ElBoxyBrown
Banned
"From the legendary Aronofsky comes a movie about a domesticated wife and her crazy husband. Ain't is scary?!"
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
'mother!' earns rare F CinemaScore
- Thread starter LordOfLore
- Start date
"From the legendary Aronofsky comes a movie about a domesticated wife and her crazy husband. Ain't is scary?!"
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
In for the sequel
Motherboy!
Motherboy!
Marketing it as what it is, an art film, would have been most honest. Shoulda been treated similar to Funny Games.Cinemascore ballots look like this:
Makes sense that people felt duped by the marketing, BUT marketing it as anything other than horror would have been a bigger mistake, given the graphic imagery in the film.
I look forward to a fan made trailer making it look like a light hearted comedy.
"Get off my sink!"
VaultBoy101
Member
Sorry, but it's my experience with all types of art that the general audience is usually wrong, at least when taken as an overall average like this. This is especially true of mass-marketed films. Perfect example is Eyes Wide Shut, which was marketed as "sexy Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman thriller" and has a CinemaScore of D- despite being a masterpiece. I don't blame Stanley Kubrick, or the studio, for the audience response. I blame the audiences who were incapable of evaluating art on its own terms rather than what they "expected going in."
As far as appealing to an extreme niche, the question we should be asking is "why does it only appeal to an extreme niche?" rather than "why did he make this film this way?" or "why did they market the film this way?" Why does the marketing have to shoulder all of the blame here? When talking about mainstream audiences, why isn't this a movie for them?
In short, I think the problem lies with people who expect the marketing and trailers to tell them exactly what they should expect to get when they walk into a theater. Like it's a product made out of plastic rather than art. And then we wonder why so many trailers nowadays reveal nearly everything about the plot.
I realize that this is very much an "in a perfect world..." way of looking at things. I've just never been one to "expect" anything when experiencing a new work of art, and I don't understand why so many people do.
More_Badass
Member
Considering one of the big appeals is the gradual escalation and then the insane ramp-up to the finale, I'm glad I had no idea of any of that was happening, and that the trailer really doesn't hint that something like that will happen
(Spoiler)
(Spoiler)
I'd say Mother might have one of the best "war" sequences of the year alongside Dunkirk and Planet of the Apes
Which doesn't disprove his point that it's probably great, be it for a niche audience or not. Mainstream audiences are usually wrong anyway.
Not surprising at all. This movie goes to some dark places. And it can be a bit...bewildering to watch because of the seemingly random things that happen. But it's all worth it in the end.
It's a movie that only a niche will enjoy but I'm glad it was made.
It's a movie that only a niche will enjoy but I'm glad it was made.
horrible little review systems sucking all the life out of cinema by rewarding safe and dull films that give people exactly what they expect then aggressively penalising anything taking risks and trying something surprising. they have absolute contempt for art and envisage cinema as like ordering a big mac.
i mean yeah maybe 90% of people hate mother but i'd rather have ten films like it where 10% get something singular out of it, so that there's one distinct and memorable film for everyone, than 10 films being directed from the boardroom and everyone being yeah that was fairly good A cinemscore/92% rotten tomatoes and cinema loses everything that makes it interesting.
i mean yeah maybe 90% of people hate mother but i'd rather have ten films like it where 10% get something singular out of it, so that there's one distinct and memorable film for everyone, than 10 films being directed from the boardroom and everyone being yeah that was fairly good A cinemscore/92% rotten tomatoes and cinema loses everything that makes it interesting.
Night Angel
Member
Based on the marketing alone it deserves the F it got. I liked the film because I knew it was an arthouse project, but there were tons of people in my theater who expected a horror movie.
They earned this bomba.
They earned this bomba.
Primethius
Banned
People generally don't like to waste money on things that they might not enjoy. So unless movie studios start putting out movies for free, I don't see why the problem would be with people who expect marketing to do a good job indicating what kind of movie it is.
snausagesUK
Member
At Canary Wharf now seeing it, curious to see how many walkout
Then Irreversible shouldn't be made as well or anything Winding Refn makes or ALL Von Trier movies. I have actually seen mother! And I think it's really good. It's more shocking then Requiem for a Dream was.
Any good movie that is provocative is going to get really high and really low ratings.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
I don't get it, didn't this movie get high praise all over?
More_Badass
Member
While they did mess up by presenting it as a horror movie/psychological thriller in the trailers, the story you get in the trailer is what you get in the movie; it's just that there isn't some twist or big reveal about what is happening. The movie recontextualizes that story but it's what happens in the movie.
You can't really get that across in a trailer. There's no twist to reveal, and the movie may not be a horror movie but it does have horrific and disturbing imagery that some might find worse than your typical horror movie.
Some people saw the trailer and thought it was a home invasion horror thriller. I have no idea how they came to that conclusion
Fancyarcher
Member
And nobody should be shocked. Everyone was predicting a F, and given how misleading the marketing apparently was, and off-putting and non-audience friendly the film is, it shouldn't come as a surprise either.
It's not. It's just perceived to be, and sometimes can be a perception of reception, usually though, it's limited to specific theaters, and can't always be trusted. An F is usually not a good sign.
It's not. It's just perceived to be, and sometimes can be a perception of reception, usually though, it's limited to specific theaters, and can't always be trusted. An F is usually not a good sign.
Who cares. Even really low rated movies as Emoji film earn like a fucking billion in profits :')
BiGBoSSMk23
A company being excited for their new game is a huge slap in the face to all the fans that liked their old games.
This movie sounds like something along the lines of Lars Von Trier or Nicolas Winding Refn.
Only God Forgives had a similar reaction from casual Drive/Ryan Gosling bandwagoners.
Only God Forgives had a similar reaction from casual Drive/Ryan Gosling bandwagoners.
Whaaaaaaaat. Ok maybe I should stop being a coward and just go see it in theaters.
I loved it but it was inevitable that many people would hate it. As far as marketing goes, it's an impossible film to market imo. It doesn't have mass market appeal and is indescribable.
I think history will be kind though. It's a unique, visceral and powerful film with fantastic acting, incredible sound design and beautiful imagery. I just hope it is successful enough that studios continue to give DA creative freedom.
Edit: Agree with the comparisons to Lars von Triers and Gaspar Noe. Provocative filmmaking is divisive and not at all mainstream. The fact a film like this got the star power and marketing it did is pretty incredible.
I think history will be kind though. It's a unique, visceral and powerful film with fantastic acting, incredible sound design and beautiful imagery. I just hope it is successful enough that studios continue to give DA creative freedom.
Edit: Agree with the comparisons to Lars von Triers and Gaspar Noe. Provocative filmmaking is divisive and not at all mainstream. The fact a film like this got the star power and marketing it did is pretty incredible.
It's definitely not a general moviegoing type of film. Coupled with marketing it as horror, I think audiences are just unhappy with what they saw. But if you're more aware of movies and reviews and word of mouth ahead of time, it didn't come as a shock unless you just went in expecting to see a Jennifer Lawrence horror film.
The original teaser and trailer, I thought, were very good. The one before IT (which doesn't appear to be online anywhere) was super-misleading. While I was watching the latter, I knew it was going to lead to the wrong audience going to see the movie.
http://deadline.com/2017/09/mother-...rence-tiff-video-darren-aronofsky-1202168737/
IdreamofHIME
Member
Audiences don't like having to think while watching movies.
Same. I want to see it....just not in a theater.
More_Badass
Member
I forgot all about that one. Shit, you're right. I remember that one before IT and thinking how much I hate trailers that do that.
The Emoji Movie hasn't earned anywhere near $1 billion, or even a quarter of that (made enough to be profitable, though).
You GOTTA see The Hunger Games. Modern American classic imo
Fancyarcher
Member
Emoji Movie didn't earn THAT much money though.
Transformers appealed to audience thinking that extraterrestrial are vans and cars. It is quite large but it is dismissive of the humanity to think that it encompasses "most audiences".
Black Swan was a huge success.
WickedLaharl
Member
so why didn't they like this movie then?
brianjones
Member
ugh typical
of course the sheeple don't get the rarified genius of aronofsky!
of course the sheeple don't get the rarified genius of aronofsky!
I absolutely agree. Give me risk and failure for the sake of something new and interesting over competent and safe white noise.
We're now officially besties. Was advertised as some sort of sci fi horror. Was pretty pissed off when I left the theater.
Just looking it up, but this is the trailer for ES. Definitely seems a bit like an indie romance comedy.
But you're correct in there are other expectations. Stuff like Mist, Shutter Island, and others earned Cs. But why is something like The Mist(One of the most downer endings you can get), earning a C. While mother! is getting an F? Night crawler was advertised exactly what it was though. Stuff like Mist or Shutter Island were too. The downer hurt it, but it's not getting an F. I believe they even say, low scores seem to be either extremely bad fucking films or were advertised to the wrong audience.
The other films in there are stuff like Wicker Man, Darkness, and Disaster movie. Just terrible ass films. Or films like It comes at Night, Bug, mother!. Which advertised their film to the wrong audience.
That's what I originally thought, but critics seemed to like it while everyone else was less than thrilled
beau_beaumont
Member
Damn, those trailers make me want to see it now. The one in front of It made it look horrible.
CinemaScore has nothing to do with the critical reception of a film, it's all about what the average moviegoer thinks about a film.
I enjoyed it. Didn't love it, but I was thoroughly into it. I had fun trying to untangle all of the things the director threw at you, but I have to admit: it did get a little much (and confusing) a times. If you saw it, you know what I'm talking about. But it's one of those movies where it's nice to have a discussion about what you just saw. "What did this mean?" "What did that mean?" "Oh wow, I never thought of it that way." Etc.
It was different. Very different.
But I can definitely see how many film-goers felt tricked. I saw a couple trailers before I eventually saw it, and I kept thinking, "This....isn't a horror film, is it?" Felt like the trailers were hiding the ball....until I read a couple of reviews and discovered that there is no ball.
Anyway, I chucked to myself while in the theater; two girls who were sitting near me walked out. I guess it wasn't the movie they expected.
I'd give it a B-. My biggest criticism was that it was slow....and then went into hyper speed. It got too big too quickly, IMO.
It was different. Very different.
But I can definitely see how many film-goers felt tricked. I saw a couple trailers before I eventually saw it, and I kept thinking, "This....isn't a horror film, is it?" Felt like the trailers were hiding the ball....until I read a couple of reviews and discovered that there is no ball.
Anyway, I chucked to myself while in the theater; two girls who were sitting near me walked out. I guess it wasn't the movie they expected.
I'd give it a B-. My biggest criticism was that it was slow....and then went into hyper speed. It got too big too quickly, IMO.
The editing is exactly what I'm pointing to. Editing can still be used to mislead people even if it doesn't go as far as outright lies. I remember watching the first trailer for the film Catfish and walking away from the movie feeling duped. It turned out to be nothing but a meh fictionalized documentary about a woman with mental issues. Everything in the trailer was accurate but some scenes were purposefully presented in a certain context to manipulate the audience. It was not the horror/mystery/suspense film people were expecting.
I understand why these guys end up doing this but it's still dishonest.
I've been meaning to watch Bug. So what exactly is it?
Maintenance
Member
I remember that thread, it was hilarious.
Just crazy. Paranoid crazy person hooks another person into believing the crazy and they stay holed up in a motel room feeding off each other's crazy. It would have been pretty much the same movie if it were about not taking off your tin foil hat or the radio waves will melt your brain and control your body, but I think it was easier to have a super misleading ad campaign if they based it on non-existent bugs instead. Plus Tin Foil Hat doesn't have the same ring as Bug.
Psychological horror, drama. Unnerved me.
More_Badass
Member
It's an adaptation of a play, so that should give you an idea of what to expect. A dark dialogue-driven psychological horror drama