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

[guitarsingerguy]

It does help, but I disagree with the writer that all of this was "obvious." I do a good deal of Bible study and it took quite a while for me to catch on. Never mind the fact that the ads sold this as some sort of home invasion flick. If I had read spoilers first it would have been helpful, but walking in mostly blind, I walked out confused and disappointed.

IDK, I think as soon as you figure out what it is, then yes, it is fairly obvious. So to anyone that has read up on the fact that this is biblical, it's fairly self explanatory. Now just going in having seen nothing more than the marketing materials, I can see where that would possibly be confusing and take some time to wrap your head around what's going on. This is one of those rare times when knowing some spoilers is actually really beneficial.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

I really want to see this movie based on all the negative press and the audience score. Sounds intriguing to say the least.

Both of those things are absolutely unwarranted. This absolutely doesn't deserve an F score, and any time biblical themes are brought up without advance notice always seem to garner negative press. Although honestly...I didn't expect it with this film.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

It probably won't be Disaster Artist good.

That movie is gonna be friggin' amazing.

 

[Closerframe]

Some who say this is one of the worst movies they’ve ever seen are comparing this to what exactly? The anger towards the film seems somewhat intentional from Aronofsky given the subject matter and the misleading marketing was also intentional because he wanted this to be as much of a mystery as possible which is funny because some complained this looked like just Rosemary’s Baby or Last House on the Left. I praise Aronofsky and Paramount for their bravery.

 

[harlequinade]

Some who say this is one of the worst movies they’ve ever seen are comparing this to what exactly? The anger towards the film seems somewhat intentional from Aronofsky given the subject matter and the misleading marketing was also intentional because he wanted this to be as much of a mystery as possible which is funny because some complained this looked like just Rosemary’s Baby or Last House on the Left. I praise Aronofsky and Paramount for their bravery.

I think people feel ripped off They wanted to see a horror film and here's Darren and

Spoiler

his bible study on acid

 

[Teelie]

Make a movie intentionally mismarketed and it is brave? If you have to intentionally mismarket a movie to get an audience this is almost always going to be the end result. People will hate it and you for lying to them about what they went to see.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Yeah, but at the end of the day, I wonder who made the marketing decisions? Was it Aranofsky or Paramount because they HAD to know some people were gonna be pissed.

 

[harlequinade]

I don't think it was false marketing. How else could they do trailers? False marketing was for Suicide Squad when it featured things not in the movie. This was just....spoiler-free marketing

 

[guitarsingerguy]

I don't think it was false marketing. How else could they do trailers? False marketing was for Suicide Squad when it featured things not in the movie. This was just....spoiler-free marketing

It was VERY misleading. They did everything they could to make it seem like a horror film.

 

[scarlet-witch]

You're right about the last bits. It's like I dropped acid partway, nothing made sense. I can understand symbolism and all that, but it was done so crazily it was too hard to follow.

I feel like in theory I should've liked that sequence for bringing all those different "groups" so to speak together but damn. That was a mess.

 

[harlequinade]

It was VERY misleading. They did everything they could to make it seem like a horror film.

And what is it? A romantic comedy? I don't understand the misleading argument.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

And what is it? A romantic comedy? I don't understand the misleading argument.

I sure wouldn't label it a horror flick, or at least not the type of horror flick they tried to lead you to believe it was. Clearly a significant amount of people agree, not just on the boards but IRL as well.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/09/17/box-office-as-mother-bombs-why-stars-like-jennifer-lawrence-must-be-allowed-to-fail/#7ec3732a21c8

As much as folks would like to argue that the film’s failure is some kind of sign Lawrence is no longer a movie star, a movie like mother! is exactly the kind of thing on which you want big movie stars to spend their capital. Moreover, we should note that the film’s poor reception will not matter one bit to Javier Bardem, any more than Legend, The Drop and Child 44 winged Thomas Hardy’s would-be star power or the financial failures of Steve Jobs, The Light Between the Oceans and Song to Song did any damage to Michael Fassbender’s ability to get major lead roles.

We may be entering Lawrence’s “In spite of everything you've done for them, eventually, they will hate you.” phase that greets almost every female Hollywood star. It was inevitable from the moment she became the current “It Girl” in late 2012 that eventually the backlash would ferment and folks would turn on her. This is the kind of crap that male movie stars like Daniel Craig, Ryan Gosling, Matthew McConaughey or Channing Tatum don’t have to worry about no matter how many flops they anchor. They aren’t classified in a “flavor of the month” fashion and there will always be a large supply of leading/supporting roles in the white male-dominated industry.

I wish mother! had been embraced by the masses, but I am not surprised it wasn’t. The future cult classic has the honor of being the best movie ever to snag an “F” Cinemascore grade, all due respect to Killing Them Softly and Bug. If Julia Roberts can survive Mary Reilly (another intimate horror drama where the lead actress’s superb turn dominates nearly every frame of the film), then Lawrence can weather mother! IfA you’d rather Lawrence makes movies like Red Sparrow, then you damn well better see Red Sparrow in theaters next year. But mother! is the kind of bold artistic gambit that our biggest movie stars should making. Otherwise, what’s the point of being a movie star?

 

[harlequinade]

I sure wouldn't label it a horror flick, or at least not the type of horror flick they tried to lead you to believe it was. Clearly a significant amount of people agree, not just on the boards but IRL as well.

I'm just saying it wasn't far off. It didn't feature the scenes that weren't in the movie. It didn't sell the film as something light-hearted and fun. What WB did with Suicide Squad marketing was far more dishonest.

 

[squeekness]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/09/17/box-office-as-mother-bombs-why-stars-like-jennifer-lawrence-must-be-allowed-to-fail/#7ec3732a21c8

See, I wouldn't blame the actors for the movie's flaws. Everyone in it was fine for what they were doing, it's more like it was too hard to fathom what you were watching without knowing ahead of time what it really was.

 

[Kane52630]

Man, the media is really going after this with their attack pieces... you'd think it this movie was actually bad like Transformers or the Emoji Movie.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

See, I wouldn't blame the actors for the movie's flaws. Everyone in it was fine for what they were doing, it's more like it was too hard to fathom what you were watching without knowing ahead of time what it really was.

I haven't seen the movie so I wouldn't comment on it's contents and the performances from the leads and associates but I would give major props to JLaw and Paramount for their involvement in this project. From what I've read online it seems that JLaw took a role that other mainstream actresses i.e top Hollywood actresses in their prime wouldn't even touch or think about doing. She physically put herself through a lot of trouble while filming (she legit tore her diaphragm during shooting). She totally committed herself to the cause. I've got a huge respect for JLaw for following through with the project and giving it her all.

Plus it's extremely rare to see a major studio bankroll a bold, unconventional, shocking, disturbing, repulsive (this is what I've seen mother! being described as) movie like this. I think a big six studio like Paramount deserves praise for financing a movie like this.

Also the point you're making about the confusing nature of the movie has come up a lot so you're definitely not alone in this. If you see the interviews and press junkets, you'll see this is exactly what Aronofsky wanted, so all of this was intentional. Paramount and Aronofsky made it a point not to reveal much during the lead up to the movie. They really pushed the secretive marketing campaign by keeping the audience in the dark with regards to the plot points/story.

 

[Closerframe]

Make a movie intentionally mismarketed and it is brave? If you have to intentionally mismarket a movie to get an audience this is almost always going to be the end result. People will hate it and you for lying to them about what they went to see.

I didn’t say nor imply the marketing decision was brave, I said it was brave for the direct and studio to give such a film a wide release. And from what I saw in the trailers, the only thing they hit you over the head with is you’ll never want to open the door again for a stranger or you’ll remember where you were the first time you saw the film, how exactly is this misrepresenting the movie collectively? It’s similar to The Witch and It Comes at Night releases which many demanded their money back because they went in expecting some Blair Witch Project style film but they got a slow burn horror film in general. There was no misdirection; people just went in with different expectations based on how they perceived the marketing material. The film should have received a digital release or a Netflix release because most American audiences like to have their plots spoon feed to them—especially when it comes to horror films.

 

[Snakewise]

Man, the media is really going after this with their attack pieces... you'd think it this movie was actually bad like Transformers or the Emoji Movie.

There's a reason I don't put much stock in Cinemascore.

 

[Kane52630]

Neither do I.

 

[Teelie]

Devolving into "spoon fed audiences" to defend a movie that clearly the general public has no interest in being misled to see makes them simpletons is a classic move of the cinema snob mentality.

See it did not fail because it is brave for misleading what it was, because it was brave for being overly complicated and symbolic to the point the audience did not realize what was going on (always a sign of high cinema). It did not fail because religious movies in general fail at the box office. No it failed because the audience was too stupid to see the brilliance and aspirational of what they just saw.

Yep. When a movie goes too experimental and needs to be marketed as something else, it is always those simple minded audience members who are to blame.

 

[Mad Ones]

All this drama makes me want to see the movie more.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[squeekness]

All this drama makes me want to see the movie more.

Prepare to be bewildered.

 

[Teelie]

I want to see it, just not in the theater.