Rate The Last Movie You Saw.

[allasorte]

wait, we're hating on the first Conjuring!? I thought that shit was dope.

I enjoyed them both a lot. The new "It" was solid and was done very well.

[Ricky]

Allasorte, check out The Limehouse Golem. I watched it last weekend and loved it. Think of Penny Dreadful with more mystery and less supernatural. It was really, really good, and Olivia Cooke was fantastic.

[DoctorDodge]

Sing Street

I love a good coming-of-age movie, and I love films set in past decades with great soundtracks. Sing Street ticked both boxes really well for me. A very simple idea of a young lad getting a band together just to go out with a girl, but it works surprisingly well. It had a great mix of humour with some nice hints of darkness. I particularly loved the Irish setting, which you don't often see. And all the tributes to 80s pop and alternative music were fantastic. Definitely a film I'd happily watch again.

[DoctorZaius]

Loved both Conjuring movies, as well as the latest Annabelle. The ghost story is alive and well again. These really have invigorated the genre.

[ur2ndbiggestfan]

I saw MOTHER! today and I enjoyed it very much, although I didn't really understand it.

I must now add this. I had absolutely no preconceived ideas about MOTHER! before walking into the theater. ALL I knew was that it was a newly released movie, which is the way I like to see all my movies. Why people watch trailers, listen or read critical reviews before seeing a film has always been a mystery to me. Where's the surprise, the delight, and sometimes (THE BROTHERS GRIMSBY) the ultimate satisfaction of walking out in total disgust before the movie is even half over, I ask you!

I have just read an explanation of MOTHER! on a website, and it only served to enhance my viewing of the movie, because I then said to myself, "Oh! So that's what it was all about!"

[Still Servant]

I saw MOTHER! today and I enjoyed it very much, although I didn't really understand it.

I must now add this. I had absolutely no preconceived ideas about MOTHER! before walking into the theater. ALL I knew was that it was a newly released movie, which is the way I like to see all my movies. Why people watch trailers, listen or read critical reviews before seeing a film has always been a mystery to me. Where's the surprise, the delight, and sometimes (THE BROTHERS GRIMSBY) the ultimate satisfaction of walking out in total disgust before the movie is even half over, I ask you!

I have just read an explanation of MOTHER! on a website, and it only served to enhance my viewing of the movie, because I then said to myself, "Oh! So that's what it was all about!"

I'm trying to do more of this, it's very hard though. I still want to be informed too. I want to know that Darren Aronofsky has a new film called Mother coming out. Part of the fun of movies is anticipating them, so it's been hard trying not to spoil things by watching trailers and reading/watching reviews.

[allasorte]

Allasorte, check out The Limehouse Golem. I watched it last weekend and loved it. Think of Penny Dreadful with more mystery and less supernatural. It was really, really good, and Olivia Cooke was fantastic.

I will try my best to watch this weekend. I have been busy with hurricane damage............................................ ....again?! God I miss Cleveland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ricky]

I don't know what to say about mother!. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it. There is very little you can say without going into spoiler territory, but I will say that the film's main allegory (if you choose to believe what Aronofsky offers) seems to take precedence over the story and character development (and not in a good way). It felt much, much longer than the two-hour runtime and I was not a fan of Jennifer Lawrence's acting or character throughout the first 75% of the movie. I've seen a lot of movies so not much makes me cringe, but mother! had one of the most disturbing, uncomfortable sequences I've ever seen.

I'd love for others to chime in once they see it so we can discuss.

[ur2ndbiggestfan]

I know what disturbing scene you are talking about, and it made me cringe too. But after a while a maniacal grin was fixed upon my face, which happens VERY rarely and means I am enjoying every last drop of what I'm seeing, whether I understand it or not.

Semi-spoiler - I was somewhat put off at first by the close-up framing of Lawrence, but after the whole thing was over I realized this was done for a purpose, at least I think it was. This movie reminded me a lot of A GHOST STORY, whose one, four minute boring sequence almost had me walking out, but I stuck it out and it is now one of my favorite movies of the year.

Yes - I'm weird, but you can tell me I am again anyway if you want.

[Randall Flagg]

Just viewed Mother.
It was one of the most infuriating movies I've seen in a ling time. Very difficult to watch without coming to mostly incorrect conclusions.
Claustrophobia, psychedelia, combined with insanity. I'm still digesting it and it's difficult to say this is a great movie, but it's easy to say you should see it and formulate your own opinion.
4/6* Beers on the RFSRS.

*Must see movie


I have 2 long thoughts on the movie and events from a recent Stephen King signing road trip AirBNb crazy stuff going on....chasing your hero (SK), and true fanaticism.
To be posted soon.

[Jean]

I wasn't a fan of The Conjuring. It wasn't bad, but I wouldn't rave about it either. Definitely well made and good atmosphere, but the scares and story seemed too familiar for me. I really liked the second one though, especially because it featured more of the Warrens and really fleshed out their characters more. If The Conjuring was about the Perrons, The Conjuring 2 is about the Warrens.

same here, verbatim

have watched a shit ton of films since last posted here (will try to tell something about each or at least each tenth later), so far only one thing:

I was absolutely, totally in love with Get Out. It's so genuinely hilarious, finely made, entertaining and feels quite unique, in terms of both genre (should feel eclectic, but feels absoluteluy integral all the way through), twisted message and lasting aftermath. Loved everything about it, which doesn't often happen to bears these days.

[Jean]

having read posts above, I understand that I should see Mother! as soon as I can

[Ricky]

After reading Aronofsky's intent of the movie's significance (from his own mouth), it makes sense but it's not the meaning I took from the movie or ever would have on my own. Here's what I took from it before I read Aronofsky's comments:

(Gigantic spoilers)

Spoiler:

1. The film is a metaphor for parenthood

Much of the first half features comments, conversations, and imagery that revolve around who wants kids (mother) and who doesn't (Him). When mother gets pregnant, she's glowing, overjoyed, and looking forward to fixing up the house for her baby and everything that comes with parenthood (including hoping that it brings Him closer to her and makes her less ignored and a more prominent figure in her husband's life). So when the you-know-what hits the fan in the second half of the movie, both pre- and post-birth, there are many things that happen that symbolize how being a mother/parent isn't the miracle she once thought it would be.

- The guests are few in number at first but trickle in faster and faster, guests inviting other guests, until the house is packed. Mother allows it at first, but becomes irritated as more people crowd her house, which shares some similarities with how parents allow their kids' friends to come over, but become irritated once they start to invite more and more people until a small gathering has turned into an out-of-control party.

- Mother is always shown cleaning up messes. Whether in the kitchen, dining room, hallway, etc., the messes are always made by others, never herself, but she continues to tidy the house because (like a parent) you do it out of love.

- The parenting symbolism hits a high when the crystal in Him's study is broken. Like kids, they are repeatedly told not to touch something (and know they shouldn't), but do it anyway.

- The guests also start painting her walls (reminiscent of a child drawing on the walls with crayon), despite mother's repeated declarations that it's not something she wants.

- A par of guests sit atop mother's sink before jumping on it gleefully, ignoring mother's commands. The guests' child-like joy and ignoring of mother's directives is very reminiscent of a child jumping on the bed, being told to stop before someone is hurt or something breaks, and the child continuing the behavior until something actually breaks. There's even a scene where mother, exasperated, yells, "They won't listen!" which is something I'm sure anyone with a child can relate to.

In the end, mother realizes she's lost control and that, no matter her directions or position of authority (as owner of the house), the guests (symbolizing kids) will do as they please. She'd been so preoccupied with the miracle of childbirth and the good things that would come with it that she realizes she hadn't thought of the pain and exhaustion that would also come with it.

2. The film is a metaphor for celebrity

- Him spends most of the film attempting to write his next piece and once it's finished, he finds himself overwhelmed with fame and attention. Mother is pushed aside in order for Him to embrace his devoted fans (how many times has that happened to someone in a celebrity pairing in real life?) and as more guests start to arrive, they begin to think that they are entitled to being in Him's life and having a "piece" of Him. Nothing shows this better than guests stealing mementos from Him's house or, even better, accidentally killing mother's child and taking a literal piece of him by eating his flesh.

- The guests also worship Him--literally. Shrines with his picture scatter the house, as well as a shrine to his son (think the recent issues of celebrity children and their photos in the media). This kind of attention to new celebrities is often quick and all at once: fan sites, publicity, appearances and public gatherings, stalking their houses, photographs, etc. All of which happens to Him.

- The "cult" of celebrity and celebrity worship is also on display with what looks to be a religious service praising Him and an appointing with ashes, similar to Ash Wednesday in Catholicism.

These are the two metaphors I considered after leaving the theater but, again, never would have come up with what Aronofsky suggests, as much as it makes sense.

I think the metaphors are great but my main problem with the film is that a metaphor has to be applied to something real. If you take away the metaphors of the film, there's nothing left. Aronofsky's intent makes it seem like the Biblical applications are literal and that they're really happening. Which is not a metaphor. But if the events of the film arereal, and really do happen, then there's a lot that doesn't make sense.

There's a ton going on in mother! (a lot of it good) so it makes me wish that there was a little less pretentiousness and a little more focus on story and character. A symbol or allegory or metaphor isn't, by itself, enough to sustain a movie.

[ur2ndbiggestfan]

I loved GET OUT too.

Saw, besides MOTHER!, ALL SAINTS and AMERICAN ASSASSIN this weekend. I liked all of them!

[Tommy]

I'm not sure I want to read Aronofsky's comments about mother! just yet. I like having it swirling about inside my head with few others' input. In a couple of days I will start reading reviews but now, I want to let it sink in. I kept getting a major Kafka vibe from it personally. And there's way too many metaphors to count. It's a shame it's going to flop because I think Lawrence gave a brilliant and brave performance. I never expected something like that to come out of her. Very impressed. Even though I really liked it, I can also appreciate/understand the movie-goer that is well-versed in cinema who would absolutely hate this movie. Great art will induce strong reactions either way and this film is certainly doing that.

And regarding the conversation about The Conjuring 1 and 2. I also prefer the second one. One thing that surprised me about it or maybe it's just me being stupidly sentimental but I was actually touched by the love story aspect between the Warrens. Silly huh? I really liked the first Conjuring just fine but the second one was the better film for me.

[Jean]

don't know why it should be silly

[Ricky]

One thing that surprised me about it or maybe it's just me being stupidly sentimental but I was actually touched by the love story aspect between the Warrens. Silly huh?

Not at all. I think that's why the film works in the first place. Scares only work if you care about the people being scared.

[fernandito]

Plan on watching Mother! sometime this week. Glad to see it being discussed on here, hopefully I can join in soon.

[Tommy]

don't know why it should be silly

One thing that surprised me about it or maybe it's just me being stupidly sentimental but I was actually touched by the love story aspect between the Warrens. Silly huh?

Not at all. I think that's why the film works in the first place. Scares only work if you care about the people being scared.

You guys are right, I shouldn't willingly discount my own feelings so much. I guess it just surprised me that I went to see a horror movie and wound up seeing, alongside the horror of course, one of the most convincing loves stories of all last year. It's rare to get that in a mainstream horror movie but I must say it was a nice surprise.

[Still Servant]

Wow! Mother really took it on the chin. I'm hoping to see it tomorrow.

It's a shame a film like this is being torn to shreds. I don't mean this in a bad way, but the film is just not meant for mainstream audiences. I don't know when it happened, and I certainly don't know if it will ever change, but the palate for the average moviegoer has become very basic. Years ago, films that were a little different were praised from critics and audiences alike, now you see them get trashed on a regular basis.

It's kind of sad and it might just be a telling reflection of our current society. Some might call that a stretch, but I don't see it that way.

[fernandito]

And then those same movie goers complain about there not being enough originality in Hollywood.

Smh

[Ricky]

It's a shame a film like this is being torn to shreds. I don't mean this in a bad way, but the film is just not meant for mainstream audiences. I don't know when it happened, and I certainly don't know if it will ever change, but the palate for the average moviegoer has become very basic. Years ago, films that were a little different were praised from critics and audiences alike, now you see them get trashed on a regular basis.

I agree that the average movie-goer seems to want the comfort of the familiar (superheros, comic-book adaptations, sequels, reboots, etc.) and I totally get that. There are times when I want the same thing. I also love original screenplays and original plots, but while I applaud mother! for telling an original story, it's the story itself that's the problem. In the reviews I've read, it's not the issue of the film being original or "different", but leaving too much to the viewer to explain, Aronofsky's self-indulgence, and the main metaphor (but if the whole movie is actually happening, as Aronofsky says, then the metaphor's a moot point and there's a lot that doesn't make sense). It's also another case of the marketing being totally misleading from the actual film (which doesn't help).

Looking forward to you being able to discuss it with us, Mike. It's hard to say much more without going into spoiler territory.

[webstar1000]

I want to see Mother. I hear it's totally disturbing. AND original. I am open to any movie and if I had time I would have seen it last weekend. I am a huge Kingsman fan as I loved the first one so this weekend I am seeing that. Hope to catch Mother though next week though when I have time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Still Servant]

It's a shame a film like this is being torn to shreds. I don't mean this in a bad way, but the film is just not meant for mainstream audiences. I don't know when it happened, and I certainly don't know if it will ever change, but the palate for the average moviegoer has become very basic. Years ago, films that were a little different were praised from critics and audiences alike, now you see them get trashed on a regular basis.

In the reviews I've read, it's not the issue of the film being original or "different", but leaving too much to the viewer to explain, Aronofsky's self-indulgence, and the main metaphor (but if the whole movie is actually happening, as Aronofsky says, then the metaphor's a moot point and there's a lot that doesn't make sense). It's also another case of the marketing being totally misleading from the actual film (which doesn't help).

That's one of the big issues. People want everything spoonfed to them. It's a shame we can't ask audiences to think when a movie ends and formulate their own opinion of what just transpired.

[Still Servant]

Honestly, Mother! was a brilliant film. I just got back from the theater and Aronofsky has given us one of the more original, thought provoking films I've seen this decade.

I did a good job of going into Mother! knowing almost nothing. I didn't watch or read any reviews. The only thing I heard is that audiences hated it, which made me want to see it more. I think this is the best way to go into a film like this. Go in with a blank slate and formulate your own opinion. I have yet to read any explanations on the film (aside from Ricky's thoughts which I just read before typing this) but I feel like I had a pretty good grasp as to what was going on fairly early on. I'm not sure if I'm right or not, but I feel like it made sense and it made me enjoy the film even more.

My theory on what was going on most closely aligns with Ricky's second theory. However,

Spoiler:

instead of a metaphor for celebrity (although that's certainly part of it) the film is a metaphor for writing and creation of a story. This is a film that should literally be shown in any fiction writing class.

Think about it, the house represents the structure of a story. It has a foundation and lots of empty rooms that need decorating and painting. How do you decorate a story? You create characters. That's who we see in the beginning of the story, but they're just characters with a few character traits, but they don't have a plot, they don't have a purpose. Until the writer (Bardem) finds his inspiration (Lawrence). He literally impregnates her with an idea. From that point, he writes. He creates his story. The second part of the film we see random people who represent us, the consumer. A writer, or anyone who creates something, must forfeit ownership over their creation. It no longer belongs to you it belong to the people. They take all of it, or they take pieces of it and they make it their own. That's what we are seeing when the baby is taken, killed and then eaten by the crowd of people.

There's a scene where we see the publicist (Wiig, what the fuck is Kristen Wiig doing in this film? LOL) killing people on the ground. This is a publicist editing the writer's work. You've heard of the phrase "Kill your darlings"? Well, that's what any writer must sometimes be faced with. Removing characters or ideas for the sake of the story. The end of the film? The burning down of the entire house and everything that comes with it? That would be the rewrite.

I could be completely off, and if I am then so be it, but by watching the film with this theory, it helped me enjoy it even more.

But after a while a maniacal grin was fixed upon my face, which happens VERY rarely and means I am enjoying every last drop of what I'm seeing, whether I understand it or not.

I love when this happens to me and I must say, it happened tonight while watching Mother!

After reading Aronofsky's intent of the movie's significance (from his own mouth), it makes sense but it's not the meaning I took from the movie or ever would have on my own. Here's what I took from it before I read Aronofsky's comments:

(Gigantic spoilers)

Spoiler:

1. The film is a metaphor for parenthood

Much of the first half features comments, conversations, and imagery that revolve around who wants kids (mother) and who doesn't (Him). When mother gets pregnant, she's glowing, overjoyed, and looking forward to fixing up the house for her baby and everything that comes with parenthood (including hoping that it brings Him closer to her and makes her less ignored and a more prominent figure in her husband's life). So when the you-know-what hits the fan in the second half of the movie, both pre- and post-birth, there are many things that happen that symbolize how being a mother/parent isn't the miracle she once thought it would be.

- The guests are few in number at first but trickle in faster and faster, guests inviting other guests, until the house is packed. Mother allows it at first, but becomes irritated as more people crowd her house, which shares some similarities with how parents allow their kids' friends to come over, but become irritated once they start to invite more and more people until a small gathering has turned into an out-of-control party.

- Mother is always shown cleaning up messes. Whether in the kitchen, dining room, hallway, etc., the messes are always made by others, never herself, but she continues to tidy the house because (like a parent) you do it out of love.

- The parenting symbolism hits a high when the crystal in Him's study is broken. Like kids, they are repeatedly told not to touch something (and know they shouldn't), but do it anyway.

- The guests also start painting her walls (reminiscent of a child drawing on the walls with crayon), despite mother's repeated declarations that it's not something she wants.

- A par of guests sit atop mother's sink before jumping on it gleefully, ignoring mother's commands. The guests' child-like joy and ignoring of mother's directives is very reminiscent of a child jumping on the bed, being told to stop before someone is hurt or something breaks, and the child continuing the behavior until something actually breaks. There's even a scene where mother, exasperated, yells, "They won't listen!" which is something I'm sure anyone with a child can relate to.

In the end, mother realizes she's lost control and that, no matter her directions or position of authority (as owner of the house), the guests (symbolizing kids) will do as they please. She'd been so preoccupied with the miracle of childbirth and the good things that would come with it that she realizes she hadn't thought of the pain and exhaustion that would also come with it.

2. The film is a metaphor for celebrity

- Him spends most of the film attempting to write his next piece and once it's finished, he finds himself overwhelmed with fame and attention. Mother is pushed aside in order for Him to embrace his devoted fans (how many times has that happened to someone in a celebrity pairing in real life?) and as more guests start to arrive, they begin to think that they are entitled to being in Him's life and having a "piece" of Him. Nothing shows this better than guests stealing mementos from Him's house or, even better, accidentally killing mother's child and taking a literal piece of him by eating his flesh.

- The guests also worship Him--literally. Shrines with his picture scatter the house, as well as a shrine to his son (think the recent issues of celebrity children and their photos in the media). This kind of attention to new celebrities is often quick and all at once: fan sites, publicity, appearances and public gatherings, stalking their houses, photographs, etc. All of which happens to Him.

- The "cult" of celebrity and celebrity worship is also on display with what looks to be a religious service praising Him and an appointing with ashes, similar to Ash Wednesday in Catholicism.

These are the two metaphors I considered after leaving the theater but, again, never would have come up with what Aronofsky suggests, as much as it makes sense.

I think the metaphors are great but my main problem with the film is that a metaphor has to be applied to something real. If you take away the metaphors of the film, there's nothing left. Aronofsky's intent makes it seem like the Biblical applications are literal and that they're really happening. Which is not a metaphor. But if the events of the film arereal, and really do happen, then there's a lot that doesn't make sense.

There's a ton going on in mother! (a lot of it good) so it makes me wish that there was a little less pretentiousness and a little more focus on story and character. A symbol or allegory or metaphor isn't, by itself, enough to sustain a movie.