Mother! (2017)

Was it kino? Why did audiences dislike it so much?

Attached: FD7ADADD-67A0-4A3E-895A-E5BDF9E3DD92.jpg (768x1200, 105K)

What did Aronofsky mean by the ending?

Can I get a quick rundown

It's a cycle, Father starts again once Mother and son are destroyed, the cast insists is a religious allegory about God, humanity and Mother Earth, I liked the artist/muse/work allegory better

it was good, reminded me of some dreams ive had where people are destroying my fucking house and i cant stop them

Good movie. Normies didnt like it because it made them anxious, like its supposed to.

jennifer lawrence is THE sex symbol of the decade.

deservedly so.

There is absolutely no way to interpret this as anything but a religious allegory. If you disagree you are flat our incorrect

Will Aronofsky ever make a film that isn't trying to emulate Perfect Blue in some way?

it's both

No, it is not both. Watch the credits pleb, watch the fucking movie. Its painfully obvious. Plus aronofsky loves religious stories

I thought the movie and concept was interesting, but she really is a terrible actress
>"Hey what are you doing here, this is my house" 100 times with the same expression, same tone everytime. There is zero depth to her

Why the baby kill?

It was pointless and half-assed its message. I will admit that I didn't pick up on the "reference" until seeing internet discussions, but only because there were so many things that didn't fit it.

>jennifer lawrence is THE sex symbol of the decade.
Next to women like Moner, I don’t think so.

Honestly, she was fine. There wasn't much she could do with the role. She's a victim.

Shit marketing. Made people expect horror schlock but they got art house drivel which made normies rage.

Ask anyone who Moner is. They're gonna say you misspelled Monae.

>God is a big meanie
>Mother Earth is the victim
>Baby (Christ) dies and never returns
Jewish filth.

But the other bitch is famous for her asshole.

DID YOU GET THE ALLEGORY

>Why did audiences dislike it so much?
for some people it seems like as soon as they saw the (extremely obvious) religious symbolism they went full teenage nu-atheist and nope'd out in a seething rage, possibly chanting "fuck you i wont' do what you tell me" while headbanging through the parking lot.

i liked it a lot. similar to a gasper noe film it's just a fun experience to me, plot being secondary. also jlaw is qt.

for you pedophiles, perhaps.

He's jesus

Pseudo-intellectual rubbish, just like almost every film made by Aronofsky

Attached: 1550230707982.png (1000x719, 629K)

because it had a wide release and was falsely advertised as a horror movie. Two chicks sitting in front of me in my theater were wondering 'when the monster is gonna show up? I think it will be a ghost' for the first half of the movie,

you are wrong
religious imagery went over my head when I saw it
For me it was clear as day that the movie was about a relationship in which one person loved her partner and the other didn't

Very very unsubtle religious allegory. Once you get that the film loses any merit. Yes, sure you can interpret it in some other ways but the religious undertones are beaten to your head so hard that it's almost impossible to take other interpretations seriously.

I was in a completely empty theater the second week it was running.

>the film loses any merit
I thought the last 20 minutes are pretty entertaining. Not traditionally enjoyable but all the shit that escalates in such a small location I thought was really cool to watch at least from the visuals. But there's zero reason to care about anything that happens, which is a shame.