|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 28, 2018 20:00:12 GMT
I'm not going to call MOTHER! a bad movie just for offending me as a Christian, but I am going to call it a disappointing (yet good) movie for another reason. You see, the first 2 acts show a kind of horror story that we don't see very often. There's not a supernatural villain or something like that. The horror comes from the desperation caused by invasive and inconsiderate people. It's uncomfortable to watch and their unpredictable behavior generates suspense. The movie could've been as good as BLACK SWAN if it had followed that path (Darren Aronofsky's directing and Jennifer Lawrence and Michelle Pfeiffer's performances are great)... but no. It revealed itself as a religious allegory. The 3rd act is overall well-made, but it doesn't really fit with the rest. The minimalism is replaced with epic satire. The focus on interactions between characters switches to loud and exagerated events. 8/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog (in English, in Spanish or in Italian). |
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Feb 28, 2018 20:04:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ban on Feb 28, 2018 21:33:17 GMT
7/10. Self-important and slightly pretentious, but it's entertaining in how completely ridiculous it slowly becomes. It's also very well-made with some great performances, and a strong sense of atmosphere in the first half. I give it a thumbs up.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 28, 2018 21:55:40 GMT
7/10. Self-important and slightly pretentious, but it's entertaining in how completely ridiculous it slowly becomes. It's also very well-made with some great performances, and a strong sense of atmosphere in the first half. I give it a thumbs up. Aronofsky has noted with some amusement that the only audiences who got the humor were the British. The friend I saw it with recognized the escalating absurdity, though, and was chuckling quite a lot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2018 0:27:21 GMT
I'm not going to call MOTHER! a bad movie just for offending me as a Christian, but I am going to call it a disappointing (yet good) movie for another reason. You see, the first 2 acts show a kind of horror story that we don't see very often. There's not a supernatural villain or something like that. The horror comes from the desperation caused by invasive and inconsiderate people. It's uncomfortable to watch and their unpredictable behavior generates suspense. The movie could've been as good as BLACK SWAN if it had followed that path (Darren Aronofsky's directing and Jennifer Lawrence and Michelle Pfeiffer's performances are great)... but no. It revealed itself as a religious allegory. The 3rd act is overall well-made, but it doesn't really fit with the rest. The minimalism is replaced with epic satire. The focus on interactions between characters switches to loud and exagerated events. 8/10 Can't be that disappointing if you rated it 8/10. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 1, 2018 1:37:04 GMT
i pretty much agree with what you write (OP) but I would rate it 6/10. for the very same reasons you state though. i was quite excited about the movie till about a half of its running time. had it stayed on that path i can see myself giving it an 8 easy. i did like the acting a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 1, 2018 20:37:48 GMT
Aronofsky has noted with some amusement that the only audiences who got the humor were the British. The friend I saw it with recognized the escalating absurdity, though, and was chuckling quite a lot. I'm Chilean and I got the humor. Can't be that disappointing if you rated it 8/10. Like I said, it was disappointing yet good. It had potential to get a 9. |
|
|
|
Post by salomonj on Mar 1, 2018 22:15:10 GMT
I’m a pretty strong Catholic and while I fundamentally disagree with Aronofsky’s world views, I still LOVED the film. The messages/themes was relayed in such a clever way and never felt preachy.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 1, 2018 23:43:47 GMT
I liked it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir_Farty_Fartsalot on Mar 2, 2018 2:17:38 GMT
Which is better... "mother" or "The Tree of Life"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 2, 2018 3:33:41 GMT
Which is better... "mother" or "The Tree of Life"? interesting question. I struggled to finish Tree of Life, but liked it much more as a movie. Mother was easier to sit through/digest, but I think less of it as a movie. Tree of Life: 8/10 as a movie, but 5/10 for entertainment during the movie. mother!: 6/10 as a movie, but 7/10 as entertainment during the movie. So….its a tough choice  it depends what you look for in a movie. if you are more into meditative things and slower pace go for The Tree of Life. If you are more into mystery that goes by much faster and is full of disruptive action, go for mother!. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Mar 2, 2018 6:49:38 GMT
Nora That makes no sense. since movies are ultimately judged based on how much one enjoys them overall there should be no two scores for a movie like that especially reversed with a 8 vs a 5 and with the other movie a 6 vs a 7. whichever one you like overall more should have a higher score than the one you like overall less.
|
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Mar 2, 2018 6:51:29 GMT
Does that scare you?
|
|
|
|
Post by salomonj on Mar 2, 2018 8:15:37 GMT
Nora That makes no sense. since movies are ultimately judged based on how much one enjoys them overall there should be no two scores for a movie like that especially reversed with a 8 vs a 5 and with the other movie a 6 vs a 7. whichever one you like overall more should have a higher score than the one you like overall less. That makes perfect sense to me. There’s a difference between quality and enjoyability. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Mar 2, 2018 10:29:29 GMT
salomonjThat makes no sense because without enjoyment in some form or another, then it's not good. nothing else matters. it's like trying to be "objective" with movies, you can't. it's all subjective at the end of the day and comes back to ones personal overall enjoyment of a movie in some form or another. that's why there is no difference between 'quality' or 'enjoyability' or those who say 'favorite' vs 'best' because at the end of the day... ones overall enjoyment (in some form or another) are what ultimately make or break movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 2, 2018 11:43:32 GMT
That makes no sense because without enjoyment in some form or another, then it's not good. nothing else matters. it's like trying to be "objective" with movies, you can't. it's all subjective at the end of the day and comes back to ones personal overall enjoyment of a movie in some form or another. that's why there is no difference between 'quality' or 'enjoyability' or those who say 'favorite' vs 'best' because at the end of the day... ones overall enjoyment (in some form or another) are what ultimately make or break movies. This is a hopelessly naive and simplistic view of art, but not surprising at all coming from you. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 2, 2018 16:05:30 GMT
Nora That makes no sense. since movies are ultimately judged based on how much one enjoys them overall there should be no two scores for a movie like that especially reversed with a 8 vs a 5 and with the other movie a 6 vs a 7. whichever one you like overall more should have a higher score than the one you like overall less. well thats not how I see it. I dont judge only based on how much I enjoy it. I score "entertainment level" which reflects my subjective feelings of enjoying the movie directly when I watch it, and then "quality" level, which is more technical, about the craft behind the movie. Those dont always match. I actually also score the movie within its genre, with a third separate number as I feel thats a very important aspect of evaluating movies. So a movie would be scored for 1) entertainment 2) quality of used craft 3) its qualities within its own genre. Those can be Very different numbers. Or they can match. Its rare, but sometimes they do. Like Three Billboards, Machester by The Sea, Logan or Get Out or Superbad or Night Game comes to mind. They all got very high scores from me in all 3 ranks. Perfect example of all my scores matching - good entertainment value to me, good craft, and good within its genre. but there is plenty of movies I didnt really enjoy watching, but I do recognize they are quality (well made) movies. Dunkirk. Was bored out of my skull, but I see its many qualities. How could you not? I could never rate it an overall 3 per my enjoyment level. It was a good movie. The best or great? Not. But very good? Yes. It just didn't work on me personally. Florida Project - I almost hated watching it, but I think its one of the best movies of last year. And I love it. Phantom Thread. I didnt really enjoy it that much when watching it, but again, what a strong quality movie. or there are movies that I loved when watching it but they are simply bad movies. Adam Sandlers Jack and Jill comes to mind. That was one bad movie. for many reasons. but I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. Similar with Winchester. I quite enjoyed it, even though its not the best made movie and certainly not a great horror. My readers should know that. what this system does is that because it transparently lets the readers know all 3 categories, they can determine more precisely if they are going to enjoy the movie themselves, or not. And to me thats what the reader should walk away with. Knowing if this is a movie for them or not. Plus I also dont like (as a reader) not knowing why someone scores the movies they way they do. Sometimes the numbers seem just random, sometimes the number doesnt reflect the text too much etc. So I do it differently. Surprisingly, the overall score (you add all 3 values together and divide by 3) usually matches the average critics score from Rotten Tomatoes. Its very rare that it deviates or deviates much. And it does make sense. You get the overall score, and then you get some extra data to it. Whats wrong with that. I love data and knowing how things relate to each other. And this brings more data and potentially adds value to the reader by explaining my rating system and giving them three sub-scores that they can ignore or they can get more info from it. It works. OR IT DID UNTIL " every day" :-) PS: too bad you are not a woman, if you were, I bet you would understand this rating system very easily if I said "imagine shoes" . I believe that every woman has had at least one pair of shoes in their life, that they didnt really enjoy wearing but loved overall and vice-versa. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 2, 2018 16:32:46 GMT
Nora That makes no sense. since movies are ultimately judged based on how much one enjoys them overall there should be no two scores for a movie like that especially reversed with a 8 vs a 5 and with the other movie a 6 vs a 7. whichever one you like overall more should have a higher score than the one you like overall less. That makes perfect sense to me. There’s a difference between quality and enjoyability. thanks. thats how i see it as well. plus I also add a separate number representing its quality within a given genre. Why rate a silly comedy on the same merits as a meditative drama or a heist movie. They deserve consideration within their own genre too. Not "just" that number of course, but "also" that number. When pooled together and then divided by 3 it gives you a good overall number but you can still look up more data about how that number was put together and how enjoyable the movie is or how well it works within its particular genre. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 2, 2018 19:24:18 GMT
Which is better... "mother" or "The Tree of Life"? Mother was easier to sit through/digest, but I think less of it as a movie. What is it then if not a movie? |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 2, 2018 23:06:17 GMT
Which is better... "mother" or "The Tree of Life"? Mother was easier to sit through/digest, but I think less of it as a movie. What is it then if not a movie? its still a movie i meant to express that I think "less of it" (of its value as a movie) |
|
