User Reviews

I saw this at TIFF and the point this movie was trying to make became clear fairly early on. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but as the story developed, the analogies and symbolism went into overkill, to the point where their excessive nature diminished what was an interesting story.

The movie is helmed by Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem, two actors I'm particularly fond of. The short summary of this movie is that they are a couple who live in a beautiful, remote home. One night they take in an unwanted house guest (Harris), more at Bardem's choosing than Lawrence's. This leads to countless other house guests and invasions from the outside world, often to the detriment of Bardem & Lawrence's beautiful home, and Lawrence's well-being.

As the movie goes on, these violations against the home and Lawrence get increasingly bizarre and excessive. They get laid on so thick that, even if you have figured out the analogy by the midway point of the movie and enjoy the way the movie is getting it's point across, the sheer madness that transpires in the second half of the film is likely to sour you on the overkill applied to the message.

It becomes fairly apparent that the house and Lawrence's character from which the movie is titled represent our planet. Bardem's character represents a creator/God (in credits, his character is simply known as 'Him'). Harris and Pfeiffer, the original, invasive guests, are the original Man & Woman (Adam & Eve), and from there, a lot of the plot initially descends from biblical references and then into His desire to provide for his followers and to be adored by them, ignorant of how detrimental they are to the house and Mother.

At the very end, the house becomes overpopulated with people who are both zealots and warmongers who descend into utter 'WTF' madness while they destroy the home, murder the couple's child, and force Mother to burn down the home she so painstakingly created, killing everyone inside it. After the fire, He carries her out, and recreates the home with a new Mother.

As I said, it's a story thick on symbolism and message. I personally liked what they were going for, but think it could have been a much better movie if they had done it far subtly than with the extreme overkill they employed in the second half of this film. Looking at the reviews, I see a lot of people torn by this movie, and I think for these reasons. Some people didn't clue into the message very well and just thought it was a movie that made no sense. Others may not have liked the pro-environment analogies, while some may have loved how excessive the movie hammered it's point home. Another group likely felt how I did - that the plot and point was unique and interesting, but the sheer madness the film careened into during the second half was extremely excessive.

Overall, I give it a 6/10, with disappointment that a promising concept wasn't executed more sensibly.

I watched this at home on DVD from my public library, my wife skipped. I was eager to see this, I had heard so much about it.

Writer/director Aronofsky has always said he makes a movie to leave an impression, he has to make viewers think and react. He has no desire to make a middle of the road, nice movie.

"Mother" starts off like a pretty ordinary movie, the wife wakes up, her husband is not in bed, she finds him downstairs. He is a somewhat successful author, a poet, and they live alone in a big house surrounded by a big field. We see at the very beginning the house had been almost destroyed by a fire but the Mother (as played by Jennifer Lawrence) has worked diligently to bring it back to its original condition. Not much out of the ordinary there. Her husband is Javier Bardem simply as Him.

However as the story progresses things get stranger and stranger, starting with a man, then joined by his wife, they break something valuable, their adult sons show up, they fight over jealousy, one kills the other. Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain immediately come to mind.

As the story progresses we see more and more that Mother and the house itself represent Nature and the world, people come into it, become careless, personal pleasure trumps responsibility. Aronofsky has called himself "Godless" so he has to create his own kinds of God and he does it in his movies. This one is perhaps his clearest example so far.

Not a movie for everyone, as many of the "1" votes and unflattering reviews show, but taken as a novel viewing experience it in fact is a very interesting take on humanity. I say enjoy it for the movie-making craft if for nothing else. Don't read past the spoilers following.

SPOILERS: As the house is getting overrun with more and more we realize it strays further from a possible reality, it begins to represent all the bad things that have happened in the world. Finally disgusted with the whole thing Mother causes a furnace oil spill in the basement, ignites it, and explodes the whole house and everyone in it. She burns to a crisp but Him, representing the Creator, is unharmed. He reaches in and grabs the crystal from Mother's body, and it becomes the spark for a new beginning. We see the house re-forming and a scene identical to the opening scene where a new Mother wakes up in bed. We see her face, it is not the same one as before. The world has a new beginning.

First, I must laugh at all the reviews of people who had no idea what they were watching. We must all realize that all films are not written for all people who watch. Just as I usually do not go see cartoon films, others should give good thought before seeing such an 'artsy' film as Mother!. Hey, if you didn't like Black Swan, think more than twice on this one.

Observation:

There is a fire. Woman's face burning up. When cut to Javier holding a crystal. He places the crystal on a metal stand and we watch the house start healing itself, starting at that crystal. We cut to other parts of the house, as it heals, from fire back to normal. Eventually we cut to a bedroom where we see the bed healing itself and someone under the covers. She arises and it is Mother, played by Jennifer. Odd names for a film, right, but the names are never said in the film. We learn that Him is an accomplished poet, but it seems like he is going through some type of writer's block. Mother's mission is to refinish the house. A lot has been done, but there is always more work to do.

A man played by Ed Harris knocks at the door and Him greets the man and allows him to enter, almost happy someone else is in the house. The man is a doctor, but he smokes and drinks which causes him getting sick, fairly easily. It doesn't bother Him, but Mother is quite concerned.

Soon someone else arrives, a woman played by Michelle Pfeiffer. Turns out the woman is the man's wife. She's a feisty one played convincingly by Pfeiffer. Mother seems confused why Him allows these strangers to stay in their house. The woman doesn't hold anything back when she has a conversation with Mother. The woman asks why they don't have a baby? Mother is pretty taken back by how forward the woman is. This does not bother the drunk woman.

The man & woman seem to find a fascination with the crystal. Mother tells them not to touch it, but eventually they sneak in the room and break it into 100's of pieces. Him becomes enraged! Mother wants the man and woman to leave, but they don't and it's seems Mother is powerless. Mother goes to their room and they are having sex so she leaves. Even though Him is very upset he does not ask them to leave. Are you putting the pieces together? 2 more guests, 2 sons arrive. They fight, one becomes badly hurt & Him, the man & woman take him to the hospital, but Him comes back and tells Mother he died. Soon people start showing up, apparently for the funeral for the son and as more arrive things become chaotic. Every person seems to represent something different. The house becomes a disaster as everyone starts stealing everything!

After everyone leaves Him & Mother have a fight which turns into sex. After Mother says she is pregnant. Him then becomes inspired to write a new poem. He gives it to Mother to read. She cries and tells Him it is magnificent.

People start showing up again to praise Him for his poem. It is at this point things start to become totally chaotic. Let's just say lots of people show up and Aronofsky puts things in overdrive! The insanity on the screen is brilliant and here is why I believe this…

Interpretation:

The film is basically an allegory our entire existence, and then some. Him is G*d. Mother is Mother Nature or as Him calls her, home. Him creates man and woman as Mother Nature creates everything around them. The Poem is the Bible. The house is the world. The man is Adam, the woman Eve. The sons Cain & Abel. We then basically witness an insane, quick review from Christ to present time (about 20 minutes), and then the demise of mankind. The film's use of the crystal represents the 'Apple'.

Conclusion:

When we look at this film in its entirety, taking 2 steps back, we see the film summarizes man's existence. The beginning of the film shows he tried before, but failed. Our existence, most of the film, also fails. At the end, we see Him try once again. G*d's dilemma is free will. Him only leads by verse (the Bible), but man's interpretation is what creates conflict, as everyone has their own interpretation, thus anarchy eventually occurs & eventually obliteration. Eden gets a restart, over & over again.

I find the film to be amazing in scope, like Cloud Atlas or A's The Fountain. Like I said earlier, if you don't appreciate films like these, or even Black Swan don't bother. It's simply not your brand. I feel the film is an amazing encapsulation of our existence performed in very unique fashion. The message here is strong. I prefer the avant-garde probably because I've seen so many films. I need to view films that present something new, and this one certainly does. For me, it is a masterpiece. Aren't artists allowed to target their audience? They all can't have happy endings. My 1000 words worth.

First of all, please don't watch this film if you have trouble understanding metaphors & symbolism.

It's pretty clear that there are quite a number of reviews/rants on this page with people expressing their hate towards the story and how it's been portrayed on screen. It's strange because it looks like they had absolutely no idea what they were watching... it's trivial and shallow to publish a review without any research. However, I do agree that it isn't an easy one to sit through, but some of the greatest films aren't. So again, please don't bother checking it out if your mind is closed, you won't appreciate this masterpiece.

To help deter unaccommodating opinions being regurgitated, I'll try to explain what made the film worth your time.

I believe there are two themes that can be interpreted from Mother!! Therefore, the use of an additional explanation mark is required.

***SPOILERS BELOW***

Religious Theory;

Pretty sure the inconvenient truth to this theory is that when the sh*t hits the fan, mother doesn't like people messing up her house (Earth). Apparently, Darren Aronofsky is not religious but he likes strong environmental messages. He also wrote the script in 5 days.. how long did it take God to create the world? Just saying.

Jennifer Lawrence is (Mother) Earth — The house is Earth.

Javier Bardem (Him) is God — Creator of life on Earth, loves attention, and forgives everyone.

Ed Harris (Man) is Adam — Invited by God to Earth (aka house)

Michelle Pfeiffer (Woman) is Eve — Created from Adam's rib (scene where Ed Harris was sick on the toilet)

The crystal is the forbidden fruit (apple)

The baby is the bread at the last supper "Body of Christ"

Relationship Theory;

An extreme version of anxiety in a relationship that is deteriorating. The tense build-up in social interactions and how someone may view a scenario where they feel left out and forgotten. The jealousy someone feels when their bond is shared. Not paying attention to the needs of one another in a relationship. Having a baby to keep the relationship alive. All these emotions are magnified/multiplied by 100 to the point it's literally terrifying, so crazy that it may make you laugh. Finally, once the love has completely diminished, the only thing left is to leave and start again new.

Either way, this film is unique and original in the way it's portrayed, packaged and presented.

Hope you can appreciate the beauty of this Gothic religious tale / art-house opera and award the actors & production team that helped make it possible.

Him is the God, the creator! Mother is the mother earth. Mother gives form and maintains the structure. God first invites Adam (the old man). Then from Adam's rib God creates Eve. Do you remember the scene in which Man's rib was wounded and he was throwing up?

Adam and Eve break the forbidden crystal (they ate the forbidden fruit).

Then we see the story of Abel and Cane. Cane kills Abel. Then mother's house, the earth, is populated with various religions and various ideologies. All of which pray God (or Him). But they become aggressive. They start to betray the earth.

And then the story of Jesus. Mother becomes Mary. It gives birth to Jesus. But Jesus followers eat him alive. They eat his blood and his flesh (wine and bread). And the story continues. The way the humanity is heading, Mother earth is doomed.

I liked the symbolism in this movie. But to me, as a semi-Nietzschean thinker, mother is the real God. For God is not separated from mother. God is mother's creation.

Mother = Earth.

I finish with this quote from Nietzsche:

"Remain faithful to the (mother) earth, my brothers, with the power of your virtue. Let your gift-giving love and your knowledge serve the meaning of the earth. Thus I beg and beseech you. Do not let them fly away from earthly things and beat with their wings against eternal walls. Alas, there has always been so much virtue that has flown away. Lead back to the earth the virtue that flew away, as I do—back to the body, back to life, that it may give the earth a meaning, a human meaning."

Darren Aronofsky's Mother! is an arthouse movie with a well known cast. It was pushed as a psychological horror.

It is really a pretentious muddled movie about ecological damage with biblical underpinnings.

Jennifer Lawrence plays Mother, the young wife a struggling writer (Javier Bardem) who has writer's block.

One night a stranger (Ed Harris) visits his house and he is a big fan of the writer. The writers invites him to stay but mother is unsure. The stranger seems to be suffering from ill health. Later the stranger's wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives followed by his two squabbling sons one of them kills the other.

Pretty soon more people arrive at the house. Mother is disturbed that the writer is putting up with these unwanted guests, their rowdy behaviour and lack of respect to their home. She eventually sends them away.

One night mother and the writer make passionate love which leaves her pregnant and the writer's creative juices flow. Upon publication of his new poem more fans arrive creating havoc and violence.

It is obvious that the stranger and his family are Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel. Mother must mean the garden of Eden. The rowdy mob are the humans who ravage the planet's natural resources.

Mother! is a perplexing movie with a director who wants to challenge himself artistically. Unfortunately he does not rise to the challenge. Lawrence admirably does push herself but she is let down by the material.

I did wonder if the film was directed by Peter Greenaway with music by Michael Nyman. It would had been a lot better but still not more comprehensible.

These days, we live in a world where most things are terrible and don't make any sense. Yet, a film like Mother! can still come along and disgust audiences. A film so off-putting, Rex Reed declared it "The worst film of the century". Make no mistake, Mother! is a profoundly polarizing film. But that is only because it went mainstream. It stars mainstream actors. It's distributed by Paramount. In recent years, the art-house and the multiplex have never crossed paths. But as the era of the blockbuster fades away, it was only a matter of time for Hollywood to return back to it's roots. To bring us back to the late 1960's, where most films meant something. Films that grab you. Films that push serious boundaries. I rarely leave a theater shaken. But Mother! did just that. It is a beautiful, terrifying assault on your senses.

Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem play a lovely couple. Bardem is a struggling poet, while Lawrence tends to her house obsessively. Everything seems fine on the surface. What's that, you ask? The house has a heart! I admit the deed! Tear up the planks! Here, here! It's the beating of his hideous heart! ... and scene. Thank you for indulging me. No seriously, the house has a heart.. and internal organs. It's a living entity. I heard of the phrase "Home is where the heart is" but this is ridiculous. Is it? Lawrence plays someone that wants to be a mother to something. Her house? What happens when adoring fans come rushing in to see Bardem? Unwelcome visitors all! They wreck the house and impede on Lawrence's hard work. This must not go on. To fill the void, Bardem and Lawrence conceive a child. As the days go on, the guest list becomes bigger and bigger. By the film's midpoint, the house becomes a small city of thieves and squatters. After that, I must not share anymore. Because if you're already confused by what I'm telling you.. you don't know what confused is, my friend.

How does one interpret Mother! It's the quintessential art-house/midnight movie. Therefore, anything is plausible. Aronofsky intended it that way. He juggles many concepts and critiques about life itself. Motherhood, paranoia, fame, claustrophobia, selfishness, lust, rage, war, peace, religion, gender, history.. Mother! is whatever you want it to be and more. If you know that going in, this will be a breeze. If you don't, you will loathe every second of this film and I won't blame you. It is a lot to swallow. The climax of the picture is well orchestrated insanity. Arguably, the most intense sequence of events captured on screen since Children of Men. By comparison, Requiem for a Dream is almost entirely palpable. You sit back in your seat and think "Enough already. This is too much. Wow. It's not stopping. Please stop.". But that is precisely the point. Aronofsky does not let up until you are mentally drained from watching. But at least to ease some of the pain, you see a lot of Jennifer Lawrence's face, up-close. Most of the film is on her face. In real life, she is in a relationship with Aronofsky. Coincidence? No, not a coincidence. This is the mark of a filmmaker madly in love with his star. On an emotional level, that shows.

Mother! is not a film to go into blind.. but that certainly helps the experience. Polarizing, disturbing films are not crowd pleasures by any stretch, but that's never been an area that bothers me. Films like these fascinate me. Their lack of decorum fascinates me. The reactions from the audience fascinate me. On Lars Von Trier's best day, he couldn't have conjured a film like Mother! .. and if he did, he would've have let it be seen in a shopping mall.

The principle rule of allegory is that it must function on two levels - the plain narrative, what the audience sees or reads, and the metaphorical, the level beyond the seen or read, usually conveying a deeper meaning. An allegory which fails as a narrative is a morality play; an allegory that fails on the metaphorical level is a nonsensical tale.

mother! fails on both levels, and the result is a confusing mess as likely to bore as it is to disgust.

The script is stark, but as opposed to offering up a Hemingway-esque brevity and punch, it instead descends to the level of drive by dialogue, actors delivering short statements with blank expressions and then leaving the room they're in. Granted, the actors only had Aronofsky's script to work with, and he's on record as saying it only took five days to write, which is visible in every scene. An undergrad brags about finishing their paper the night before it's due; a screenwriter should not laud a similar process for his film.

The only film that comes close to the delivery in mother! is The Room, which may very well be the superior of the two. And if you told me that Bardem, normally a captivating actor, had modeled his performance of Him on Wiseau's Johnny, I would readily believe you.

In fact, the only actor who brings any life to this joyless epic is Pfeiffer, whose facial expressions and tone elevate her sniping dialogue far above the written quality. She's also the only one who brings any passion to her role, as Lawrence seems to have been reduced to two speeds - blank expression and monotone speech, or screaming so hard she cracks a rib. All granularity seen in her previous performances is gone here.

The characters portrayed by normally fine actors are so small, so one dimensional, one barely cares about them as people, let alone as stand ins for something larger than themselves. I could muster neither sympathy nor even vague interest in the foibles and woes of this couple, nor their never-ending torrent of house guests. (Judging by the laughs in the theater, I wasn't the only one.) Their tragedies in the final third were grating, not because they were disgusting, or shocking, but because I was never interested in them to begin with.

The setting is a perfect mirror to Lawrence's acting, if not her character. The film takes places in a rustic, half finished house. As before with the script, any attempt at a spare beauty is never realized, and the end result looks like the set designers didn't want to spend too much time on something they knew would literally be ripped apart in the final act. The house is our only setting in this film, so its lack of visual interest is a massive detriment.

The cinematography is likewise lackluster, with nothing special to either set it apart or condemn it. It is filmed adequately. The story and performances were clearly meant to be the jewel here, a situation analogous to purchasing a workable frame only to enshrine pages from the 1988 Albuquerque phone book therein.

And since I brought up analogy, the elephant in the room, the roughshod Biblical allegory. Said allegory falls flat on its face as soon as its analyzed in the slightest. Lawrence is Aronofsky's self insertion character (in the style of bad fan fiction) to the Christian canon, a Gaia character who forms an unbalanced duality with Him, the writer's presentation of the Christian God.

Him is never very godlike, and his standing as "God" is simply revealed to us at the end, a classic example of telling and not showing. While observant viewers may be able to deduce his role from context earlier in the film, he is never characterized in a way that makes his stated role fit his perceived role. An allegory is not proclaiming a character to be other than they have been observed by way of a brief statement at the end.

The titular mother, the self insertion Gaia character, has a similar problem - she demonstrates none of the qualities common to portrayals of Mother Earth figures in fiction. Instead, she is aloof, credulous, and dense. If the point intended to be made was Aronofsky's self-proclaimed howl about the treatment of the planet, perhaps he should have created a Mother Earth figure that was remotely sympathetic, or relatable. What we have instead is a distant robot whose demise was met with yawns.

The revelation, easily predicted from the first scene, that this is a cycle these characters have been locked in since time immemorial, fails to shock or elicit a reaction, unless one counts exasperation. It also drives the allegory firmly off the rails, moving our underlying mythology from a Christian creation and eschatology to something more Eastern, with reality a cyclical illusion.

There was an opportunity here for a valid story to be told on multiple levels. We live in an era of man made climate change and contemporary Christianity is ripe for criticism. A more skilled writer and director could have pulled off a tale that would be as heartbreaking as it was true. And perhaps Aronofsky could have done that, had he taken his time and revised even the slightest bit. (However, as this is his second failure in a row that deals with Biblical themes, perhaps not.)

What we are treated to instead is the cinematic equivalent of soda crackers and a brief lecture by an inarticulate first year undergrad about religion and environmentalism. I wish I could end this with the famous quotation from King Lear, but it's not entirely accurate. We were only given the idea of sound and fury, not the genuine article. This film is the shadow of a shadow, and in that, at least, it does signify nothing.

Seriously wtf did I just watch? I get it, I get the comparison about the mother nature-god-adam-eve+ references, but that doesn't help the film out to realize this. This was just really brutal to watch. I almost didn't finish it, but I was already in sh**-deep so I had to go there. My advice...don't waste your time....seriously, you will most likely regret it.