Support NeoGAF

[LordOfLore]

Link.

Not even Jennifer Lawrence could win over CinemaScore audiences with mother! Her new ‘WTF’ film with director (and current boyfriend) Darren Aronofsky earned a dreaded F from the movie polling company after Friday night screenings.

'mother!' had a positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes (69 percent of critics gave the film a positive review), but audiences revolted against Aronofsky’s film, which mixes broad religious allegory with home-invasion horror and ends with a sequence of shocking, R-rated violence. The overall rejection might have something to do with how the film was marketed, as CinemaScore founder Ed Mintz explained in a 2016 interview about his company.

“A’s generally are good, B’s generally are shaky, and C’s are terrible. D’s and F’s, they shouldn’t have made the movie, or they promoted it funny and the absolute wrong crowd got into it,” he said.

CinemaScore grades films based on reactions from moviegoers at the start of opening weekend at theaters across North America and Canada with a ballot of six questions. Other movies with an F grade include Andrew Dominik’s 'Killing Them Softly', Richard Kelly’s 'The Box', 'I Know Who Killed Me' with Lindsay Lohan, William Friedkin’s 'Bug', Greg McLean’s 'Wolf Creek', Steven Soderbergh’s 'Solaris', and Robert Altman’s 'Dr. T and the Women'.

So, mother!‘s F grade doesn’t necessarily mean it’s dead in the water upon arrival, but rather it’s a reflection of how the first audiences are responding to the work’s high concepts compared with the movie promised via its trailer. Critics are still figuring it all out.

 

[Neverender]

Wolf Creek doesn’t feel like an F to me 🤔

 

[Robot Pants]

I like all of aronofskys films (haven't seen Noah though) and I agree mother! shouldn't have been made.

 

[robotrock]

Should reviews take the marketing into consideration?

 

[Toa TAK]

We need more movies like mother!

 

[WhateverItTakes]

Should reviews take the marketing into consideration?

I think it's more saying the marketing got the wrong crowd in, since the score is an aggregate of reviews from people who went to see it.

 

[robotrock]

I'm a member of the audience and I loved it.

I think it's more saying the marketing got the wrong crowd in, since the score is an aggregate of reviews from people who went to see it.

Yeah that makes more sense. I try my best to avoid the marketing, but I get it.

I remember seeing It Comes at Night earlier this year, and was shocked to see a lot of very negative audience reactions. I guess it was marketed more as a regular horror movie?

 

[Diprosalic]

Mother was fantastic but i can see why people rate it that way. It is not a movie for casual movie goers.

 

[Toa TAK]

I honestly didn't know CinemaScore was a big deal until this movie.

 

[torre_avenue]

Paramount really fucked up with the marketing of this picture. The film should have been marketed as a more niche artsy-horror title instead of a mass-market picture. The same mis-marketing happened to "The VVitch" and "It Comes At Night" too, and both got mediocre Cinemascores as well.

 

[robotrock]

American Assaasin got a B+ from Cinema scores, Mother got an F.

Hadn't heard of the site before today but now it all makes sense.

 

[robotrock]

Paramount really fucked up with the marketing of this picture. The film should have been marketed as a more niche artsy-horror title instead of a mass-market picture. The same mis-marketing happened to "The VVitch" and "It Comes At Night" too, and both got mediocre Cinemascores as well.

The movie will get its audience. This approach probably did way better for Paramount too I'm assuming, financially.

edit: whoops on the double post fellas

 

[Biggest-Geek-Ever]

Would have been an A+ if, at the very end, William Shatner shows up and asks, "What does God need with a starship?"

 

[Fried Food]

I thought the movie was great, and I only felt better about it after reading more about it.

And also they don't really take "reviews" from the crowd. They catch people as they leave and get their take. The audience isn't writing reviews.

 

[torre_avenue]

The movie will get its audience. This approach probably did way better for Paramount too I'm assuming, financially.

edit: whoops on the double post fellas

Not really, Deadline reports the film is tanking.

Well, it’s clear: Moviegoers officially hate Darren Aronofsky’s Mother! The film scored a rare F grade from CinemaScore audiences last night, and there were many rivals heading into the weekend who were expecting that type of reaction. As we heard at noon, the bold Jennifer Lawrence pic is crashing well below its projections with an estimated $7.8M in third. When compared to her wide releases in their first weekend (1,000-plus theaters), it’s the lowest opening for Lawrence, even lower than her 2012 Relativity horror movie The House at the End of the Street ($12.3M).

 

[ciD_Vain]

Mother! Fucker

 

[ElectronicOldMen]

Hell yeah! I really, really like the movie and think this is kinda fitting. There should always be space for weird, challenging, surreal cinema in the mainstream I feel.

 

[Dick Justice]

Not really, Deadline reports the film is tanking.

Remember when that one Gaffer insisted that Lawrence is the biggest movie star on the planet?

 

[robotrock]

Not really, Deadline reports the film is tanking.

Ah hell.

 

[Sgt. Kabukiman]

Bug is the best film on that list.

And... Wolf Creek? Not that it's great but I just don't see what could be so divisive about it.

 

[Juicy Bob]

This looks fucking atrocious.

Movies continue to be the least-appealing medium to me.

 

[Burbeting]

Damn.

It's a very strange movie, but a good one at that. But... I can't say I'm too surprised..

 

[shaneo632]

I liked the film but they deserve it for the dishonest marketing.

 

[snausagesUK]

Wow I want to see this now.

I'll probably hate it but still

 

[LordOfLore]

Ah hell.

Most of the budget was the paycheck to Lawrence and I don't think they'll get out of the red as things are looking right now.

 

[ElectronicOldMen]

Bug is the best film on that list.

And... Wolf Creek? Not that it's great but I just don't see what could be so divisive about it.

Bug is fantastic. Killing Them Softly is really good as well, and I'm pretty fond of Soderbergh's Solaris, it's not Tarkovsky's but it's going for a fundamentally different style and pulls it off pretty well.

 

[Dan-o]

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!"

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Most of the people who saw it probably went in thinking it was going to be a light suspense thriller romp with J Law. Nah bruh.

 

[Funky Papa]

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!"

Hold it, this is not a horror film? I was intending to watch it, but I feel kind of duped now.

 

[wazoo]

I am more interested in a movie getting a F from the wrong crowd that movies targeted to get a A from EVERY crowd.

 

[Dan-o]

Hold it, this is not a horror film? I was intending to watch it, but I feel kind of duped now.

I maintain that it still kind of is one... but most others disagree I guess. I found it super tense... so more of a thriller...? It's... complicated to describe.

 

[ElectronicOldMen]

Hold it, this is not a horror film? I was intending to watch it, but I feel kind of duped now.

Not really? It's kinda uncategorizable though, I don't really know how you would market it. It's kind of a hyper-surreal psychological thriller/incredibly black comedy with some Cronenberg-y body horror elements, it's more Luis Bunuel or David Lynch than it is a quote-unquote horror movie.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Remember when that one Gaffer insisted that Lawrence is the biggest movie star on the planet?

Because one bomb disproves that.

 

[Corpsepyre]

I'm glad this film exists. Fuck Cinemascore and the mainstream.

 

[RangerX]

Killing them Softly and Wolf Creek were Fs? What crack were those people smoking, those are great films.

 

[Link1110]

So we'll never see mother 4 then?

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Damn that's heartbreaking D:

One of the best movies I've seen all year! ;_;

 

[Radec]

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Because one bomb disproves that.

Passengers underperformed, X-Men Apocalypse as well. Actually, the last Hunger Games movie could've done better coming off the previous two.

 

[shaneo632]

Killing them Softly and Wolf Creek were Fs? What crack were those people smoking, those are great films.

Again it comes down to marketing in the case of Killing them Softly. It was sold as a broad crime thriller with Brad Pitt shooting lots of people, which it isn't.

 

[zoukka]

So not spoiling your movie in marketing is bad now wtf?

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

American Assaasin got a B+ from Cinema scores, Mother got an F.

Hadn't heard of the site before today but now it all makes sense.

It's a site that collects reviews from mainstream casual movie audiences. It's not meant to be a site for in-depth movie reviews. Just quick audience reactions.

 

[Fret]

.

 

[Walshicus]

I thought Solaris was pretty good. Better than the original anyway.

 

[old manatee]

It's the kind of movie that a lot of people just won't even try to engage with. Their loss.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

This looks fucking atrocious.

Movies continue to be the least-appealing medium to me.

I'm confused by this statement.

The trailer before "It" was embarrassing. I knew that the film was an arthouse movie but that trailer made it look like a big mainstream horror movie. The narrator was saying "THE SCARIEST MOVIE EVER", "REMEMBER WHERE YOU WERE WHEN YOU SAW MOTHER" and "BUY YOUR TICKETS AFTER THE MOVIE"

I'm 100% unsurprised, people were duped, just like It Comes At Night & The Witch.

All these art horror movies are being advertised as "THE SCARIEST THING YOU WILL EVER SEE" and it's beginning to backfire on them.

 

[andythinkpad]

At one point, the house set randomly turn into a rave party (this is just the midpoint of the movie). If Aronofsky doesn't care about continuity of his movie, he shouldn't care about the scores. Scores are meaningless right?

 

[Mr. Giggles]

I thought the movie was great, and I only felt better about it after reading more about it.

And also they don't really take "reviews" from the crowd. They catch people as they leave and get their take. The audience isn't writing reviews.

Ditto the bolded.

Watched the movie then read an article where they question the director and then it all made sense.

The last 25 minutes of the movie was when I started connecting some dots that the whole thing was very symbolic....i made the connection that

Spoiler

the house was an extension of her but the biblical references completely flew over my head until

I read the directors thoughts

 

[caliph95]

I'm confused by this statement.


All these art horror movies are being advertised as "THE SCARIEST THING YOU WILL EVER SEE" and it's beginning to backfire on them.

Hollywood doesn't know how to market them but likely think that more people are willing to go see a standard horror film than an art horror film

They're probably not wrong but WOM doesn't help the movies

 

[wenis]

Audiences are quite often wrong.