Mother!

2017

Drama / Horror / Mystery

200
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 68%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 50%
IMDb Rating 6.7 10 117024

Synopsis


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 648,016 times
December 07, 2017 at 09:18 AM

Cast

Domhnall Gleeson as Oldest Son
Kristen Wiig as Herald
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
879.32 MB
1280*534
English
R
23.976 fps
2hr 1 min
P/S 57 / 566
1.83 GB
1920*800
English
R
23.976 fps
2hr 1 min
P/S 82 / 960

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by jdavidpayne 1 / 10

a film that fails on multiple levels

The principle rule of allegory is that it must function on two levels - the plain narrative, what the audience sees or reads, and the metaphorical, the level beyond the seen or read, usually conveying a deeper meaning. An allegory which fails as a narrative is a morality play; an allegory that fails on the metaphorical level is a nonsensical tale.

mother! fails on both levels, and the result is a confusing mess as likely to bore as it is to disgust.

The script is stark, but as opposed to offering up a Hemingway-esque brevity and punch, it instead descends to the level of drive by dialogue, actors delivering short statements with blank expressions and then leaving the room they're in. Granted, the actors only had Aronofsky's script to work with, and he's on record as saying it only took five days to write, which is visible in every scene. An undergrad brags about finishing their paper the night before it's due; a screenwriter should not laud a similar process for his film.

The only film that comes close to the delivery in mother! is The Room, which may very well be the superior of the two. And if you told me that Bardem, normally a captivating actor, had modeled his performance of Him on Wiseau's Johnny, I would readily believe you.

In fact, the only actor who brings any life to this joyless epic is Pfeiffer, whose facial expressions and tone elevate her sniping dialogue far above the written quality. She's also the only one who brings any passion to her role, as Lawrence seems to have been reduced to two speeds - blank expression and monotone speech, or screaming so hard she cracks a rib. All granularity seen in her previous performances is gone here.

The characters portrayed by normally fine actors are so small, so one dimensional, one barely cares about them as people, let alone as stand ins for something larger than themselves. I could muster neither sympathy nor even vague interest in the foibles and woes of this couple, nor their never-ending torrent of house guests. (Judging by the laughs in the theater, I wasn't the only one.) Their tragedies in the final third were grating, not because they were disgusting, or shocking, but because I was never interested in them to begin with.

The setting is a perfect mirror to Lawrence's acting, if not her character. The film takes places in a rustic, half finished house. As before with the script, any attempt at a spare beauty is never realized, and the end result looks like the set designers didn't want to spend too much time on something they knew would literally be ripped apart in the final act. The house is our only setting in this film, so its lack of visual interest is a massive detriment.

The cinematography is likewise lackluster, with nothing special to either set it apart or condemn it. It is filmed adequately. The story and performances were clearly meant to be the jewel here, a situation analogous to purchasing a workable frame only to enshrine pages from the 1988 Albuquerque phone book therein.

And since I brought up analogy, the elephant in the room, the roughshod Biblical allegory. Said allegory falls flat on its face as soon as its analyzed in the slightest. Lawrence is Aronofsky's self insertion character (in the style of bad fan fiction) to the Christian canon, a Gaia character who forms an unbalanced duality with Him, the writer's presentation of the Christian God.

Him is never very godlike, and his standing as "God" is simply revealed to us at the end, a classic example of telling and not showing. While observant viewers may be able to deduce his role from context earlier in the film, he is never characterized in a way that makes his stated role fit his perceived role. An allegory is not proclaiming a character to be other than they have been observed by way of a brief statement at the end.

The titular mother, the self insertion Gaia character, has a similar problem - she demonstrates none of the qualities common to portrayals of Mother Earth figures in fiction. Instead, she is aloof, credulous, and dense. If the point intended to be made was Aronofsky's self-proclaimed howl about the treatment of the planet, perhaps he should have created a Mother Earth figure that was remotely sympathetic, or relatable. What we have instead is a distant robot whose demise was met with yawns.

The revelation, easily predicted from the first scene, that this is a cycle these characters have been locked in since time immemorial, fails to shock or elicit a reaction, unless one counts exasperation. It also drives the allegory firmly off the rails, moving our underlying mythology from a Christian creation and eschatology to something more Eastern, with reality a cyclical illusion.

There was an opportunity here for a valid story to be told on multiple levels. We live in an era of man made climate change and contemporary Christianity is ripe for criticism. A more skilled writer and director could have pulled off a tale that would be as heartbreaking as it was true. And perhaps Aronofsky could have done that, had he taken his time and revised even the slightest bit. (However, as this is his second failure in a row that deals with Biblical themes, perhaps not.)

What we are treated to instead is the cinematic equivalent of soda crackers and a brief lecture by an inarticulate first year undergrad about religion and environmentalism. I wish I could end this with the famous quotation from King Lear, but it's not entirely accurate. We were only given the idea of sound and fury, not the genuine article. This film is the shadow of a shadow, and in that, at least, it does signify nothing.

Reviewed by donobome 1 / 10

Worst Movie Ever

I don't have the strength to write everything that is bad about this movie. What's worse than the movie itself, and what made me open an account just so I can take the time to type this, is anybody who gives this movie more than one star...particularly those inferring that somehow you're not intellectual if you didn't like it. If you're the type of person who likes to look at a drawing that a 2 year created, perhaps consisting only of a poorly drawn circle, and somehow finds some hidden, deep meanings from that, then by all means, this movie is for you. Make it a religious circle to really make it interesting. Of the 1% of the people who feel this movie isn't the worst ever created, I figure ½ of them are trying to make it appear that they're smarter than everybody else, ¼ of them are internet trolls just trying to stir things up, 1/8 are family and friends of the director and actors, 1/16 are using some serious opioids and the last 1/16th are religious fanatics. I really hope that adds up to 100% because, well, I guess I'm just not that smart. Can one of you 10 star people please check my arithmetic?

Reviewed by Sam Panico 4 / 10

Hilarious!

Know someone who said that mother! was a movie that he warned people against seeing because of its subject matter and wondered if it should even be made. And then, I know people who fell in love with the film, lavishing it with praise. Still, others were shocked by its violence or upset by its biblical imagery. Me? I thought it was pretty funny.

After 2014's Noah, Aronofsky was working on a children's film (!) when he came up with the idea for this film. During that process, he came up with the idea for this film, writing the screenplay in 5 days. He claims that the film is "a psychological freak-out. You shouldn't over-explain it." But that doesn't mean that people didn't fall all over themselves trying to!

Star Jennifer Lawrence - also Aronofsky's muse during filming - Lawrence claimed that the film as an allegory that "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."

Sure. That works.

Or it could be about the environment and how we're killing it.

Or it could be about what it's like to be a creator and see your work destroyed.

Or it could be a cover version of Rosemary's Baby that gets way too out of control.

Or you could see it like I did, a movie that somehow got into the hearts and minds of the movie intelligentsia and demanded an explanation when you can see that it wears its narrative beats and allegories on its bloody sleeve. At one point - spoilers if you made it this far - I said, once the baby is born, that's the end of the Old Testament and there will be a break in the action and then they'll start eating the baby like it's Holy Communion. I'm certain that folks were really upset by this scene (my used copy from Family Video has a WARNING - NO RENTAL UNDER 18 sticker), but it's almost like a punchline. Or I'm insane. Probably.

But then why is Ed Harris a doctor? Why do we spend so much time in the laundry room? Why do vaginal openings show up in Ed's back (yes, he's Adam and that could be where his rib was taken from, I get it, I get it) and the floor? Oh the questions mother! will make you ask and immediately regret for putting any thought behind a movie which had to have been a piss take.

This is a movie that wants to be an allegory and then wants to be a narrative film. Like - why does 911 answer the phone like this is in the real world when we've already accepted that mother is Mother Nature? And why does God need a starship (sorry, I wanted to get a Star Trek V: The Final Frontier reference into this).

What's with that yellow water? Oh, that's just a reference to Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper. Of course. We all knew that.

While the film had generally positive responses from critics, it got a cinema score of an F*, which suggests that the film goes out of its way to upset audiences. When confronted by these numbers - and diminishing box office returns - Aronofsky blamed moviegoers' rejection of science, saying, "You have other people who basically believe in the power of an iPhone that they can communicate to 35 million people in a blink of an eye, yet they don't believe in science in other ways. We wanted to make a punk movie and come at you. And the reason I wanted to come is because I was very sad and I had a lot of anguish and I wanted to express it."

Incredibly, IMDB reports that Paramount canceled the upcoming Friday the 13th film in order to move ahead with this film. I have no idea why both of those movies couldn't exist in the same universe - other than the fact that this film was originally due to come out on October 13.

I love that the director wrote a letter to audiences before the film came out. With phrases like "From this primordial soup of angst and helplessness, I woke up one morning and this movie poured out of me like a fever dream" and "I can't fully pinpoint where this film all came from. Some came from the headlines we face every second of every day, some came from the endless buzzing of notifications on our smartphones, some came from living through the blackout of Hurricane Sandy in downtown Manhattan, some came from my heart, some from my gut. Collectively it's a recipe I won't ever be able to reproduce, but I do know this serving is best drunk as a single dose in a shot glass. Knock it back. Salute!" this letter is full of as much pretension as the film and made me giggle just as hard.

Has there ever been a film that equates the Great Flood with an improperly braced sink and the struggle of home repair? No. There sure hasn't, up until now.

In case you didn't get that Javier Bardem was God when he says, "I am I" and that the end of the world was what we saw at the end by Patti Smith singing The End of the World, well, then now you do.

This is the kind of movie that people will rent on Netflix and tell all of their friends not to watch. Or they'll be shocked. Or they'll fall asleep (the last ten minutes of this film were a Bataan death march of me battling against ennui and boredom). Is it the most shocking film ever, one that sends millennials crying into their blogs? Dude. In a world where A Serbian Film, The Man Behind the Sun and Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom exist - any number of grindhouse faves like Dr. Butcher, M.D., The New York Ripper and Cannibal Holocaust fit the bill - this film is a trifle. I just love that we're insulated ourselves from culture and art attacking us that we can be upset by such a glancing blow.

Should you watch it? Man, don't ask me what to do. Decide for yourself.

Read more IMDb reviews

55 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment