Sbenny.com is trusted by 
Name of the movie you are reviewing: Mother!
A recently married and traditional couple moved out of the city to a house in the woods, when strange actions happens after some time living together.
Review:
Nothing better than watching a film that for some reason I didn't watch at the time, for whatever reason, when it was released for audiences (almost 5-6 years), and that ended up impressing me along with the internal questioning of why I unconsciously procrastinated it, regardless, it is impressive, and I loved it.
I have a potential and exposed predisposition to films with dogmatic bases, eccentric and explicit in their way of being able to tell what they want to convey, that does not censor itself to appeal to the dual and toxic tastes of many people with whom I share the nickname of Millennials, and much more Generation Z who are in the victimization Olympics.
The Direction it is a combination of everything that I love; long shots without changing angles, which also accompanies the perspective and not only focus on the performances that were breathtaking (we're going over there) but also on the spaces; its often abrupt movements conveys the emotional context of panic, shock or despair depending on which part of the film we get, resulting in a visual cinematographic resource that feeds the film's ability to invite us to immerse ourselves in history.
The Editing more than anything in the scenes of the movie where thanks to the script we have little climaxes here and there (the first visitor, the arrival of his wife and his search around the house, the confrontation of the strange family, the MEETING WHERE THE CREATION OF THE WORK IS CELEBRATED, and the ceremony) before the major (which occurs at the end). The language of direction as I explained, it changes between long shots to shots that happen quickly (very frenetic and accelerated), even at the edges of the screen you can see that it is not so steady, here it is supported by the edition for that within the chaos there is a cohesion of how the events are happening, the effusiveness of Mother's contractions, and if we want to repeat the scenes to distinguish the details, it is not disastrous with a change of angles every two seconds. There's control over the exposition of events even when they convey chaos.
The production of scenery although it's dividing in different sets, the ground floor where the most action takes place was built exactly, very creatively, what it later became and they used elements for its transition into trenches, shelter beds, altar, cage; the budget, the organization and the talent, ok? Splendid teamwork and leadership coming from Aronofsky's part, just brilliant.
The performances of Javier Bardem and Jennifer Lawrence were very brave in accepting these characters, the internal work for the projection and construction of their respective performances (forgive the redundancy). But unlike a collaborative work where everyone was on the same level, they outshone the roles of Michelle Pfeifer and Ed Harris (who did very well, without undervaluing their contributions).
The sequence of the celebration of the publication of the book. This one is self-explanatory, masterful… Just masterful, the organization of all the choreography that took place in a new setting, the cinematography, the acting, the references to situations that commonly occur today (forced migration, the kidnapping of women for sex trafficking, the criminal acts that the followers of radical cults commit in the name of defending their faith, the irregular clashes between civilians and the police), the transformation of the house, the address, the editing, the mixing and editing of the sounds, the segments where Jennifer's character had a contraction. Everything; a sequence made for filmography studies and filming organization strategies.
The sequence of the ceremony. This one goes from being hectic and full of adrenaline, to morbid and exasperating due to the death of the baby, I was also impressed (and still remember it with a bit of shock) how realistic the way in which the character of Jen (mother) looked They were lynching her, and in a satisfactory way (only for a few moments) when she finally has the ovaries to attack the character of Javier (father).
The absence of a soundtrack, i think it's a favorable point, more than anything because of the nature of the film and the ambition to have a narrative that nurtures a cloudy and dark atmosphere, the only part where you can hear some music that is not setting is a dance scene from 6 seconds? maybe, and that's all.
The film itself relies more on the visual than on the narrative we're being spectators from, the characters' speeches are not many... And although it uses the references of allegories referring to the torment and abuse of Mother Earth, they are handled through the characters ( Jennifer is a mother, Javier is the poet who represents a god, Michelle Pfeifer is Eva, Ed Harris is Adam, etc), without regret i only understood the film in a rudimentary way as a horror genre supernatural because when EVERYTHING ends and mother dies, the same process is repeated with another woman (thanks to the stone she takes out of her heart), just like the first scene was the woman before Jen, and the theme of the cult and the character of Javier was the prophet, until I researched and understood his metaverse; without this information, i understand the negative reviews because it leaves you with important questions without answers, instead of leaving philosophical or the questions that open ended movies make you think of, this are literally about the thought process of building the plot and what it was the motive to see all of this.
I think that through dialogue with double meaning, it could be alluded to the concept that based their history, to have a context only of similarity... Or through images in their house, as the churches refer to the reading of the mysteries of the new testament, since the film is based on a visual character rather than a script, it could have worked, and look, I'm not the only one who googled; it's ok to use complex imaginary but for people trying to understand we need something that it's been use time after time, too.
The participation of Kristen Wiig, i know that a comedic actor may have the tools and talent to act in a drama, but I don't think the actress has had enough time in order to build that credibility, and be able to shape her performance. I couldn't take her seriously, although it literally appears in 3 scenes, I take away a bit of that tacit commitment that you have with any audiovisual medium knowing that it is fiction; BUT you allow him that depending on how good he is at being able to convince you of his own truth built on the basis of script, visuals and music, you will immerse yourself in it and believe him... That process in its few minutes, although a bit of a drama queen, made me take less seriously to the film.
Would you recommend this to other users? If you're an anxious person, nope.
If you can take it, absolutely.
Rating(1-5):
A recently married and traditional couple moved out of the city to a house in the woods, when strange actions happens after some time living together.
Review:
Nothing better than watching a film that for some reason I didn't watch at the time, for whatever reason, when it was released for audiences (almost 5-6 years), and that ended up impressing me along with the internal questioning of why I unconsciously procrastinated it, regardless, it is impressive, and I loved it.
I have a potential and exposed predisposition to films with dogmatic bases, eccentric and explicit in their way of being able to tell what they want to convey, that does not censor itself to appeal to the dual and toxic tastes of many people with whom I share the nickname of Millennials, and much more Generation Z who are in the victimization Olympics.
The Direction it is a combination of everything that I love; long shots without changing angles, which also accompanies the perspective and not only focus on the performances that were breathtaking (we're going over there) but also on the spaces; its often abrupt movements conveys the emotional context of panic, shock or despair depending on which part of the film we get, resulting in a visual cinematographic resource that feeds the film's ability to invite us to immerse ourselves in history.
The Editing more than anything in the scenes of the movie where thanks to the script we have little climaxes here and there (the first visitor, the arrival of his wife and his search around the house, the confrontation of the strange family, the MEETING WHERE THE CREATION OF THE WORK IS CELEBRATED, and the ceremony) before the major (which occurs at the end). The language of direction as I explained, it changes between long shots to shots that happen quickly (very frenetic and accelerated), even at the edges of the screen you can see that it is not so steady, here it is supported by the edition for that within the chaos there is a cohesion of how the events are happening, the effusiveness of Mother's contractions, and if we want to repeat the scenes to distinguish the details, it is not disastrous with a change of angles every two seconds. There's control over the exposition of events even when they convey chaos.
The production of scenery although it's dividing in different sets, the ground floor where the most action takes place was built exactly, very creatively, what it later became and they used elements for its transition into trenches, shelter beds, altar, cage; the budget, the organization and the talent, ok? Splendid teamwork and leadership coming from Aronofsky's part, just brilliant.
The performances of Javier Bardem and Jennifer Lawrence were very brave in accepting these characters, the internal work for the projection and construction of their respective performances (forgive the redundancy). But unlike a collaborative work where everyone was on the same level, they outshone the roles of Michelle Pfeifer and Ed Harris (who did very well, without undervaluing their contributions).
The sequence of the celebration of the publication of the book. This one is self-explanatory, masterful… Just masterful, the organization of all the choreography that took place in a new setting, the cinematography, the acting, the references to situations that commonly occur today (forced migration, the kidnapping of women for sex trafficking, the criminal acts that the followers of radical cults commit in the name of defending their faith, the irregular clashes between civilians and the police), the transformation of the house, the address, the editing, the mixing and editing of the sounds, the segments where Jennifer's character had a contraction. Everything; a sequence made for filmography studies and filming organization strategies.
The sequence of the ceremony. This one goes from being hectic and full of adrenaline, to morbid and exasperating due to the death of the baby, I was also impressed (and still remember it with a bit of shock) how realistic the way in which the character of Jen (mother) looked They were lynching her, and in a satisfactory way (only for a few moments) when she finally has the ovaries to attack the character of Javier (father).
The absence of a soundtrack, i think it's a favorable point, more than anything because of the nature of the film and the ambition to have a narrative that nurtures a cloudy and dark atmosphere, the only part where you can hear some music that is not setting is a dance scene from 6 seconds? maybe, and that's all.
The film itself relies more on the visual than on the narrative we're being spectators from, the characters' speeches are not many... And although it uses the references of allegories referring to the torment and abuse of Mother Earth, they are handled through the characters ( Jennifer is a mother, Javier is the poet who represents a god, Michelle Pfeifer is Eva, Ed Harris is Adam, etc), without regret i only understood the film in a rudimentary way as a horror genre supernatural because when EVERYTHING ends and mother dies, the same process is repeated with another woman (thanks to the stone she takes out of her heart), just like the first scene was the woman before Jen, and the theme of the cult and the character of Javier was the prophet, until I researched and understood his metaverse; without this information, i understand the negative reviews because it leaves you with important questions without answers, instead of leaving philosophical or the questions that open ended movies make you think of, this are literally about the thought process of building the plot and what it was the motive to see all of this.
I think that through dialogue with double meaning, it could be alluded to the concept that based their history, to have a context only of similarity... Or through images in their house, as the churches refer to the reading of the mysteries of the new testament, since the film is based on a visual character rather than a script, it could have worked, and look, I'm not the only one who googled; it's ok to use complex imaginary but for people trying to understand we need something that it's been use time after time, too.
The participation of Kristen Wiig, i know that a comedic actor may have the tools and talent to act in a drama, but I don't think the actress has had enough time in order to build that credibility, and be able to shape her performance. I couldn't take her seriously, although it literally appears in 3 scenes, I take away a bit of that tacit commitment that you have with any audiovisual medium knowing that it is fiction; BUT you allow him that depending on how good he is at being able to convince you of his own truth built on the basis of script, visuals and music, you will immerse yourself in it and believe him... That process in its few minutes, although a bit of a drama queen, made me take less seriously to the film.
Would you recommend this to other users? If you're an anxious person, nope.
If you can take it, absolutely.
Rating(1-5):
