Super FLOP! The public recognizes pretentious excrement - Mother! (2017) Discussion

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

Yep, the public has no taste for thoughtful, challenging movies that require thinking. But movies that flopped, were divisive and even critically panned have gone on to become regarded by future generations as masterpieces.

Only a complete moron with no awareness is going to think the short term is what matters.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

Their attention span and thoughtful analysis doesn't go past the length of their noses.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

The public are sheep and morons who don't even know when the government and corporations are screwing them. When they are so unaware of something that is staring them right in the face, how do you expect them to have any taste in movies. The public, for the most part, are excrement. Some are so dumb that when you tell them President Kennedy died this morning, they believe it. D*U*M*B...DUMB!

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Could the excrement screamers feel, perhaps, implicated, by any chance?

reply

[–] AvengingAngel (8) 7 years ago

Basically the numbers speak volumes.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

Whatever that means.

reply

[–] AvengingAngel (8) 7 years ago

I don't see a lot of high praise for this self-indulgent garbage.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

I guess it depends what you read and who you talk to. I actually have heard more positive things about it than negative things. I often wonder why people care so much about something they think is such trash. The years to come will tell whether this is a gem of a movie or a waste of celluloid. The short term is not that important when it comes to films art-house films like this.

reply

[–] Ldlamb (636) 7 years ago

It's waste

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

The New York Times found it to be the funniest comedy of the year.

I'm not entirely sure I'm in agreement, but whatevs...
.

reply

[–] spacefink (92) 7 years ago

Mark Kermode likes it too, and he normally has good taste.

I honestly want to see this for myself. I have a feeling its going to become a new favorite.

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

Oh lord. Well, don't invest in it as a traditional story. I was trying to figure out what was going on and got frustrated about halfway through.

I would watch it again some day because it's beautifully photographed...but it's very...well, inaccesible, in a sense (to me)

The New Yorker didn't like it, and they have my favorite reviews.
.

reply

[–] spacefink (92) 7 years ago

Dang! But it's funny, I can't tell whether people find it comical in the same way they find "Boom!" comical (like over the top, avante garde garbage that thinks it's way more clever than it actually is) or if the movie is just looking for it's audience (I felt this way about Inherent Vice a little bit).

I know one thing: I won't feel TOO guilty if I wind up hating this movie. In that sense, I'll know I have support XD

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

#WeStandWithMother!Hate

reply

[–] kaleidoscope0_0 (483) 7 years ago

I felt the same frustration. I am all for the abstract and I am kinda smart and stuff, but I don't like being stressed out unless it's a thriller. I agree with the beautiful shooting though. The hair and makeup on Jennifer Lawrence alone was amazingly done.

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

Some people love watching movies. A smaller more pathetic group of people love smugly telling others what movies they have seen. Those sad insecure loners mistakenly believe watching a muddled self indulgent pile of shit with delusions of an "important message" makes them somehow smarter that the people who realize the Emperor wears no clothes. Obviously anyone desperate enough to base their self worth on liking a movie is far from intelligent. Sadly they have to settle for being loud mouthed pompous pseudo intellectuals instead.

reply

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

Or quite possibly, some people like movies that require thinking and attention, and idiots who are not capable of either like to spin narratives where they are the real heroes and those who know better are "desperate" and "insecure". Projection, basically.

Talk about the merits of the film citing details from it, or basically admit you are talking out of your arse.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

They're not that transparent, are they?

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

Since you DIDN'T "Talk about the merits of the film citing details from it" that means you "basically admit you are talking out of your arse", right? Fair enough and thanks for providing an example of exactly the type of person I described.

reply

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

"Since you DIDN'T "Talk about the merits of the film citing details from it" that means you "basically admit you are talking out of your arse", right? Fair enough and thanks for providing an example of exactly the type of person I described."

I was responding to your content-free BS. So please, explain why thinking "mother!" has important messages is delusional. Explain why the "Emperor has no clothes". Do so citing details from the film.

You can't. You probably haven't even seen it.

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

I see you have failed once again to satisfy your own criteria. So you admit you're talking out of your ass then? Everyone already knew you were a pompous douchebag with nothing to back up her smug comments. At least you finally admitted it so that's a step in the right direction.

What do you want me to discuss in detail? The irony that such a proudly pretentious movie opens with an explosion? The annoying guests from hell? The theory "mother nature" should have done a better job affixing her sinks? The embarrassing pandering to sad losers? The ridiculous shock for shocks sake masquerading as deep thoughts that passes for a third act? The fact only a truly insecure little nothing would think employing a string theory name is "clever"?

Your turn. Explain in detail exactly what you think each character represents. Also what color shoes was Michelle Pfeiffer wearing? What was in the mans wallet? Why?

reply

[–] zephyr_cape (2979) 7 years ago

Wow this is quite the display

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

Thank you. I agree that I'm quite impressive. Why did you climb down off the cross?

reply

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

I note with great satisfaction and no surprise that you have still not backed up a single one of your claims with evidence from the movie.

You started the criticisms of the film with your first post. It is your obligation to back yourself up. And you can't.

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

Please provide a quote from me in my first post criticizing mother. I am not obligated to do anything. You however set a criteria that I have satisfied more than you have. All you are doing is making yourself look like a pathetic douchebag by avoiding answering any of my questions.

You ARE proving my point for me. Was that your intention or are you even more stupid that you seemed at first? You can't even tell me the color of Michelle Pfeiffer's shoes. You didn't even know she was in the movie did you? You're so sadly typical. If you can't answer my questions then don't bother replying.

reply

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

Thanks for proving my point by your constant refusal to back up your claims with evidence from the film: people who call movies "pretentious" are vapid, intellectually lazy losers who throw out the P word because they are utterly incapable of actually saying something of substance.

Every post you make where you continue to avoid ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE FILM lends more and more support to that narrative. Please--continue.

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

I did talk about the content of the film but you have yet to do the same. I told you not to reply until you could answer my questions. You're obviously stalling until you can talk your mom into taking you to see the movie.

Stop wasting my time you silly moron.

reply

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

"I did talk about the content of the film but you have yet to do the same."

You claimed that to believe the film has an important message is a delusion. You said that "the Emperor has no clothes".

If you knew what you were talking about, you could defend these claims by talking about the actual content of the film. But you're talking out of your arse since the film is beyond you. You should stick to cartoons.

By the way, another subject beyond your pathetic grasp is science. In the process of belittling my choice of a handle you even got that wrong. Hilarious.

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

So you're unfamiliar with particle physics? I should have figured you got the name from the Big Bang Theory. I know you are seeing this as some type of "battle" but you are just prattling on pointlessly and frankly I'm bored.

If you can ever answer my questions or at least be interesting perhaps I will smack you around some more.

Peace.

reply

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

No, idiot, I learned about magnetic monopoles from reading about science. I don't watch TV. It says a lot about your intellect that when the subject of science is broached, your mind automatically turns to some dumbass television sitcom.

I'll be happy to answer your questions when you make an effort to defend your comments about the film by actually supporting them with evidence from it. But you probably haven't even seen it.

Meanwhile, your posts here continue to be a case study in support of my claim that people who call art "pretentious" are typically know-nothings who are incapable of articulating anything substantial.

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

Particle physics is science. String theory is science. Holy shit you didn't know that. I was poking fun at you because you're so smug but you're actually more stupid than I thought and I was thinking you had the IQ of a turnip. Perhaps you can do some "reading about science" to discover why being dumber than a turnip is not a good thing.

reply

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

Magnetic monopoles have nothing to do with string theory, idiot. They were theorized before string theory even existed. String theory talks about them only in the sense that it has something to say about everything, being a theory of everything.

Talk about being dumber than a turnip. That's what happens when your understanding of science comes from brain dead TV shows.

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

Damn. You obviously googled it and you still got it wrong. That's just sad. You're really bad at this, huh? Stop boring me turnip.

reply

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

Sorry, pumpkin, but you are the one demonstrating your scientific illiteracy in a public space. I've been known about magnetic monopoles (which almost certainly don't even exist) since the 80's. You first heard about them when I started embarrassing you in this thread. And that's a fact.

Why don't you make an even bigger fool of yourself by articulating exactly what I got wrong? I can't wait!

(Don't worry, I know you won't, because you can't, for the same reasons you can't articulate your initial claims about this movie: you are all hot air and zero content.)

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

The 80's? Damn you're old grandma. No wonder you're such an uptight curmudgeon. I would think an old timer like you wouldn't need to brag about what movies she's seen or how "clever" she was to strangers to elevate her self worth.

Then again your advanced age is no guarantee of wisdom. You never were able to answer my simple questions and you have been painfully boring since your first reply. Time to ignore you. I'll never see your inevitable reply. Try some prunes. I've read they improve the disposition of old codgers like you.

reply

[–] MagneticMonopole (286) 7 years ago

Prediction confirmed. Thanks for being the poster boy for pure ignorance.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Oh jesus fucking christ please just shut the fuck up you pretencious prick. -.- I have the right to like or dislike any movie I want without being referred as "pompous pseudo intellectual"... We know who the real pathetic moron is.

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

Obviously my description fit you perfectly or you wouldn't be crying about it. You can't even spell pretentious correctly despite having spell check and the word being in the thread title. Perhaps you don't know what pseudo intellectual means since it's painfully obvious you're not an intellectual.

Sorry you feel triggered but it's best not to base self worth on watching a movie if you need a safe space when others are not impressed by said movie.

Tell Tara I said hey.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Well now I can clearly talk you out on your bullshit, I've seen the movie. Without being the best movie ever, it was actually a great movie if you can see further than your ass. I would gladly explain why is it a good movie but your dumb ass doesn't worth my time.

Btw: Thanks for coming out on me about my grammar, english is not my first language so really... I don't see how is it relevant.

reply

[–] pankoeken (469) 7 years ago

That is really interesting. So you were smugly defending the movie despite the fact you hadn't even seen it yet? So sadly TYPICAL!!! Thanks for proving my point for me.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Well if you read my comment well you'll see that in not occasion was i directly referring to THIS movie....

reply

[–] FFNogoodnik (775) 7 years ago

"some people like movies that require thinking and attention"

Most people are this way, it is just that many people differ in opinion on what movies "require thinking and attention".

You look at the end of the TV season when the cancellations are announced. You will see many posts that state "Why do the always cancel the good shows like " and leave the bad shows on . The show that I like got cancelled and it was a show that made you think."

Now, a few weeks later another show gets cancelled and another person makes the same type of post. The difference is that they are complaining about a show the first person considered bad.

Both people think their show was good and should not have been cancelled when other, less worthy shows, remained on.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

CRAP!

reply

[–] Stratego (30498) 7 years ago

Oh great, this is turning into another IMDb with people calling each other names because they (don't) like a movie...

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I know, I hate it. I come here (and IMDB before it) because I like to discuss movies both good and bad. I actually like to hear opinions different than mine and get a different take. Overall I liked this film but I don't feel threatened by the fact that many people did not, nor do I think it in any way makes me more insightful or intelligent. I'm sure the same people found value in films that may not have done anything for me. I'm still interested in their opinion. No idea when so many people lost the ability to RESPECTIVELY disagree with others.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

I don't mind hearing others opinions, but what I don't like is someone who is gleeful that a movie I liked is doing so poorly at the box office. It isn't that I really care that it is doing poorly either(I expected it)but the heading is only from a troll who wants to start stuff with other people. It could have been worded differently and it would have been fine.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I hear what you're saying but if they are simply trolls you're taking their bait and in doing so have labeled those who don't like the film as sheep and morons and quite frankly I find that an unfair statement (and I'm someone who like this movie). Just my opinion but you're better off responding with a civilized insult-free argument or just not responding at all because true trolls feed on you insulting them.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

Yeah, I did exactly what they wanted. I must have been in a super bad mood at the time, which doesn't happen much.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Eh it happens, we've all been there.

reply

[–] Jehosaphet (1063) 7 years ago

"I don't mind hearing others opinions, but what I don't like is someone who is gleeful that a movie I liked is doing so poorly at the box office."
Just...this lol
IMDB forums, you'd always see those posts from people who were just goddamn giddy about a movie failing. Something about that kind of shittiness is just so off-putting that...its almost like the person is representing the dark side of humanity or something. A bunch of people worked very hard on something, only to have some jerkoff who's likely accomplished little more than finally cleaning the acne spurts off his bathroom mirror, is just soooo damn happy about it. The whole enjoying others' misery thing, or something. Its gross, and those types of people are of the devil IMO.
Sorry. Just...yeah.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

It is one of the worst parts of what technology brought us...The Troll.

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

<< great, this is turning into another IMDb with people calling each other names because they (don't) like a movie... >>

Shut the F@#K up, mutha!
.

reply

[–] Stratego (30498) 7 years ago

I will, Cookie! Just...just don't hurt me!

reply

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

Awwww....I didn't even notice it was you posting : (

Sorry!

I saw this film today and it put me in a bad mood. I loved BLACK SWAN and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, but was expecting this film to have more of a story.

I felt abandoned, lost....and that is when we strike out at those we love the most.

#ForgiveMe?
.

reply

[–] Stratego (30498) 7 years ago

I pretty much have to, right? Who knows what you might do if I don't!

No, all's good, Cookie, all's good. I'm sorry for what you had to go through. The movie seems to have that effect on most people. Fortunately, I haven't seen it yet.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

Everything popular is wrong.

reply