lawrence, right from Winter's Bone onwards I've always found her a bland and uncharismatic screen presence. I find it curious how she has a tendency to be cast in movies, directed by middle aged men, where her love interest tends to be a man about twenty years her senior.

But based on that trailer, I'd watch this movie.

I think Jen and director Darren are now a couple

MisterAnarchy

Arghus wrote: »

. I find it curious how she has a tendency to be cast in movies, directed by middle aged men, where her love interest tends to be a man about twenty years her senior.

Its getting ridiculous really.
Bardem is old enough to be her father.
She is at least ten years too young for the majority of her roles over the last few years.

bnt

Arghus wrote: »

I find it curious how she has a tendency to be cast in movies, directed by middle aged men, where her love interest tends to be a man about twenty years her senior.

Well, her real-life love interest is a middle-aged man, about twenty years her senior: the director, Darren Aronofsky. So, go figure ...

evolving_doors

First one without Clint Mansel. Johan Johnson has a similar feel though so I'd watch it just out of curiosity about the music.

This was just on rte tonight with JJ's music. I get the feeling ive heard that theme before but never knew where it came from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhxCFOH1-Bo

Edit: yegads, that was cinematic orchestra not Johan johannsson

Outkast_IRE

Reviews are coming in thick and fast today.

Seems like its love it or hate it type stuff, very few reviews in the middle ground.

Seems like an interesting film so might give it a go next weekend

pheasant tail

Watched this last night, first half of the film was quite good with loads of suspense and anticipation, second half crossed way too many lines and it turned into a total mess. Terrible film. Will certainly get people talking but i certainly wouldn't be recommending it to anyone imo.

Fysh

pheasant tail wrote: »

Watched this last night, first half of the film was quite good with loads of suspense and anticipation, second half crossed way too many lines and it turned into a total mess. Terrible film. Will certainly get people talking but i certainly wouldn't be recommending it to anyone imo.

In the context of Aronofsky's filmography - are we talking a Fountain-style mess? Or a deliberately slide into fractured coherence as the protagonist is put under greater strain a la Pi or Requiem For A Dream?

Also, when you say "crossed too many lines", what do you mean? Plot contrivances & character reversals, or unexpected/shocking scenes? Pi's scenes with the hand drill or Those Scenes in Requiem For A Dream were pretty grim and graphic, so to a certain extent it's regular territory for Aronofsky...

pheasant tail

Fysh wrote: »

In the context of Aronofsky's filmography - are we talking a Fountain-style mess? Or a deliberately slide into fractured coherence as the protagonist is put under greater strain a la Pi or Requiem For A Dream?

Also, when you say "crossed too many lines", what do you mean? Plot contrivances & character reversals, or unexpected/shocking scenes? Pi's scenes with the hand drill or Those Scenes in Requiem For A Dream were pretty grim and graphic, so to a certain extent it's regular territory for Aronofsky...

I haven't seen Pi so I can't comment on that. Might have rushed with a consensus on this as I've still been processing it today so it definetly left its mark. Probably wrong calling it a terrible film, the casting is excellent, it's technically brilliant and gripping throughout but it just felt very disconnected between the two halves of the film. Needlessly left me frustrated. In relation to crossing the line, I don't want to say too much but yes I feel it did, not in relation to cinema as a whole but the context of the actually film and some of the imagery, shocking yes but I just asked myself why.. needlessly pushed certain things for I can only imagine his own reasons and not the films benefit, the whole combination of art and horror didn't do it for me. Did I like it, no! Certainly don't think it'll appeal to the masses, and I'm certainly not mainstream, but check it out on the big screen, some people applauded, more booed, it will definetly play with your mind and leave food for thought

Slydice

stuckmann giving it a good review (A-) saying the second half gets really messed up and he understands why some folks won't like it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDvy0ybpOUI

moviebob cackling manically at the start of his video, giving the film praise and highlighting that it gets messed up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiqbVZvEi-Q

aside from that, all else I'd heard was that people are either saying it's a really good film or really bad... and the messed up stuff in the second half seems to be what is driving the negative reviews

gazzer

I read somewhere (cant find the article now) that the second half is similar in 'messed up' stuff to Martyrs? Any truth in this?

gmisk

Good that was absolutely brutal, I actually didn't mind the first half, but come on. I liked the fountain....but this was just brutal a waste of a terrific cast.
I don't think crowd I saw it with were fans I heard laughs at the end, can't see it having great word of mouth.

hmmm

Holy mother of god, at the end of that the entire audience burst out laughing - with a mixture of bewilderment and shock. I can't decide whether it was brilliant or brutal - probably both. There is an extended scene in the second half that is spectacularly chaotically manically madness.

It will definitely get you talking, but don't bring someone who likes robots and lasers in their movies. I thought it was amazing, I don't think I was bored for a minute. I can understand that perhaps half the audience will absolutely hate it.

thebostoncrab

I think we were in the same viewing (6:30 in Cineworld by any chance?) because I had a guy beside me and a row behind me full of folks laughing at every little bit of the film, which really took me out of it. Even if it was close up someone's face they just started laughing.

I may watch it again at home when it gets released.

johnny_ultimate

Well, it's the maddest thing a major studio has been tricked into financing since Mad Max: Fury Road if nothing else!

Mother! is obnoxious and confident, adolescent and accomplished, repulsive and playful. It is a film seemingly designed as a contradiction, determined to divide, annoy and bewitch pretty much at the same time. It is an unholy mess of allegories and symbolism - throw any reading at it and you'll probably find something that sticks. It feels like it is at once a damning critique of the male ego, and a cheeky celebration of all-encompassing creativity the same time - how much of himself Aronofsky put in here needs someone more versed in psychotherapy than I am!

Jennifer Lawrence is front-and-centre in relentless close-up, and the camera has the same level of affection for her as it had for Rachel Weisz in The Fountain (don't remember the camera ogling quite so much there tho). It would be foolish to think of these 'characters' as human beings - they are concepts first & foremost, in service of a cacophony of themes as opposed to any relation to actual reality.

Things start almost like a vaguely horror-ish rift on Bergman chamber film, before taking a mid-film turn towards the demented. It doesn't even remotely work all the time - it takes an age to kick-off, especially when there's not really any investment to be had in a bunch of broad caricatures where you'd usually have people. But it does lead up to... something interesting. There's obviously one scene everyone will be talking about and with good cause - it collapses all typical norms of cinematic space & time with giddy abandon, and is one of the most impressive examples of a filmmaker just really wanted to make the audience feel as ****ing uneasy and stressed as possible for an extended period of time. It's madness, and I'm not at all convinced there's anything majorly interesting, or at least anything actually coherent being said here. But the ride, when it reaches its delirious peak, is a blast even in spite of its occasional eye-rolling indulgences.

It's crass, it's uneven, it's the kind of film that you can feel the weird energy in the cinema as the audience tries to digest the damn thing. It'll be unpacked with varying degrees of enthusiasm / vitriol in the coming weeks, months and years - and that's ultimately a pretty respectable outcome for a film that prominently boasts the logo of one of the big five movie studios.

evolving_doors

Was the soundtrack any good?

Outlaw Pete

One of the most irritating films I have ever seen.

Not that it really matters but I felt......... forget about it, I got bored thinking about it.

johnny_ultimate

evolving_doors wrote: »

Was the soundtrack any good?

The sound design is very strong, but the score is more an ambient accompaniment than anything that really stands out.

kefir32

one of the worst movies ever, had high hopes with such a talented cast and the mystery and buzz in the weeks up to its release. completely bonkers self indulgent rubbish.
only positive i can draw from sitting through this pile of muck was the fantastic and under utilised michelle pfeiffer. hope to see her talents put to better use in the future.

Slydice

grace tears it a new one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-wVlORDq_E

implies? nah.. says straight out it's Aronofsky bragging that he's sleeping with Jennifer Laurence

Goodshape

Well, I liked it a lot. Thought the religious allegories worked well, and a really interesting film and filmmaking.

thebostoncrab wrote: »

I had a guy beside me and a row behind me full of folks laughing at every little bit of the film, which really took me out of it. Even if it was close up someone's face they just started laughing.

Also had that problem tonight in Light House, Dublin. I'm not sure were people there for a laugh because they heard it wasn't good or they just went in the mood for a schlocky horror movie, but laugh they did. Destroyed the build up of anxiety and tension more than once, which was a real shame.

charlie_says

Good cinema. Challenging stuff.

As said above it takes a long while to get going and once it gathers momentum the foot does not not come off the accelerator. Similar to Requiem for Dream levels of intensity, however the beginning left me guessing which way it was going to go and wasn't very interesting whilst doing it. Wasn't sure if it was a house of horrors, pysch thriller or something akin to Antichrist - a very dark relationship breakdown drama.

Sound was pretty excellent, it really was the metronome to the chaos. I'm not sure JL was the correct casting for this film though.

I can see how many will think this is a disgusting and violent piece and ignore all of the good stuff that it does but for me I love visceral and shocking film as when well done it leaves you question yourself are you wrong to like it?

edit: forgot to mention I though Rosemary's Baby and Carrie more than once throughout.

Rfrip

Em I'm not really sure what I thought tbh. I didn't hate it and it definatly wasn't the worse film I'd seen.

I'd call the movie an experience. Could have done without the one scene everyone is talking about alright but all in all it was just a mess that I'm glad I saw

I know the above makes no sense but I just can't articulate what I thought!!!

evolving_doors

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One of the most irritating films I have ever seen.

Not that it really matters but I felt......... forget about it, I got bored thinking about it.

I haven't seen it yet but I also thought the same of requiem for a dream. It also had a 'rosemary's baby' tension to it that just became pretentious.