Aronofsky's "mother!" (Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem)

[Blitzkrieg]

I actually agree. Passengers, which I didn't hate (it's neither fish nor foul, just a 'blah' movie), would not have made the money it did if it didn't have the two hottest movie stars on the planet. Any other casting and it probably would have been a flop.

I think so too. Pratt and Jlaw's movie star appeal definitely propelled Passengers to a respectable total. It could have done a lot worse but somehow even after a tepid midweek debut (15 million OW), the movie displayed very good legs and collected 100 million at the domestic BO. The story and it's execution was one of the most reviled aspects of the movie and the critics lambasted this one. So I would say that JLaw & Pratt's charisma and their chemistry was the main driving force (holiday legs will be the other important factor) behind it's moderate success.

I don't know about flopping with other actor/actress in the lead roles but I do think Passengers would have done a lot less in that alternate casting case.

I think JLaw helped get mother! in a wide release, although I think her bounce to it ended by its first Sunday.

Yup. She is one of the main reasons why Paramount bet on the wide release instead of the platform release. But she can only do so much when it's abundantly clear that mother! is a polarizing and repulsive movie among the GA.

Now it is mostly for cinephiles who are intrigued by Aronofsky and controversy. But yes, her presence got it made, and I'm glad she did it.

Also true. I don't think the movie is getting lots of new audience. It has been roundly rejected and we are probably looking at a substantial theater count drop in the 3rd weekend.

At the end of the day, I'm also really glad that she did this movie. It's good that movie star like Lawrence decided to do a movie like this. Her commitment and dedication to the role is praiseworthy. mother! will be an impressive addition to her resume.

 

[JohnnyGobbs]

I think so too. Pratt and Jlaw's movie star appeal definitely propelled Passengers to a respectable total. It could have done a lot worse but somehow even after a tepid midweek debut (15 million OW), the movie displayed very good legs and collected 100 million at the domestic BO. The story and it's execution was one of the most reviled aspects of the movie and the critics lambasted this one. So I would say that JLaw & Pratt's charisma and their chemistry was the main driving force (holiday legs will be the other important factor) behind it's moderate success.

Critics felt obliged to revile the movie's story because it featured a man whose 'selfish' actions determined a woman's entire destiny. They seemed to ignore the fact that this was the very dilemma at the heart of this, relatively original for Hollywood, story, as well as ignoring Lawrence Fishburne's pivotal line: "the drowning man will always try and drag somebody down with him. It ain't right, but the man's drowning." They seem to forget that as selfish as Chris Pratt's character's actions may have been, they were entirely believable in the context of the horrible predicament he was stuck in. Apart from suicide, which he had seriously considered, what other options did he have? Abject loneliness, other than the programmed responses of an android bartender, for the next 99 years of his life?

Instead of empathising with the character's existential predicament, most critics chose to frame the film as the story of a male chauvinist, and worse, a stalker's entitlement to a woman he didn't know (a few critics even suggested that the story would have been less offensive if Pratt and Lawrence's parts had been reversed, as if to argue that it's somehow okay for a woman to 'destroy' a man's life, but not vice-versa). But one doesn't have to condone the male protagonist's actions to understand why he acted as he did (and I do wonder how these smug oh-so-virtuous critics would have behaved in such a situation), or to acknowledge that as bad as it may have been, Pratt only 'condemned' Lawrence to a marginally less terrible fate than the one he was already destined for (unlike Pratt, at least when Lawrence woke up from hibernation there was another sentient being to speak to...)

 

[Marvolo]

Plus we find out later in the film that if he hadn't awakened someone the ship would have been destroyed because he alone couldn't have repaired the ship. So by waking her up he actually saved the lives of her and the other passengers.

 

[JohnnyGobbs]

Plus we find out later in the film that if he hadn't awakened someone the ship would have been destroyed because he alone couldn't have repaired the ship. So by waking her up he actually saved the lives of her and the other passengers.

Good point, although the caveat to that is that when Pratt awakened Lawrence he couldn't have known that he'd need her to repair the ship and save the other 5,250 or so passengers. I still maintain that he made a morally questionable decision, but an entirely understandable and very human one. Which is to say that objectively he may have done the wrong thing, but I suspect that almost anyone else, including Lawrence's character, would have done something similar under the same circumstances, which brings me back to Fishburne's 'drowning man' line, in my humble opinion the very crux of the movie.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I saw this and I dug it. Great acting and directing. Is it the type of movie where when it comes on streaming I'll have the urge to watch it again?
Not really. Aranofsky just isn't a filmmaker where he connects with me as much as I appreciate him. This movie wasn't crazy like people are saying, more baffling while you're watching it as things intensify, but it's an Aranofsky movie so I don't know what makes this so different from anything else he's done. The Fountain and Black Swan, and Requiem for a ****ing Dream are crazier than this.

There seems to be a wider disconnect with movies like this and blockbuster films today and where people's expectations are at in movies and television. I've seen "crazier" stuff like Twin Peaks this season yet that's accepted, and yet Aranofsky doing what he always does is somehow deemed insane by not just general audiences, but critics who should be more intuned with this stuff? Are people just so complacent with just the blockbuster landscape that when something like this comes along it's suddenly radical? It seems there's a bigger divide now between art house and mainstream hits. There was a time when Kubrick's The Shining was both but now... it's not really there.

I respect Paramount of taking a risk and putting this wide, but these days, practically this is not the type of movie to get a wide release. WOM killed this. It's the type of movie you release limited and build up.

So what the hell is this about? I personally saw it as the Devil trying to find love, but I guess that's not it. Is it all about the metaphor of a guy who loves being loved too much or is the point of the movie the Biblical metaphor? If it's purely about a Biblical metaphor then this movie can go **** itself. Talk about hamfisted.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Harvey Weinstein on Why Polarizing Darren Aronofsky pic mother! is a Masterpiece.

 

[LoganPool]

So what the hell is this about? I personally saw it as the Devil trying to find love, but I guess that's not it. Is it all about the metaphor of a guy who loves being loved too much or is the point of the movie the Biblical metaphor? If it's purely about a Biblical metaphor then this movie can go **** itself. Talk about hamfisted.

From Lawrence herself:

[BLACKOUT]"It depicts the rape and torment of Mother Earth ... I represent Mother Earth; Javier, whose character is a poet, represents a form of God, a creator; Michelle Pfeiffer is an Eve to Ed Harris's Adam, there's Cain and Abel and the setting sometimes resembles the Garden of Eden."[/BLACKOUT]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/mother-meaning-spoilers-biblical-references-ending-explained/

 

[moviedoors]

Is it all about the metaphor of a guy who loves being loved too much or is the point of the movie the Biblical metaphor?

It's conceived and intended as Biblical allegory, but it's accidentally about ego-driven artists sucking their loved ones dry; Aronofosky subconsciously seems to have made a movie that thinks he's as big a dick as he thinks God is.

I'm in a strange place with this flick. It was never far from my thoughts after seeing it. Once I realized that the Biblical allusions are the Rosetta stone for decoding everything, it really clicked into place what Aronofsky was up to. But I still just don't much like it. I didn't enjoy the experience, finding that it tested my patience. Nobody is ever a character; they're too busy contorting themselves into analogues from the Bible to ever come to life on their own terms. I actually wish it was more opaque. It reminds me a lot of ANTI-CHRIST, a film I still don't have a complete handle on, but that I like all the more for it. I don't think that movie even has a straight-forward means of decoding it, but it makes emotional sense, and it's all the more fascinating for it. This one is too on-the-nose, and frankly I've almost always been left cold with Aronofsky when he falls into his misery-porn trappings, and this was no exception.

 

[Bats123]

Man this was ****ing bizarre and entertaining.

I dig it.

 

[Closerframe]

It reminds me a lot of ANTI-CHRIST, a film I still don't have a complete handle on, but that I like all the more for it. I don't think that movie even has a straight-forward means of decoding it, but it makes emotional sense, and it's all the more fascinating for it. This one is too on-the-nose, and frankly I've almost always been left cold with Aronofsky when he falls into his misery-porn trappings, and this was no exception.

Antichrist was less of a biblical anthology and more of a case study on gender archetypes and societal expectations as it relates to dealing with death and therapy. If any movie should be called as controversial as A Clockwork Orange, it’s Antichrist. I absolutely love the movie but can understand people’s frustrations for it coming across as torture porn. Antichrist was also a more intelligent film than mother! but I digress.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Harvey Weinstein on Why Polarizing Darren Aronofsky pic mother! is a Masterpiece.

That dude just gets off on pissing people off.

 

[Wildcard]

That dude just gets off on pissing people off.

It's literally all he knows.

 

[Elayis]

Went into this knowing nothing about it, just a fan of Aronofsky's past work (particularly Requiem, The Fountain & Black Swan).

Unfortunately, I hated everything except the last 5 minutes or so. Maybe it's because I'm not a Christian and don't know much about the Bible, but the story and the characters didn't do anything for me.

Personally I think it was a mistake to anthropomorphize allegory like this. None of the people felt real to me, or acted like one would expect a human being to act, so I couldn't connect with any of the characters. An interesting attempt, but a major misfire I think.

Not even sure what I would rate this.

 

[Kane52630]

None of the people felt real to me, or acted like one would expect a human being to act,

Which was done deliberately.

 

[Elayis]

Which was done deliberately.

I know. It's just not a style of filmmaking I can enjoy. It constantly felt like the filmmaker was disingenuous, like he was deliberately feeding the audience a misinformed and distorted view of human nature. I wonder if this is how Aronofsky sees humanity, and if he really hates people that much.

 

[Elayis]

This also felt very much like a play, and I’m not a fan of plays being adapted without changes made to fit the medium of film (I know that this is an original work).

I was honestly bored for most of it (that might have to do with the lack of score), and the 3rd act craziness just had me rolling my eyes. Somewhat reminded me of It Comes At Night, another movie I didn’t much care for. Wish it had been more similar to something like The Witch.

And was it just me, or did the CGI look terrible? For $30 million, you’d think it’d look much better than it did.

 

[moviedoors]

Personally I think it was a mistake to anthropomorphize allegory like this. None of the people felt real to me, or acted like one would expect a human being to act, so I couldn't connect with any of the characters. An interesting attempt, but a major misfire I think.

That's such a great way to describe it. Look at a movie like Get Out; there's all kinds of allegories, and double-meanings, and metaphors going on, but all that is secondary to it having a functioning narrative that plays as a story on its own terms.

 

[Ruth Fisher]

omg i LOVED this movie! I thought it was so entertaining and i really connected to it because i love mother nature a lot. And usually I am not a fan of Jennifer Lawrence but she was good in this.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

That's such a great way to describe it. Look at a movie like Get Out; there's all kinds of allegories, and double-meanings, and metaphors going on, but all that is secondary to it having a functioning narrative that plays as a story on its own terms.

Get Out's allegories are much more obvious though. I think the only mistake that mother made in the marketing was not letting people know that it was gonna be biblical. Not everyone knows even the most basic and common Bible stories. Can you imagine how confused those people must have been? They must have ABSOLUTELY HATED the film with no real idea why.

 

[kevork89]

I don’t know if anyone has discussed this further but the yellow liquid she drinks, what exactly was that?

 

[guitarsingerguy]

I don’t know if anyone has discussed this further but the yellow liquid she drinks, what exactly was that?

That's the one thing where there are about a billion different theories with no clear answer. What do YOU think it represents?

 

[I'm Old Greg]

Mother was Brilliant! I went to the dollar store and bought a bible and tewatched Mother! With my dog. It was just how can a human put such mastery, beauty and really tell us what were doing wrong with our lives and with are true mother. God I hope theres a sequel.

 

[Kane52630]

God I hope theres a sequel.

 

[kevork89]

That's the one thing where there are about a billion different theories with no clear answer. What do YOU think it represents?

Damn that’s the one thing that’s stumped me. Everything else makes sense and the symbolism and how it ties in to the story is all so clear except that one thing for me lol

 

[killface]

bible 2: bible harder