This movie makes the most accurate depiction of what a dream would look like in real life. The disjointed and non-linear images with all the characters interacting in an unaffected way. It's the same for everyone, right? Maybe I need therapy.
Literally right when this movie ended, I knew I had to watch your review as soon as possible! Even though I do like this movie a lot more than you did, I love how you analyze films and you're seriously by far the best movie reviewer on TH-cam. Period.
I cannot wait to see this movie, I've heard a lot of interesting thoughts. Also glad to see some love for The Fountain, definitely my favorite of his along with Black Swan. Always respect your opinion, but I would like to hear your thoughts on Black Swan because I'm confused on what you said about it. Anyway, always love your videos!
After watching the film, I enjoyed it to some extent but there were aspects that I felt were not refined as well as they could have been. Then I came across your review and you articulated my thoughts EXACTLY. Stellar job!
Perhaps you can give the film a second look. I am uncertain if Aronofski is being completely truthful in his interviews as I find the film can be appreciated deeper IMO) then his interviews suggest. I see the character "mother" as "Love"...as a mothers love, caring, pure, unselfish, giving. The character of "Him" seems a better representation of "mankind" (with a capital H) rather than the specific "God"...self-centered, uncaring, ignorant, obsessed and unable to evolve. Man creates God in his own image. The opening line "Baby?" and the closing line "Baby?" can relate to mankind's own failure to evolve to recognize "love" as salvation. Love is never fully appreciated. "Him" remains ignorant and needy like a baby. Mankind creates the religions of the world but humanity can never live up to the high ideals of peace and love expressed. Mankind thinks of love as an object to be possessed...a hard cold jewel he has taken "from the heart" of mother to once again try (but never learn). Mankind continues to claim a high moral character but continually and repeatedly fails to live up to those aspirations, destroying love in the process. There can be quite a bit more to appreciate within the film from this wider perspective that can include the more narrow view of mother earth and Biblical parable.
Great call with The Fountain being underrated and great analysis overall. I thoroughly enjoyed the Japanese film that provided a lot of the inspiration for Black Swan and was responsible for a couple of notable shot for shot recreations therein. I'm, of course, referring to the anime psychological thriller Perfect Blue from 1997. One reason I regard Kubrick so fondly is because he respected his audiences' intelligence to understand the symbolism and big ideas presented throughout all his work. Hope you feel better soon!
Great review! I agree that Aronofsky's films works in a very surface level, but I do think mother! and Black Swan can be seen in different ways, which makes it worth to rewatch for me. I also agree that this movie is hilarious, and I do think a lot of it is intended, but I also found it very unnerving, at times it felt almost like a nightmare put to screen to everyone who is introvert. While I usually don't like heavy-handed stuff, I actually think that subtlety wouldn't fit this film at all, so I oddly appreciate it for the commitment in that way. I do disagree with you when it comes to the cinematography. I thought it was really successful in putting me in Jennifer Lawrence's shoes, and the close-ups and extreme close-ups were very effective in creating claustrophobia and uneasiness throughout the whole thing... I'd say that this is a good film, despite not being as deep as it thinks it is, and I wish big studios would bet more on this kind of movies over the same stuff we see every month.
Pretentious is the best description of this film I’ve heard yet. It’s all allegory. None of these characters feel like real people. It would have been a success if the film worked as both a pure allegory as well as a story involving realistic characters to pull the audience in. It was a decent movie, it just comes off as not as smart as it thinks it is.
This was my favorite movie of 2017. I never thought of it as a comedy before watching your review but I can't argue with your thoughts. I don't really agree but I can't argue your points either.
Love the review! I just started watching your channel and based on some of the films you like I wanted to suggest the movie "The Company of Wolves" (1984). It's an excellent and underrated fantasy film!
Alright. The Fountain to me is way to repetitive and painting with a very broad brush. Seems like DA is sort of the arthouse James Cameron. Black Swan I found to be watchable, yet lacking. Noah was just ridiculous. Your idea of him needing a mental breakthrough to really make great art is probably the most concise description of why Mother isn't a movie for me. Thanks for doing the stunt movie going :)
I appreciate your point of view yet assigning a comic label to this piece is critically laughable in itself....still, this is the great thing about cinema if we all thought the same it would be unbearable
Aronofsky is either blessed or cursed by his ability to delve deeply into the nucleus of our very existence. To make a movie that; should the viewer decide to follow the allegorical tale down to the deepest recesses of the rabbit hole; places its heart in the essentia of creation, the bizarre mystery of the unlikely existence of the universe itself, and leaves *arguably* all aspects of human life secondary (or better said third) to his unassuming centerpiece... is possibly the most ambitious move for a film that has ever been conceived.. it's as if 2001 Space Od. had been told from a place of near-realism.. except the concept itself may be even more grandiose than what the film version (2001) has to offer; I myself cannot comment on the book as i have not read it. 'Mother' is the first film I recall EVER seeing where my mind felt not unlike a mishandled crystal, fragmented from an unfortunate drop, suffering the consequences of straining daringly to reach the ultimate knowledge, overburdening my neuronic reservoir, using every last resource in the foolhardy undertaking of deciphering each clue and symbol, of connecting the story and each arising-metaphoric plot point, while in the same breath understand the emotional arc of our lead pair and the internal struggle of the "mother" and her outlandish nightmare.. it was a task that i wouldn't say i enjoyed when all was said and done.. but then, in the next few hours following and navigating through this post-apocalyptic post-experience; I would regain my composure and realize that even after such a mind-numbing fuel-torching attempt at taking in the entire movie, as much as one could, all in the first viewing.. there was truly *still* a banquet of juicy details i had missed in the frenzy, with a ton of mind-work ahead of me, and at the time; only a bolus of half-ingested information from which to mold a more settled, conclusive interpretation; if such a thing is even possible.. As my opinion currently stands; this movie is far too much to take in- in 1 or even 2 viewings, but dammit if every subsequent viewing won't be worth every minute spent in the theater! I fully believe that I could watch this movie 5 times this week, and every viewing experience would be newly thought provoking, uniquely captivating, and distinctly electrifying. I look forward to each viewing, whenever they may take place; as this Film, masterfully crafted by its creator and his team of skillful artists, has forever changed what I personally thought 'film', as a catalytic medium of inner exploration and self-expansion, could ever deliver.
Hey fantastic review. We also had similar thoughts but also very different ones as well in our review. Good to hear a differing opinion. Keep up the good work! :) Cheers!
Other than the over-the-shoulder camera shots, would you say that all of your other problems with Aronofsky still apply to "The Wrestler"? I thought that movie was a phenomenal character study, and a great film as a whole.
I think we should have seen the baby torn apart by the multitude. I really liked it, but I feel that by not showing the dismemberment of the baby, he kindda backs off of a great climax to a wonderful sequence.
my review of Mother... Rosemary's Baby is all-time classic must see film that has not aged one bit and is still riveting from beginning to end, Mia Farrow gives legendary performance and Polanski is a master craftsman... fax!!!
"None of it really unsettles me. Why not push a little bit further?" I get you...But I am sure for an average viewer the scene where the mob rips apart and eats a newborn baby, is more than unsettling! :D
As you said, It's definitely not the main allegory of the movie, but I think there's also a sub-theme about artistry in the film, where the muse (your inspiration), and the people you present your art to conflict each other. There's a commentary about artists being creators, about squeezing everything out of your muse and moving on to the next one, about doing irrational things (like letting strangers crash your house) just to get inspiration. I find it hard to believe Aronofsky is not talking about himself as a creator (especially cause of how cocky he is). The more I think about it, the more it fits the story (Especially because he literally calls her "muse" and the house "A space to create" like 5 times in the film.), like your idea as a creator (the baby) getting butchered by audiences makes more sense to me than Jesus Christ, another human, being Mother Nature's baby when she supposedly feels like humans are invasive.
I hate using the word "pretentious" to describe a film, yet it's such an apt adjective for this film. It's so basic, as you wonderfully put it. It offers nothing in terms of substance, it was funny throughout though. To see Lawrence being put through the ringer is a joy to watch her reach and comprehend the situation. But even then I don't know how the tone is to be taken. First two acts are full and too self serious yet the third act is ridiculous. It's definitely unlike anything I'll see.
This movie is very much open to interpretation, so opinions don't really matter here. I had a totally different take than you. If he actually reveals these things in interviews, though, that's stupid. Great review :) I agree with you about the 3rd act, I felt the first 2 were much better.
Late to the party but I completely agree with your assessment of how largely superficial this film is. I went into Mother! completely blind and enjoyed theorising along the way and trying to stay ahead of the plot but after it ended I was really left with nothing to reflect on. I do still remember thinking it was a brilliantly crafted film though.
Nothing to reflect on?? Man i was reflecting on that movie for weeks afterwards. 99% of movies these days dont make you think at all and are instantly forgettable. But mother definitely left an impression even to people i know who hated it.
@@greentokyo I'm curious what your ruminations were. I guess a large part of it is ultimately down to what connects with our own personal experiences, interests and ideas and the conversations created as a result (internal or other).
I wish you could make a review of the Name of the Rose by J.J.Annaud (1986) based on the popular novel by Umberto Eco. I think you would like it very much and i'm pretty sure you'd make an excellent review!
Coming from a very religious background I actually loved this movie because it asks the hard questions of the morality of God that were always at the back of my head. I think the people it doesn't work on are just not interested in theology or religion. If that doesn't peek your interest this movie will be shallow to you.
mother! was a film that i found interesting but have no interest in seeing again. Agree with you about The Fountain being a really underrated film. It's never talked about but should be. Also i thought Noah was no where near as bad as everyone made out it was. Seen it a couple of years ago now and really enjoyed it.
I agree that Aronofsky almost always operates at a fairly shallow level of metaphor, and nowhere is this more evident than in "Mother!". It's a film with a secret that's quite exciting if you don't know anything about it and watch the madness growing around the main character. But it's also a metaphorical blowout that's so obvious that any explanation by the author seems completely unnecessary and indeed quite condescending. However, it seems to me that this shallowness of the metaphorical nature of Aronofsky's work is partly it's strength. He makes films that are a bit like an artistic variation on journalistic reportage. He takes one particular subject, and describes it using highly stylized, artistic language. What comes out of it is a rather simple, but extremely interesting in terms of execution, story on one topic. An experienced viewer will have no problem deciphering it, and won't find anything very profound there, but will get to know the given topic in an interesting, almost always unique way. Perhaps Aronofsky sees it differently and considers his films to be super-deep works of the highest artistic level. But perhaps he doesn't, and he consciously creates stories with only one, at most two levels of message and metaphor, so it does not dilute the main theme of his "reportage." And since he always does this in an extremely dynamic and engaging way, even if his films don't go one step further, they can say something about the chosen topic in a very interesting way.
This film sounds like hot garbage. And I really liked Pi and Requiem. But seeing Arronofsky in recent interviews has convinced me that this guy isn't the avant garde director I used to think. He's kind of fucking dense.
I agree with your analysis of Aronofskys films. They're generally very valid, student films..with very infantile use of symbolism and imagery. He's an incredibly overrated director. Mother, Black Swan and Requiem aren't supposed to be comedies, but God they made me laugh out loud due to the silliness.
I didn't see this, but you, Comicbookgirl19 and the Sci-Fi Christian have liked it, and even though with reservation, but very different reasons. The trailers looked like a bad horror film.
Anyone else in the JLaw was Satan camp? I think the title is trying to sugarcoat the film and misdirect. JLaw as Satan is hilariously awesome. JLaw as Mother Nature in a Judeo-Christian allegory is lame. Who was God's favorite before man showed up? Who is jealous of man the most? Who goes down to the pit to start a big fire to punish men? Not Mother Nature, just sayin'. Not a fan of the movie but if DA had the balls to make a sympathy for the devil movie with JLaw, I would have to respect that.
yes and no, while your point makes sense, I think of jlaw as Earth, not nature and Earth just has a thin layer of Nature on a ball of fire and rock. Since I just came across Hawai'ian myth - earth is Hi'iaka and Pele ;)
No, of course not. There's nothing in the film that lends itself to that reading. The film is clearly based on Pagan and Judeo-Christian mythology and in that context, JLaw embodies Mother Earth/Nature and the mother of the sacrificed saviour. Having her character represent Satan or a more abstracted notion of evil is not consistent with the basic premise.
Why does Satan have to be evil? Lucifer is the light-bringer, after all. You can see him like Prometheus, traitor to the superhuman overlord(s) but sparking and encouraging humankind's emancipation and evolution.
I challenge you to look at reviews by other women. I see many who are horrified by some of the directions that he went with and some who were deeply traumatized by what he made. Personally, I thought it was great, but I understood people who were infuriated by it. I understand people who really didn't like it but rated it around average due to direction, filming, and action. However, I can't understand the people who just think it is bad all around.
You may not feel well, but you look beautiful (just saying). I can't really take Aronofsky seriously, at least not as seriously as he does himself. I enjoyed "Pi", but not "Requiem For a Dream", "Black Swan", "Noah" (YIKES). "The Fountain" had potential, but I still found it overdone. "The Wrestler" had Mickey Rourke, so that is something different - for me Rourke was the film, turning himself into a poetic icon. I appreciate his fascination with archetypes, I'm a Jungian from way back, but I don't like the way he executes them, hitting you over the head with a sledgehammer - he IS pretentious (I hate using that word, but sometimes it applies). Plus I really don't resonate to Jennifer Lawrence's brand of acting, or should I say overacting (maybe it fits with someone who overdirects). I just see her on the screen doing her shtick, not the character, but maybe that's what stars are all about. Sorry to be so negative - hey, at least I acknowledged you as being beautiful. Oh yeah, I've always enjoyed Ed Harris.
I don't get why some critics are claiming this movie is "hilarious"? A. O. Scott said the same thing, the best comedy of the year. I've seen this movie twice. Loved it both times but not once did I see anything to laugh about.
Maybe it can be viewed multiple ways, and not necessarily how the director intended. Haven't seen the movie (yet) but I have more respect for Maggie's reviews, as far as being truly perceptive and honest (without an agenda) than A.O. Scott or Dargas, or most of the "Big" critics, who I no longer trust or read, and who I feel have way too much undeserved power (especially any who don't allow comments). Maggie isn't afraid to go against the grain of what she knows is popular with her viewers - to me that's showing respect.
I have to ask you, Maggie - I know you said you found it funny (I don't doubt that), but do you REALLY think that Aronofsky was being intentionally funny, ala Lynch or Cronenberg, or just funny because he was so over-the-top (unintentionally ridiculous)? I will see this film eventually when it's streaming, not in the theater (mostly out of curiosity), and I'm sure I'll be able to tell. The thing is, I don't really recall any intentional humor in Aronofsky's films, except Mickey Rourke's improvisations in "The Wrestler". If it's campy on purpose I'd be very surprised, D.A. is such a serious fellow.
92ninersboy The movie has Kristen Wiig, of all people, popping up out of nowhere and executing war prisoners. Of course parts of it were meant to be amusing.
FUCK. YES. I've been telling people this movie is an absurdist comedy. I wish Aronofsky was more self aware, though. And I agree with your point about DA talking about what the film means.I feel like that takes away from the movie as a whole. Knowing his intentions kinda ruins it, in my opinion. Plus this being sort of about his relationship with Rachel Weisz seems pretty scummy.
This is how you look when you feel sickly? Damn, woman!! xD I agree with your review, I felt it was a pseudo-intellectual postmodern interpretation of the birth of Christ in Hollywood drag, if that makes sense! (Also loved The Fountain)
Wow this really is the movie where people either loved it or hated it....I fuckin loved it and I totally get why lot of people hated this movie tho. SHit is bonkers.
Im really really sad that mother! has had such a bad reception. I feel like there is no way for me to say this without sounding arrogant :( but it really feels just like barely anybody gets it. I haven't seen one review that really hits the nail on the head regarding what is so special about this film. Its like reviewers keep talking about what isn't there and ignoring what is there, or becoming distracted by the hype, or distracted by the off screen romance. Aronofsky has created a film that achieves something i don't think any other film has ever done (I might be wrong). An abridged retelling of the Biblical time line, where the entire setting has been changed into a home invasion format, With endless subtext that is relatable to our modern lives. this film should be seen as an adaptation. Like if a new version of hamlet came out, accept if that version of hamlet was told in the format of a dance of the planets and some how managed to cover subtexts as varied as The artists relationship to the muse, to the rape of the natural world to the struggle of intimacy to the fall of human kind and beyond. There are no biblical themes, in the movie. Thats like saying "The passion of the christ has biblical themes, biblical allegory and biblical imagery" The biblical time line is the plot, Home invasion flick is the format and everything else you can pick up or take away from the film is the subtext. Aronofsky also manages to throw in his own theological ideas that somehow don't break the thread of the official biblical time line, but do get you thinking. Yes this film is not an in-depth study of character or the nuanced human condition, but what it is and unbelievably ambitious and creative comic book / genre style attempt at the impossible, and it works. I feel strongly that once the Hurrah! about this film dies down it will begin to become appreciated for that it really is. please excuse my awful grammar :/
I felt that the movie could have been much better. When you are using that much of metaphors, you get to a point where the movie is just trying too hard. The shots and the 24/7 focus on Jennifer's character is just annoying.
Soo.. you are asking for the movie to have been shot, directed in a way that made the viewing experience more... easy on the eyes??.. not sure being 'easy on the viewer' was ever the intention.. quite the opposite i believe
Perhaps an even more pressing analogy would be to refer to *the couple as Mother Earth and Father Sky (rather than "God"):* because *Javier Bardem's archetype might be even more fundamental than merely the god of Abraham, but an earlier, even more primordial form of masculinity.* He *might represent the paradigm shift when the male god was first worshipped, causing the female goddess (as Jennifer Lawrence) to be pushed aside within the human psyche to become a "lesser" presence.*
It takes a second to realize time is compressed and actions are not to be taken literaly, of course there is no god which is why Bardem is such a pushover.. When te mineral world retakes control the world returns to a new starting point..
I found "Mother!" to be a totally pretentious and wholly unpleasant nightmare. I would not sit through that mess again for cash money. A horrible film. Jennifer Lawrence is a naturally gifted actress. I have never heard her utter even one single word which seemed false. Gifted. "Mother!" is NOT the fault of Ms. Lawrence. I loved "Black Swan." Exquisite. Disturbing. Jekyll and Hyde. It just worked. I enjoyed "The Whale," mostly because pre-existing affection for Brendan Fraser provided the emotional heft to draw me into the story. I find Aronofsky's work uneven at best. Most of them are unpleasant ordeals. ("Requiem." Jesus.) "Black Swan" is the only one I really loved.
Truly the most beautiful cinema critic of all time, from your wisdom and knowledge to your amazingly wonderful style. sexy, beautiful, amazing thanks always for sharing these gifts w/us all ❤️💛💚🙏🏾
Am I alone in thinking it's kind of passive aggressive to applaud DA for his "humor" in this movie? I feel like it's a backhanded way of saying his movie shouldn't be respected, that's it on par with slapstick and not worthy of further interpretation than that in the future.
I think humor lends itself to a lot of interpretation. To say that humor is condescending can work in some instances, and it's dismissive in others. In this instance, I genuinely feel that the humor should be explored. Because that seems to be the strength here for me. If he decides to start exploring it, then perhaps I would have more respect for his work.
Like if you think Maggie is one of the best critics on TH-cam (who deserves way more subscribers) not because she's beautiful (which she is) but because she's smart, funny, insightful and clearly knows a lot about the art that is film.
I enjoy your insight, but sometimes you have to tone down the analysis and just say the movie sucks balls and take it from there. This is one of those rare films where you should focus more on how something so abysmally horrible was even created rather than analyzing it like any other film. Mother! is truly one of a kind in how awful it is. Lastly, while I agree with your take on Aronofsky overall, I think you not recognizing or mentioning The Wrestler, a guaranteed future classic and easily Aronofsky's most mature work, especially when you bring up emotion in his work, leaves a lot of questions.
took the words out of my mouth. Aronofsky is talented and very skilled; but most of his movies are more like vehicles to showcase how cool his visual style is. especially requiem.
Aronovsky thinks he's deep and he just isn't, simple as that. The only movie I like from him is the wrestler. But this movie reaches way to far with little visuals or ambition.
and though I doubt you're reading this, yes, I do actually pay attention to your content. I just have to comment on the beauty every chance I get. cant help it.
just watched it yesterday. i thought the idea was brilliant but the execution was bad. if you're going to make a parable of the bible, you need to stay true to the source material. all of the bible references were thrown in there just for the sake of putting bible references in the movie but without any further interpretation of those biblical accounts. i get that this was a retelling of the bible with mother nature thrown in the mix and gives us her perspective on how we destructive humans are but i thought it was a missed opportunity to go a bit deeper in to the other bible references and show the audience what the bible is trying to tell us.
The idea of the film is actually interesting and smart, but the execution was very poor in my opinion. The movie in general was a mess, i am sorry for the director, i actually remember that i liked the Black Swan, but his films are technically very hasty
This movie wanted to be something it isn't. Like most of his crap. They just keep giving this guy money...the hipsters must love him. Derivative drivel.
This movie makes the most accurate depiction of what a dream would look like in real life. The disjointed and non-linear images with all the characters interacting in an unaffected way. It's the same for everyone, right? Maybe I need therapy.
Never thought of it like that, but you are totally right!
...'Tell your children not to walk my way, tell your children not to hear my words, what they mean, what they say...
Literally right when this movie ended, I knew I had to watch your review as soon as possible! Even though I do like this movie a lot more than you did, I love how you analyze films and you're seriously by far the best movie reviewer on TH-cam. Period.
dian Prasetya no thanks.
Your reviews are always so informative.
I don't love Aranovsky either but the Wrestler I thought was amazing! More gritty and down-to-earth than his other movies.
His masterpiece was Black Swan. He is hit or miss; but The Wrestle, Black Swan and Requiem for a Dream are all excellent.
Only thing that bothers me in your reviews is.. the mic quality :D hope you buy on external mic some time.
No doubt,its totally influenced by rosemary's baby.a far superior film
I cannot wait to see this movie, I've heard a lot of interesting thoughts. Also glad to see some love for The Fountain, definitely my favorite of his along with Black Swan. Always respect your opinion, but I would like to hear your thoughts on Black Swan because I'm confused on what you said about it. Anyway, always love your videos!
After watching the film, I enjoyed it to some extent but there were aspects that I felt were not refined as well as they could have been. Then I came across your review and you articulated my thoughts EXACTLY. Stellar job!
Perhaps you can give the film a second look. I am uncertain if Aronofski is being completely truthful in his interviews as I find the film can be appreciated deeper IMO) then his interviews suggest.
I see the character "mother" as "Love"...as a mothers love, caring, pure, unselfish, giving. The character of "Him" seems a better representation of "mankind" (with a capital H) rather than the specific "God"...self-centered, uncaring, ignorant, obsessed and unable to evolve. Man creates God in his own image. The opening line "Baby?" and the closing line "Baby?" can relate to mankind's own failure to evolve to recognize "love" as salvation. Love is never fully appreciated. "Him" remains ignorant and needy like a baby. Mankind creates the religions of the world but humanity can never live up to the high ideals of peace and love expressed. Mankind thinks of love as an object to be possessed...a hard cold jewel he has taken "from the heart" of mother to once again try (but never learn). Mankind continues to claim a high moral character but continually and repeatedly fails to live up to those aspirations, destroying love in the process. There can be quite a bit more to appreciate within the film from this wider perspective that can include the more narrow view of mother earth and Biblical parable.
I really love his film the wrestler.
Great call with The Fountain being underrated and great analysis overall. I thoroughly enjoyed the Japanese film that provided a lot of the inspiration for Black Swan and was responsible for a couple of notable shot for shot recreations therein. I'm, of course, referring to the anime psychological thriller Perfect Blue from 1997. One reason I regard Kubrick so fondly is because he respected his audiences' intelligence to understand the symbolism and big ideas presented throughout all his work. Hope you feel better soon!
Perfect Blue is great - as are Satoshi Kon's other films. Sad he passed away too young.
Great review!
I agree that Aronofsky's films works in a very surface level, but I do think mother! and Black Swan can be seen in different ways, which makes it worth to rewatch for me. I also agree that this movie is hilarious, and I do think a lot of it is intended, but I also found it very unnerving, at times it felt almost like a nightmare put to screen to everyone who is introvert.
While I usually don't like heavy-handed stuff, I actually think that subtlety wouldn't fit this film at all, so I oddly appreciate it for the commitment in that way.
I do disagree with you when it comes to the cinematography. I thought it was really successful in putting me in Jennifer Lawrence's shoes, and the close-ups and extreme close-ups were very effective in creating claustrophobia and uneasiness throughout the whole thing...
I'd say that this is a good film, despite not being as deep as it thinks it is, and I wish big studios would bet more on this kind of movies over the same stuff we see every month.
Pretentious is the best description of this film I’ve heard yet. It’s all allegory. None of these characters feel like real people. It would have been a success if the film worked as both a pure allegory as well as a story involving realistic characters to pull the audience in.
It was a decent movie, it just comes off as not as smart as it thinks it is.
George Jones Yeah. It needed more work to add story to allegoy to make it interesting
Can it be more pretentious than the Fountain? That movie is so on the nose that you can leave your brain at home.
This was my favorite movie of 2017. I never thought of it as a comedy before watching your review but I can't argue with your thoughts. I don't really agree but I can't argue your points either.
My concise review: This movie is the entertainment equivalent of a restroom stall in a dive bar on a Saturday night at 3am.
Love the review! I just started watching your channel and based on some of the films you like I wanted to suggest the movie "The Company of Wolves" (1984). It's an excellent and underrated fantasy film!
Alright. The Fountain to me is way to repetitive and painting with a very broad brush. Seems like DA is sort of the arthouse James Cameron. Black Swan I found to be watchable, yet lacking. Noah was just ridiculous. Your idea of him needing a mental breakthrough to really make great art is probably the most concise description of why Mother isn't a movie for me. Thanks for doing the stunt movie going :)
I appreciate your point of view yet assigning a comic label to this piece is critically laughable in itself....still, this is the great thing about cinema if we all thought the same it would be unbearable
Stephen Perera I agree because it might give the wrong impression. I didn't find it amusing. Boring but not funny.
Like Oscar Wilde said....“There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
How outrageous and outlandish everything was, was pretty funny. Like when that couple broke the sink LMFAO. It was so heavy handed I had to laugh.
Deep. Focus. Lens. Yes tats what were tryna do thru the whole Videos
Aronofsky is either blessed or cursed by his ability to delve deeply into the nucleus of our very existence. To make a movie that; should the viewer decide to follow the allegorical tale down to the deepest recesses of the rabbit hole; places its heart in the essentia of creation, the bizarre mystery of the unlikely existence of the universe itself, and leaves *arguably* all aspects of human life secondary (or better said third) to his unassuming centerpiece... is possibly the most ambitious move for a film that has ever been conceived.. it's as if 2001 Space Od. had been told from a place of near-realism.. except the concept itself may be even more grandiose than what the film version (2001) has to offer; I myself cannot comment on the book as i have not read it. 'Mother' is the first film I recall EVER seeing where my mind felt not unlike a mishandled crystal, fragmented from an unfortunate drop, suffering the consequences of straining daringly to reach the ultimate knowledge, overburdening my neuronic reservoir, using every last resource in the foolhardy undertaking of deciphering each clue and symbol, of connecting the story and each arising-metaphoric plot point, while in the same breath understand the emotional arc of our lead pair and the internal struggle of the "mother" and her outlandish nightmare.. it was a task that i wouldn't say i enjoyed when all was said and done.. but then, in the next few hours following and navigating through this post-apocalyptic post-experience; I would regain my composure and realize that even after such a mind-numbing fuel-torching attempt at taking in the entire movie, as much as one could, all in the first viewing.. there was truly *still* a banquet of juicy details i had missed in the frenzy, with a ton of mind-work ahead of me, and at the time; only a bolus of half-ingested information from which to mold a more settled, conclusive interpretation; if such a thing is even possible.. As my opinion currently stands; this movie is far too much to take in- in 1 or even 2 viewings, but dammit if every subsequent viewing won't be worth every minute spent in the theater! I fully believe that I could watch this movie 5 times this week, and every viewing experience would be newly thought provoking, uniquely captivating, and distinctly electrifying. I look forward to each viewing, whenever they may take place; as this Film, masterfully crafted by its creator and his team of skillful artists, has forever changed what I personally thought 'film', as a catalytic medium of inner exploration and self-expansion, could ever deliver.
yes on Fountain. most people i show the movie to don't get it or after the first 10 min are bored by it. totally underrated.
Hey fantastic review. We also had similar thoughts but also very different ones as well in our review. Good to hear a differing opinion. Keep up the good work! :) Cheers!
Ah, a fellow Fountain enjoyer ❤
I started to laugh too once I figured out what was going on... the third act is so audacious that you have to smirk.
James Mirrordomains
Same for me. I was holding back laughter
Other than the over-the-shoulder camera shots, would you say that all of your other problems with Aronofsky still apply to "The Wrestler"? I thought that movie was a phenomenal character study, and a great film as a whole.
I think we should have seen the baby torn apart by the multitude. I really liked it, but I feel that by not showing the dismemberment of the baby, he kindda backs off of a great climax to a wonderful sequence.
my review of Mother... Rosemary's Baby is all-time classic must see film that has not aged one bit and is still riveting from beginning to end, Mia Farrow gives legendary performance and Polanski is a master craftsman... fax!!!
Pi is still to this day Aronofsky's masterpiece. I love all his work though, mother! is pretty fantastic.
This movie is nothing like Rosemary's Baby
"None of it really unsettles me. Why not push a little bit further?" I get you...But I am sure for an average viewer the scene where the mob rips apart and eats a newborn baby, is more than unsettling! :D
This movie feels like the director tried to pull an Ari Aster and failed miserably
As you said, It's definitely not the main allegory of the movie, but I think there's also a sub-theme about artistry in the film, where the muse (your inspiration), and the people you present your art to conflict each other. There's a commentary about artists being creators, about squeezing everything out of your muse and moving on to the next one, about doing irrational things (like letting strangers crash your house) just to get inspiration. I find it hard to believe Aronofsky is not talking about himself as a creator (especially cause of how cocky he is). The more I think about it, the more it fits the story (Especially because he literally calls her "muse" and the house "A space to create" like 5 times in the film.), like your idea as a creator (the baby) getting butchered by audiences makes more sense to me than Jesus Christ, another human, being Mother Nature's baby when she supposedly feels like humans are invasive.
mother! Tell your children not to walk my way
I hate using the word "pretentious" to describe a film, yet it's such an apt adjective for this film. It's so basic, as you wonderfully put it. It offers nothing in terms of substance, it was funny throughout though. To see Lawrence being put through the ringer is a joy to watch her reach and comprehend the situation. But even then I don't know how the tone is to be taken. First two acts are full and too self serious yet the third act is ridiculous. It's definitely unlike anything I'll see.
worst thing director can do is sleep with the actor/actress. artistic chemistry gone.
This movie is very much open to interpretation, so opinions don't really matter here. I had a totally different take than you. If he actually reveals these things in interviews, though, that's stupid. Great review :) I agree with you about the 3rd act, I felt the first 2 were much better.
Late to the party but I completely agree with your assessment of how largely superficial this film is. I went into Mother! completely blind and enjoyed theorising along the way and trying to stay ahead of the plot but after it ended I was really left with nothing to reflect on. I do still remember thinking it was a brilliantly crafted film though.
Nothing to reflect on?? Man i was reflecting on that movie for weeks afterwards. 99% of movies these days dont make you think at all and are instantly forgettable. But mother definitely left an impression even to people i know who hated it.
@@greentokyo I'm curious what your ruminations were. I guess a large part of it is ultimately down to what connects with our own personal experiences, interests and ideas and the conversations created as a result (internal or other).
Why is your video flipped?
Do you own a gigantic snake that is sleeping in the other room? I keep hearing snake-like snoring one example 04:27.
I wish you could make a review of the Name of the Rose by J.J.Annaud (1986) based on the popular novel by Umberto Eco. I think you would like it very much and i'm pretty sure you'd make an excellent review!
"Wrestler" - thoughts?
Coming from a very religious background I actually loved this movie because it asks the hard questions of the morality of God that were always at the back of my head. I think the people it doesn't work on are just not interested in theology or religion. If that doesn't peek your interest this movie will be shallow to you.
mother! was a film that i found interesting but have no interest in seeing again. Agree with you about The Fountain being a really underrated film. It's never talked about but should be. Also i thought Noah was no where near as bad as everyone made out it was. Seen it a couple of years ago now and really enjoyed it.
I agree that Aronofsky almost always operates at a fairly shallow level of metaphor, and nowhere is this more evident than in "Mother!". It's a film with a secret that's quite exciting if you don't know anything about it and watch the madness growing around the main character. But it's also a metaphorical blowout that's so obvious that any explanation by the author seems completely unnecessary and indeed quite condescending.
However, it seems to me that this shallowness of the metaphorical nature of Aronofsky's work is partly it's strength. He makes films that are a bit like an artistic variation on journalistic reportage. He takes one particular subject, and describes it using highly stylized, artistic language. What comes out of it is a rather simple, but extremely interesting in terms of execution, story on one topic. An experienced viewer will have no problem deciphering it, and won't find anything very profound there, but will get to know the given topic in an interesting, almost always unique way.
Perhaps Aronofsky sees it differently and considers his films to be super-deep works of the highest artistic level. But perhaps he doesn't, and he consciously creates stories with only one, at most two levels of message and metaphor, so it does not dilute the main theme of his "reportage." And since he always does this in an extremely dynamic and engaging way, even if his films don't go one step further, they can say something about the chosen topic in a very interesting way.
The Wrestler was his best film IMO, I actually felt for the characters and it wasn't as mean spirited as his other films.
I was laughing by the end of the movie.
This film sounds like hot garbage. And I really liked Pi and Requiem. But seeing Arronofsky in recent interviews has convinced me that this guy isn't the avant garde director I used to think. He's kind of fucking dense.
I agree with your analysis of Aronofskys films. They're generally very valid, student films..with very infantile use of symbolism and imagery. He's an incredibly overrated director. Mother, Black Swan and Requiem aren't supposed to be comedies, but God they made me laugh out loud due to the silliness.
I didn't see this, but you, Comicbookgirl19 and the Sci-Fi Christian have liked it, and even though with reservation, but very different reasons. The trailers looked like a bad horror film.
It is a great horror movie!
Anyone else in the JLaw was Satan camp? I think the title is trying to sugarcoat the film and misdirect. JLaw as Satan is hilariously awesome. JLaw as Mother Nature in a Judeo-Christian allegory is lame. Who was God's favorite before man showed up? Who is jealous of man the most? Who goes down to the pit to start a big fire to punish men? Not Mother Nature, just sayin'. Not a fan of the movie but if DA had the balls to make a sympathy for the devil movie with JLaw, I would have to respect that.
That's a really great interpretation, actually. I'm glad you stated it!
yes and no, while your point makes sense, I think of jlaw as Earth, not nature and Earth just has a thin layer of Nature on a ball of fire and rock. Since I just came across Hawai'ian myth - earth is Hi'iaka and Pele ;)
No, of course not. There's nothing in the film that lends itself to that reading. The film is clearly based on Pagan and Judeo-Christian mythology and in that context, JLaw embodies Mother Earth/Nature and the mother of the sacrificed saviour. Having her character represent Satan or a more abstracted notion of evil is not consistent with the basic premise.
Why does Satan have to be evil? Lucifer is the light-bringer, after all. You can see him like Prometheus, traitor to the superhuman overlord(s) but sparking and encouraging humankind's emancipation and evolution.
I challenge you to look at reviews by other women. I see many who are horrified by some of the directions that he went with and some who were deeply traumatized by what he made. Personally, I thought it was great, but I understood people who were infuriated by it.
I understand people who really didn't like it but rated it around average due to direction, filming, and action. However, I can't understand the people who just think it is bad all around.
Pi, Requiem and The Fountain are amazing.
What does viscera mean?
Visceral is basically gutsy, something you can physically feel inside your whole body.
Hey there you made an interesting review
The Fountain was horrid. Mother was ok, blatantly obvious in its allegory, but the allegory ends as a somewhat new, interesting allegory.
Society came to mind when I watched (as well as obviously Rosemary's Baby)
You may not feel well, but you look beautiful (just saying). I can't really take Aronofsky seriously, at least not as seriously as he does himself. I enjoyed "Pi", but not "Requiem For a Dream", "Black Swan", "Noah" (YIKES). "The Fountain" had potential, but I still found it overdone. "The Wrestler" had Mickey Rourke, so that is something different - for me Rourke was the film, turning himself into a poetic icon. I appreciate his fascination with archetypes, I'm a Jungian from way back, but I don't like the way he executes them, hitting you over the head with a sledgehammer - he IS pretentious (I hate using that word, but sometimes it applies). Plus I really don't resonate to Jennifer Lawrence's brand of acting, or should I say overacting (maybe it fits with someone who overdirects). I just see her on the screen doing her shtick, not the character, but maybe that's what stars are all about. Sorry to be so negative - hey, at least I acknowledged you as being beautiful. Oh yeah, I've always enjoyed Ed Harris.
I don't get why some critics are claiming this movie is "hilarious"? A. O. Scott said the same thing, the best comedy of the year. I've seen this movie twice. Loved it both times but not once did I see anything to laugh about.
Maybe it can be viewed multiple ways, and not necessarily how the director intended. Haven't seen the movie (yet) but I have more respect for Maggie's reviews, as far as being truly perceptive and honest (without an agenda) than A.O. Scott or Dargas, or most of the "Big" critics, who I no longer trust or read, and who I feel have way too much undeserved power (especially any who don't allow comments). Maggie isn't afraid to go against the grain of what she knows is popular with her viewers - to me that's showing respect.
Aronofsky needs to watch this video
I have to ask you, Maggie - I know you said you found it funny (I don't doubt that), but do you REALLY think that Aronofsky was being intentionally funny, ala Lynch or Cronenberg, or just funny because he was so over-the-top (unintentionally ridiculous)? I will see this film eventually when it's streaming, not in the theater (mostly out of curiosity), and I'm sure I'll be able to tell. The thing is, I don't really recall any intentional humor in Aronofsky's films, except Mickey Rourke's improvisations in "The Wrestler". If it's campy on purpose I'd be very surprised, D.A. is such a serious fellow.
92ninersboy The movie has Kristen Wiig, of all people, popping up out of nowhere and executing war prisoners. Of course parts of it were meant to be amusing.
@@kurtrivero368 LOL XD
FUCK. YES. I've been telling people this movie is an absurdist comedy. I wish Aronofsky was more self aware, though. And I agree with your point about DA talking about what the film means.I feel like that takes away from the movie as a whole. Knowing his intentions kinda ruins it, in my opinion. Plus this being sort of about his relationship with Rachel Weisz seems pretty scummy.
The trailer really threw me off, haven't watched it yet.
I think that the lack of self awareness is what makes it so funny
This is how you look when you feel sickly? Damn, woman!! xD
I agree with your review, I felt it was a pseudo-intellectual postmodern interpretation of the birth of Christ in Hollywood drag, if that makes sense! (Also loved The Fountain)
This was bit too much like Black Swan for me. Good movie but nothing we don't expect from Aronofsky at this point.
The movie is okay one time through.
Wow this really is the movie where people either loved it or hated it....I fuckin loved it and I totally get why lot of people hated this movie tho. SHit is bonkers.
Im really really sad that mother! has had such a bad reception.
I feel like there is no way for me to say this without sounding arrogant :( but it really feels just like barely anybody gets it.
I haven't seen one review that really hits the nail on the head regarding what is so special about this film. Its like reviewers keep talking about what isn't there and ignoring what is there, or becoming distracted by the hype, or distracted by the off screen romance.
Aronofsky has created a film that achieves something i don't think any other film has ever done (I might be wrong).
An abridged retelling of the Biblical time line, where the entire setting has been changed into a home invasion format, With endless subtext that is relatable to our modern lives.
this film should be seen as an adaptation. Like if a new version of hamlet came out, accept if that version of hamlet was told in the format of a dance of the planets and some how managed to cover subtexts as varied as The artists relationship to the muse, to the rape of the natural world to the struggle of intimacy to the fall of human kind and beyond.
There are no biblical themes, in the movie. Thats like saying "The passion of the christ has biblical themes, biblical allegory and biblical imagery" The biblical time line is the plot, Home invasion flick is the format and everything else you can pick up or take away from the film is the subtext.
Aronofsky also manages to throw in his own theological ideas that somehow don't break the thread of the official biblical time line, but do get you thinking.
Yes this film is not an in-depth study of character or the nuanced human condition, but what it is and unbelievably ambitious and creative comic book / genre style attempt at the impossible, and it works.
I feel strongly that once the Hurrah! about this film dies down it will begin to become appreciated for that it really is.
please excuse my awful grammar :/
DA threw everything in Mother even the kitchen sink. Oh wait the sink actually breaks.
GET OFF MY SINK!!!
For being under the weather you sure do look like a sunny day.
I felt that the movie could have been much better. When you are using that much of metaphors, you get to a point where the movie is just trying too hard. The shots and the 24/7 focus on Jennifer's character is just annoying.
He's fucking her, so.
Soo.. you are asking for the movie to have been shot, directed in a way that made the viewing experience more... easy on the eyes??.. not sure being 'easy on the viewer' was ever the intention.. quite the opposite i believe
Perhaps an even more pressing analogy would be to refer to *the couple as Mother Earth and Father Sky (rather than "God"):*
because *Javier Bardem's archetype might be even more fundamental than merely the god of Abraham, but an earlier, even more primordial form of masculinity.*
He *might represent the paradigm shift when the male god was first worshipped, causing the female goddess (as Jennifer Lawrence) to be pushed aside within the human psyche to become a "lesser" presence.*
It takes a second to realize time is compressed and actions are not to be taken literaly, of course there is no god which is why Bardem is such a pushover.. When te mineral world retakes control the world returns to a new starting point..
I found "Mother!" to be a totally pretentious and wholly unpleasant nightmare. I would not sit through that mess again for cash money. A horrible film.
Jennifer Lawrence is a naturally gifted actress. I have never heard her utter even one single word which seemed false. Gifted. "Mother!" is NOT the fault of Ms. Lawrence.
I loved "Black Swan." Exquisite. Disturbing. Jekyll and Hyde. It just worked. I enjoyed "The Whale," mostly because pre-existing affection for Brendan Fraser provided the emotional heft to draw me into the story. I find Aronofsky's work uneven at best. Most of them are unpleasant ordeals. ("Requiem." Jesus.) "Black Swan" is the only one I really loved.
Truly the most beautiful cinema critic of all time, from your wisdom and knowledge to your amazingly wonderful style. sexy, beautiful, amazing thanks always for sharing these gifts w/us all ❤️💛💚🙏🏾
Am I alone in thinking it's kind of passive aggressive to applaud DA for his "humor" in this movie? I feel like it's a backhanded way of saying his movie shouldn't be respected, that's it on par with slapstick and not worthy of further interpretation than that in the future.
I think humor lends itself to a lot of interpretation. To say that humor is condescending can work in some instances, and it's dismissive in others. In this instance, I genuinely feel that the humor should be explored. Because that seems to be the strength here for me. If he decides to start exploring it, then perhaps I would have more respect for his work.
Like if you think Maggie is one of the best critics on TH-cam (who deserves way more subscribers) not because she's beautiful (which she is) but because she's smart, funny, insightful and clearly knows a lot about the art that is film.
Oh snap. Aphrodite is reviewing Gaia's film. Very Cool.
When are you doing IT ?
shitmandood and by "doing IT" we can assume you meant reviewing the movie IT as opposed to a carnal meaning.
What is this, Caddyshack or Meatballs?? I hope you're still a teenager.
shitmandood Just a little humor. I didn't realize you'd be offended so easily.
shitmandood you reference Caddyshack and Meatballs, ask me if I'm a teenager, yet you chose a public name of shitmandood. Irony is everywhere.
I find your humor tiresome, not offensive. You're failing at comment analysis too. You don't understand the alias, my shit's too deep for you I guess.
yeah, this movie is definitely not for me. doesn't peek my interest at all
You are absolutely delightful!
I enjoy your insight, but sometimes you have to tone down the analysis and just say the movie sucks balls and take it from there. This is one of those rare films where you should focus more on how something so abysmally horrible was even created rather than analyzing it like any other film. Mother! is truly one of a kind in how awful it is.
Lastly, while I agree with your take on Aronofsky overall, I think you not recognizing or mentioning The Wrestler, a guaranteed future classic and easily Aronofsky's most mature work, especially when you bring up emotion in his work, leaves a lot of questions.
This film was so upsetting.
Omg your the epitame of beauty and brains. Your girl goals♡
Blazer op I need someone like her in my life
Blazer op Correctly spelling all the words in your comment might help you attract intelligent women.
*you're--epitome*
took the words out of my mouth. Aronofsky is talented and very skilled; but most of his movies are more like vehicles to showcase how cool his visual style is.
especially requiem.
Aronovsky thinks he's deep and he just isn't, simple as that. The only movie I like from him is the wrestler. But this movie reaches way to far with little visuals or ambition.
review blade runner! please!!!
I second that!
Which version lol
anthony cheesman New one, bitch
anthony cheesman my fave is Ridley's cut
To me this movie is very hard to watch
Not super deep... true. Average person is much more basic... also true.
This probably have a spoiler... so i just pause on 02:10 and see u again..
kinda looks like Aubrey Plaza. interesting.
and though I doubt you're reading this, yes, I do actually pay attention to your content. I just have to comment on the beauty every chance I get. cant help it.
…. and then find out you're "tired or sick" while you're somehow still sitting there looking like a model. hmph.
You don't look tired or sick u look beautiful
just watched it yesterday. i thought the idea was brilliant but the execution was bad. if you're going to make a parable of the bible, you need to stay true to the source material. all of the bible references were thrown in there just for the sake of putting bible references in the movie but without any further interpretation of those biblical accounts.
i get that this was a retelling of the bible with mother nature thrown in the mix and gives us her perspective on how we destructive humans are but i thought it was a missed opportunity to go a bit deeper in to the other bible references and show the audience what the bible is trying to tell us.
The idea of the film is actually interesting and smart, but the execution was very poor in my opinion. The movie in general was a mess, i am sorry for the director, i actually remember that i liked the Black Swan, but his films are technically very hasty
Mother! was sadly very underwhelming and bland. It had such potential but fell flat at some point.
😎🙏💯
You are the hottest critic
never mind what she looks like, is she talking sense or nonsense? that is the real question...
Hmmm....(scratching self)...Scorpio.
Majority of females will always dislike Darren's movies because he highlights their brighter sides;P
This movie is just awful!!!
This movie wanted to be something it isn't. Like most of his crap. They just keep giving this guy money...the hipsters must love him. Derivative drivel.