Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It

[kihei]

[SPOIL]The whole movie is a criticism of humanity (more specifically Christianity) worshiping their religious god over worshiping mother nature/the earth...and instead constantly taking from/disrespecting the earth. The poet is a representation of "God" and the wife/"mother" is a representation of mother nature, with the house representing "earth". This was even further hinted at in the credits at the end, with the credit for "Him" being the only credited role that was properly capitalized (since you're supposed to always capitalize "God").

That quote from the scene at the end "I have nothing left to give you" is I believe taken verbatim from The Giving Tree. Once he's taken everything he can from her, the world is wiped clean and started new (with a new iteration of mother nature at the end).[/SPOIL]

I get not liking it, as it certainly went over the top/too hard especially in the final ~30-40 mins...but I think the main problem with the bad reviews it's getting is people went in expecting a horror/thriller, and that's not really what the movie was.

I think that theory is absolutely ludicrous, especially as Aronofsky has never claimed to be religious, but let's say, just for the ***** and giggles, that you are right. mother! is still a terrible movie.

 

[NyQuil]

It - 7.5/10

So wholesome. So many beautiful themes of friendship, grief, sticking together, growing up, loss of innocence. Take away Pennywise and it's still a great coming of age film.

 

[The Devil In I]

I think that theory is absolutely ludicrous, especially as Aronofsky has never claimed to be religious, but let's say, just for the ***** and giggles, that you are right. mother! is still a terrible movie.

Your review of it is fair enough, I found it lacking at times and then way over done towards the end, I'm just saying there was way more to it than just counting the horror movie references. To further prove the representation...

[SPOIL]
- Ed Harris shows up first - credited as "man"
- A strange wound on his back near his ribs is shown while he's sick over the toilet (taking a rib from man to create woman)
- Michelle Pfeiffer shows up next - credited as "woman"
- They're told to not enter the poets office (Eden) without him there
- They enter anyway and take "the forbidden fruit" (the crystal on his mantel) and break it
- The poet lashes out and bans them from the office
- man and woman's sons show up the next day, and one son kills the other (Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's sons, and Cain killed Abel)

and on and on and on, including a guy acting as a preacher spreading ashes on the foreheads of fans of the poet (Ash Wednesday), and the fans eating his first born son (receiving communion)
[/SPOIL]

It's 100% accurate.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Sunset Limited by Tommy Lee Jones (2011) - Based on a play and screenplay written by the renowned author Cormac McCarthy - No Country for Old Men, The Road, Blood Meridian, All the Pretty Horses - this simple movie concerns two men (Black and White, played by Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones respectively) discussing in Black's meager apartment after he saves White from killing himself at a train station. Black, a Christian and convict tries to convince White, an atheist and a highly-educated man not to kill himself. As a fan of one-set art, I think the atmosphere within this one was lacking and that perhaps in the hands of a more seasoned or talented director, the payoff of this movie could have been tremendous. It felt overly hammy at times and the performance were too theatrical and for my taste despite relatively strong performance by both. The force of this movie lays particularly into McCarthy's strong writing of the two characters. At times almost Tarantinoesque in it's style - Black's words, humor and delivery are sometimes reminiscent of Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction - the depth and argumentative streak of the dialogue ables to story to stay engaging and fascinating while being approched in a strong manner by the two actors. As Black tries to convince White not to kill himself - and perhaps turn him unto God - he makes a valiant and inspired attempt through the use of the Bible and common sense to convince White - who is at times put on his heels by Black's simple but effective reasoning and humanity - and despite whatever belief you may have or your philosophical thoughts on suicide, you feel a strong sense of kinship with Black and hope for him to convince the more articulate White to reverse his decision. Essentially, there is no reason to watch this movie outside of the written word (and the performances, to a certain extent) but the written word is reason enough to elevate this film into a worthwhile and borderline strong one. The ending is powerful as well, especially when you realize how White's education and eloquence essentially dooms him beyond saving and how articulateness can hold back someone from achieving what they know is right. I've always found the thought rather tragic.

 

[OzzyFan]

Mother!
3.5 out of 4stars

I'll admit I loved it, loved how it did what it did and what it said with it's actions. That said, understandably the last 20-30minutes is a complete mind ****.

I am gonna sleep on it more to give it a broader review, but I don't know how anyone can give this movie less than a 5 out of 10 while truly understanding or interpreting it in a logical way.

I think that theory is absolutely ludicrous, especially as Aronofsky has never claimed to be religious, but let's say, just for the ***** and giggles, that you are right. mother! is still a terrible movie.

Your review of it is fair enough, I found it lacking at times and then way over done towards the end, I'm just saying there was way more to it than just counting the horror movie references. To further prove the representation...

[SPOIL]
- Ed Harris shows up first - credited as "man"
- A strange wound on his back near his ribs is shown while he's sick over the toilet (taking a rib from man to create woman)
- Michelle Pfeiffer shows up next - credited as "woman"
- They're told to not enter the poets office (Eden) without him there
- They enter anyway and take "the forbidden fruit" (the crystal on his mantel) and break it
- The poet lashes out and bans them from the office
- man and woman's sons show up the next day, and one son kills the other (Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's sons, and Cain killed Abel)

and on and on and on, including a guy acting as a preacher spreading ashes on the foreheads of fans of the poet (Ash Wednesday), and the fans eating his first born son (receiving communion)
[/SPOIL]

It's 100% accurate.

While I still can't fathom kihei's lowness and hating on the movie, I think it does want it wants in a smart, fun, and impacting way. Aronofsky deserves props for what he accomplished. The religious symbolism is endless and the other connected "half"(won't spoil it) is represented perfectly, as both of their interactions with "3rd party". It works on so many levels. Not to mention, if you knew nothing of the metaphors or symbolism in this movie, it does work well enough as a psychological drama, I don't know how anyone could argue against that with a solid case of reasoning. I mean, this is the type of movie you could write a 10pg essay on and not get bored with, especially if you have any sort of interest in the subject matter pieces.

 

[The Devil In I]

Mother!
3.5 out of 4stars

I'll admit I loved it, loved how it did what it did and what it said with it's actions. That said, understandably the last 20-30minutes is a complete mind ****.

I am gonna sleep on it more to give it a broader review, but I don't know how anyone can give this movie less than a 5 out of 10 while truly understanding or interpreting it in a logical way.





While I still can't fathom kihei's lowness and hating on the movie, I think it does want it wants in a smart, fun, and impacting way. Aronofsky deserves props for what he accomplished. The religious symbolism is endless and the other connected "half"(won't spoil it) is represented perfectly, as both of their interactions with "3rd party". It works on so many levels. Not to mention, if you knew nothing of the metaphors or symbolism in this movie, it does work well enough as a psychological drama, I don't know how anyone could argue against that with a solid case of reasoning. I mean, this is the type of movie you could write a 10pg essay on and not get bored with, especially if you have any sort of interest in the subject matter pieces.

Yea personally I'd give it like a 6.5 because I liked the symbolism and the movie overall, but it did drag for a bit in the middle and I think the last 20-25 minutes (specifically her getting beaten and stomped) kinda pushed the point to absurdity. That image towards the end plus setting viewers up to expect a horror...I can understand the negative reactions, though.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I think that theory is absolutely ludicrous, especially as Aronofsky has never claimed to be religious, but let's say, just for the ***** and giggles, that you are right. mother! is still a terrible movie.

That's pretty much how I interpreted it as well. I actually thought at one point (the "communion") that the religious imagery was almost too obvious. Javier Bardem has that line about "We need to forgive them, they didn't mean it' and I'm like "it's clear enough already." I believe there have been cast interviews on TV, etc. where Devil's summation is validated as well, not that it really needs the support.

And I don't think Aronofsky not being religious has any bearing on that whatsoever, especially if it's more of a condemnation of Christianity (and religion in general). I mean, the dude freaking made Noah, clearly he has more than a passing interest in Christian studies.

I can certainly get not liking it, even if some of the criticisms relate to surface-level plot criticisms, like [spoil]you're not going to get a rich history of character development for Jennifer Lawrence's character, as she's literally made into being at the start of the film. She has no history. And Javier Bardem being an ass to her is, again, kind of the point. This is a movie where he writes a poem, and within minutes people all over the world have read it and are at his house -- clearly it does not, nor does it strive to, exist in what we call "reality"[/spoil] but to dismiss the clearly obvious religious symbolism, especially from a cinematic set of eyes as experienced as yours, is kind of baffling.

 

[syz]

Aronofsky's interviews on the matter leave little to the imagination, if for whatever reason the movie on its own hasn't already done that for you. He does not do subtlety well.

It's a bunch of blatant and ultimately pointless biblical references with some good performances in it.

 

[SeidoN]

mother is one of those films that is too on the nose with its allegory and ends up not being interesting in its own right

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Aronofsky's interviews on the matter leave little to the imagination, if for whatever reason the movie on its own hasn't already done that for you. He does not do subtlety well.

It's a bunch of blatant and ultimately pointless biblical references with some good performances in it.

Yeah I'd rather he not give that interview. The Fountain is much more ambiguous and it's a better film for it. I have no problem with Aronofsky making challenging, crazy films like mother! but he should embrace his inner Lynch or Kubrick and let the audience come up with their own interpretations.

 

[OzzyFan]

Yea personally I'd give it like a 6.5 because I liked the symbolism and the movie overall, but it did drag for a bit in the middle and I think the last 20-25 minutes (specifically her getting beaten and stomped) kinda pushed the point to absurdity. That image towards the end plus setting viewers up to expect a horror...I can understand the negative reactions, though.

That ending was exactly what he wanted though, something absurd and over the top to show the extremes of each "part" of the puzzle from his pov...

[SPOIL]

=Humanity is a selfish race of people that is ignorant to the damage it does to "mother earth" and a benevolent God.
=A benevolent God cares more about the people he made than the Earth/Planet/World he has.
=Mother nature is dying because it has been abused and beaten and resculpted by humanity ("and" because God had done nothing to step in and help "it").

And there was countless more examples of xtianity/xtian people in the movie that you didn't state, including:

=The beginning of Bardem/God working/"making the earth in 7 days"
=Ed Harris is old/dying and "finally" a big fan/seeking God
=Humanity turned companionship(Eve for Adam) into a lust driven relationship
=All the sinning
=Inner religion wars/protestants vs catholics/sects vs sects (ending)
=Wiig/a bible writer-word spreader tainting a benevolent God's word into violence.
=The wake and wanting God to give them symbols, peace, and hope that the dead live on some how
=All the Bardem benevolent God-isms (longing for humans to love and need and want him, the endlessly helping people that disrespect him, "all" are invited into his "house", etc)

[/SPOIL]

 

[kihei]

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) Directed by Matthew Vaughn 4A

The Kingsmen, what is left of them, with the help of their American cousins The Statesmen, save the world from evil Poppy (Julianne Moore) and her dastardly plan to legalize all drugs by infecting millions. This is not so much a movie as a clever marketing ploy. In just its first sequel, the producers are already looking to the future by trying to broaden the franchise to keep matters from becoming stale and predictable. So the present movie is less British, less cheeky but more bloated and more sentimental than the original. Already, old characters are exiting while new ones are coming on board. [spoil]there is a Mark Strong for Halle Berry trade in the works that I wouldn't make[/spoil] In other respects, the movie does aim to please by trying to give the audience more of what seemed to work best in the first one; in other words, more semi-comic action sequences--to the point that the movie overdoes the CGI effects which became tedious after a while. Julianne Moore makes a peppy Poppy but she is never much of a threat as a villain. To sum it up, people who liked the first one will probably like this one, just not as much.

 

[kihei]

....but to dismiss the clearly obvious religious symbolism, especially from a cinematic set of eyes as experienced as yours, is kind of baffling.

The symbolism was something I noticed (how could one not?) and I should have made mention of the religious referemces in my review, but, no, I wasn't ticking off specific biblical references in my head which I wouldn't have been able to do except for the most obvious ones anyway. The symbolism just kind of washed over me while I watched the film, part of the whole experience, and mixed in with all the other unpleasantness going on in the movie. I didn't see it as a big deal. I thought it was just another factor that added to the messy awfulness of the movie as well as to its incoherence. At that point, I hadn't read Aronofsky's interviews and was quite surprised that he made it seem such a big deal, peddling the particular line about the deeper meaning of his film. Though I was surprised a good agnostic like him would feel so inclined, I still found his point ludicrous. It's not a question of what he intends or of an allegory being there or not being there--it's a question of how well it works. And I think the whole movie fails miserably. Injecting a theory and lots of symbolism, religious or otherwise, into a film is something that a director like Alejandro Jodorowsky does all the time in his films, El Topo being one the most obvious example among many. Some people love his movies but I have always found Jodorowsky works were, with maybe one recent exception (The Dance of Reality), self indulgent messes. Obviously there are other directors as well, Ken Russell comes immediately to mind. His movies usually don't work either. I tend not to have much patience with these guys. In this particular case, I agree entirely with The New Yorker's critic, Richard Brody who wrote: “Mother!” isn’t an allegory except by directorial decree." Yapping on Darren's part doesn't make it so. Just because Aronofsky thinks that's what he has accomplished does not necessarily a good allegory make much less a good movie.

 

[Shareefruck]

Have any of you film festival guys seen Louis CK's movie, yet? Hearing some strange polarization about that one. Just found out it existed and I'm curious now.

 

[nameless1]

Have any of you film festival guys seen Louis CK's movie, yet? Hearing some strange polarization about that one. Just found out it existed and I'm curious now.

It is not at VIFF. I also do not know about it, until you mention it.

 

[kihei]

Have any of you film festival guys seen Louis CK's movie, yet? Hearing some strange polarization about that one. Just found out it existed and I'm curious now.

I didn't hear anything about it at the Festival, except that a lot of people wanted to see it. Just glancing at Rotten Tomatoes, it has a 59% critics' rating and a 100% audience approval rating. So, yeah, definitely polarizing.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

In this particular case, I agree entirely with The New Yorker's critic, Richard Brody who wrote: “Mother!†isn’t an allegory except by directorial decree." Yapping on Darren's part doesn't make it so. Just because Aronofsky thinks that's what he has accomplished does not necessarily a good allegory make much less a good movie.

Yeah, that's totally fair. I think I just misinterpreted your labeling of The Devil and I's recapitulation as "ludicrous" to mean "there's no way that could be true" instead of, "that's just ridiculous on the director's part." The latter is much more understandable.

 

[BonMorrison]

Have any of you film festival guys seen Louis CK's movie, yet? Hearing some strange polarization about that one. Just found out it existed and I'm curious now.

It was polarizing at TIFF for a couple reasons. The big one being how tone deaf the content of the film is in relation to Louis' actual real life controversy in regards to sexual abuse allegations. Also the movie isn't supposed to be that well made anyways.

 

[silverfish]

The Big Sick: 7.5/10

Pretty much an Apatow film at its finest. Could really see the influences of him not directing or writing much of this. Keeping it just under two-hours was also a blessing in disguise for this one, something that Apatow fails at. Though, as someone who went to the same high school as Apatow, I know how hard it is to kick the habit of including 'bull**** filler' in the papers you write

Hunter and Romano were amazing in this.

 

[kihei]

Battle of the Sexes (2017) Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris 5A

In 1973, the tennis exhibition match between Vegas hustler and chauvinist pig Bobby Riggs and women's tennis icon and then world's #1 Billy Jean King was a very big deal. Battle of the Sexes gets the broad strokes of the story right, but not without taking the usual Hollywood liberties. Riggs' (Steve Carell) character is softened into a charming rogue who was just out to hustle everybody--the virulence of his sexism toned down to almost zero. However, King, very well played by Emma Stone, comes across as the tough, complex, conflicted person that she was. Battle of the Sexes tries to cover a whole bunch of topics besides the big match: the quest for equal prize money for men and women; the creation of the Women's Tennis Association; King's first lesbian affair; and the match itself on which more seemed riding than just a tennis result. Filmed at some distance with close ups of the principal actors used only for reaction shots after points are over, the actual match is quite tepid and underwhelming and looks like it is being played on a smaller than regulation-size court; it all adds up to just another instance of how tennis doesn't work well at the movies. Whoever is playing King on court, though, has got her aggressive playing style down perfectly, lots of sliced backhands and then quickly to the net. Battle of the Sexes reflects a fairly recent trend in Hollywood toward making movies for older age groups with broad gender appeal for both sexes. I doubt this movie will have much luck attracting a younger audience, though Stone might help a little on that score.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Have any of you film festival guys seen Louis CK's movie, yet? Hearing some strange polarization about that one. Just found out it existed and I'm curious now.

I've been hearing about it for a while. Can't wait for it to come out. I 100% trust C.K.'s artistic sensibilities, especially as an auteur.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It was polarizing at TIFF for a couple reasons. The big one being how tone deaf the content of the film is in relation to Louis' actual real life controversy in regards to sexual abuse allegations. Also the movie isn't supposed to be that well made anyways.

Wouldn't be surprised to know that it was a big motivation for him to make the film instead of being tone-deaf. C.K. appears to be too aware of himself as a person.

 

[Shareefruck]

Is it being considered tone deaf because it ignores the allegations altogether and just treats the same accusations as a subject of interest removed from his personal experiences, or something (in the movie, Malkovich is the deviant and Louis CK is the one who is at odds with him, correct)?

I read a few reviews and they sounded very strangely political and based on partisan offense, so I'm a bit skeptical about their trustworthiness.

 

[BonMorrison]

^I mean nothing really ever seems to offend you anyways so you probably won’t take any issues with it outside of if it’s well written or not.

I find it to be the opposite tbh. I feel like he’s getting less self aware and more tone deaf as the years go on.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm mostly just trying to figure out if it's the conclusions that he draws in the movie that people are viewing as offensive/misguided or if it's simply the context of him tackling the subject when he's being accused of the same thing. I wouldn't have a problem with the latter, especially if he considers himself innocent of them, whereas the former would actually affect how admirable it is as a movie.

Like... what are people actually upset about with it? What does him being tone deaf actually refer to?