CARI Infonet

 Forgot password?
 Register

ADVERTISEMENT

Author: dauswq

[2017] MOTHER! - Joyah, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer

  [Copy link]
 Author| Post time 15-8-2017 01:07 PM | Show all posts
cyclops_psycho replied at 15-8-2017 12:45 PM
ya la ko tapi motif sgt minah tu la yg menang?? Ramai pundits kata Pfeiffer is feveret time tu. Ra ...

padahal dah menang tone of critics awards sblm tu kah?  
bkn nasib dia..


Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 15-8-2017 04:01 PM | Show all posts
cyclops_psycho replied at 15-8-2017 12:27 PM
dengar2 nama Michelle Pfeiffer pun disebut2 bakal dpt oscar nomination utk filem ni tp bukan la as ...

of couse aku nak michelle peiffer sangkut oscar dan menang...
sepatutnya dia dpt oscar dalam filem The Faboulous baker Boys...entah macamana nenek kertu yang menang..


harap sangat michelle sangkut oscar sebab last dapat nomination tahun 1992 filem love fields..itu pun alah alah nak cukupkan kuata je.



Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 15-8-2017 04:02 PM | Show all posts
dauswq replied at 15-8-2017 01:07 PM
padahal dah menang tone of critics awards sblm tu kah?  
bkn nasib dia..

segala awards michelle pfeiffer menang masa tu ..filem The Fabulous baker boys mmg terbaik...

tapi di malam oscar dia gagal...
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 15-8-2017 04:06 PM | Show all posts
SY_Mumi replied at 15-8-2017 09:09 AM
Ai nih ketinggalan keretapi, kenapa korang gelar Jennifer Lawrence Joyah ?

sebab jennifer ni mulut langsuang...dah tu perasan talented...overated sebenarnya....

pada aku lakonan dia semua jahanam....dah tu membosankan...


* sorry marah bebenor aku dengan joyah ni...
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 15-8-2017 09:23 PM | Show all posts
sapa joyah??
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 16-8-2017 12:41 AM | Show all posts
mat_arof replied at 15-8-2017 04:06 PM
sebab jennifer ni mulut langsuang...dah tu perasan talented...overated sebenarnya....

pada aku  ...

haha iyeker tak minat dgn dia
Dulu time JL berlakon Hunger Games, ai dont really notice. Till ai wonder saper nih new Mystique in Xmen. Wow baru tahu JL digelar america sweetheart. Movie yg dia menang oscar ai pon belom nonton lagi. Cam tak menarik je.
If batch pelakon pompuan yg skrang, more tertarik nak tengok lakonan Michelle Williams, Rosamund Pike & Emma
Stone. So far tis few females stars lakonan dorang more versatiles.
Reply

Use magic Report

Follow Us
Post time 16-8-2017 12:42 AM | Show all posts

cuba google 'jennifer lawrence aka joyah'
confirm tak akan jumpa jawapan
ai dah try
Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 16-8-2017 05:50 PM From the mobile phone | Show all posts
bila keluar movie ni?
Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 17-8-2017 06:06 AM From the mobile phone | Show all posts
Based on the trailer, nampak macam kak Michelle Pfeiffer yg jadi scene stealer... Walaupun scene Tak banyak, tapi lebih menonjol dari joyah


Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 6-9-2017 11:04 AM From the mobile phone | Show all posts
Early reviews katanya filem ni sgt shocking, mind-blowing, game changer...something yg Kita Tak pernah tgk sebelum ni.
Setanding Rosemary's baby....
Hmm.......adakah joyah bakal mendominasi pencalonan best actress Kali ni....Kita tungguuuuu
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 6-9-2017 12:34 PM | Show all posts
putehkundor replied at 6-9-2017 11:04 AM
Early reviews katanya filem ni sgt shocking, mind-blowing, game changer...something yg Kita Tak pern ...


@cyclops_psycho

thn ni tahun joyah lah nmpknye


Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 6-9-2017 12:35 PM | Show all posts
'mother!': What the Critics Are Saying'mother!'
Expect an overblown, overwhelming meditation on the nature of creativity, apparently.


If there's a throughline in early reviews of Darren Aronofsky's mother!, it's that the movie is an overwhelming, glorious mess of a feature that nonetheless leaves the viewer dazed, confused and utterly impressed by what they've just seen — even if they're not quite sure what it actually was that they've just seen.

According to The Hollywood Reporter's Todd McCarthy, the film is "a very Rosemary’s Baby-like intimate horror tale that definitely grabs your attention and eventually soars well over the top to make the bold concluding statement that, for some creators, art is more important than life."
Praising the cinematography of Matthew Libatique and production design of Philip Messina — another common thread across reviews, alongside plaudits for a cast headed by Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem — McCarthy writes that mother! is "above all a portrait of an artist who has untethered himself from any and all moral responsibility, one so consumed by his own ego and sense of creative importance that he’s come to believe that nothing and no one remotely competes with the importance of his work."

The notion that mother! might have autobiographical meaning is raised by The Daily Beast's Marlow Stern, who argues that the pic is "ultimately concerned with the parasitic nature of the male artist; how he drains the lifeblood from all those around him in the name of creativity and ego fuel. In that sense, it’s a remarkably self-absorbed film, and one that, allegorical or not, feels like an agonized mea culpa from the artist (Aronofsky) to those in his personal orbit." (Stern also writes, "[T]his is a film designed to fuck with you. And fuck with you it does." That is, I believe, a recommendation.)

For Ben Croll of IndieWire, mother! is "too hazily figurative to be in any way autobiographical," but nonetheless comes across as more than just "another baroquely orchestrated big-screen freak-out in the vein of Black Swan (though it is very much that)." Instead, Croll says, Aronofsky "sends his characters into a nightmarish dreamscape that grows and evolves, particularly in the bonkers last third, which builds in pitch, scope and sheer cinematic audacity, picking up overt religious and political resonance."

Dreamscape, you say? Collider's Brian Formo concurs, likening the movie to "a nightmarish fever dream," although he adds, "it’s truly about the creative processes of an artist, the unrelenting service of a muse, and the public which receives the work and feels like they’re owed more." The key to the pic's success, Formo argues, is the skills of Aronofsky as filmmaker: "Although the idea of the film is perhaps a simple parable of an artist, the muse and the public that starts to sound like a student’s conceit the more you think about it (including a few of the objects used for symbols), Aronofsky’s filmmaking capabilities far outshine his concept."

If you're picking up a tendency towards purple prose in these reviews, you're not imagining it. Here, for example, is Screen International's Fionnuala Halligan, who was so excited by the movie that she described it as "a creative surge that’s like the lancing of a boil, releasing a torrent of despair and disgust for the greedy chaos of society today as well as a self-loathing portrait of the artist as an emotional succubus." (She added, "it’s hard to categorize mother! Its style is a perfect meld with its narrative ambitions and they run in harmony with the current, chaotic times we live in. It unsurprisingly has difficulty in sustaining this world over the long haul, but the end does eventually justify the means.")

But perhaps the best summation of the impact mother! had on critics comes from The Playlist's Jessica Kiang, who responds thusly: "An incendiary religious allegory, a haunted-house horror, a psychological head trip so extreme it should carry a health warning and an apologia for crimes of the creative ego past and not yet committed, it’s not just Aronofsky’s most bombastic, ludicrous and fabulous film, spiked with a kind of reckless, go-for-broke, leave-it-all-up-there-on-the-screen abandon, it is simply one of the most films ever."
With praise like that, who could resist? mother! is set for release Sept. 15 in theaters.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/mother-reviews-what-critics-are-saying-1035467

Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 6-9-2017 12:37 PM | Show all posts
‘mother!’ Review: Darren Aronofsky’s Audacious and Rich Cinematic Allegory Is His Most Daring Film Yet               

The auteur's super-secret new psychological horror is a nightmarish dreamscape. It does not disappoint.  

    Ben Croll                                                         
Sep 5, 2017 9:31 am                                                

               
                        
        
Jennifer Lawrence in “mother!”



mother!” begins as a slow burn and builds toward a furious blaze. Awash in both religious and contemporary political imagery, Darren Aronofsky’s allusive film opens itself to a number of allegorical readings, but it also works as a straight-ahead head rush. Not just another baroquely orchestrated big-screen freak-out in the vein of “Black Swan” (though it is very much that), the film touches on themes that — if too hazily figurative to be in any way autobiographical — at least tread on factors in the director’s own life.
Come for the house that bleeds; stay for the reflections on parenthood and the difficulty of living with fame.

The film is divided into two parts that roughly parallel one another for reasons that eventually make themselves clear. Both follow married couple Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem (and yes, their nearly 20-year age gap is an important and oft-commented upon plot point), who go unnamed as a way of telegraphing that they’re meant to represent Bigger Things. The credits list her as “mother” and him as, well, “Him,” and that disparity in proper capitalization is yet another clue as to the power dynamic between them.

The two live off in the countryside in his stately old manse. The house was nearly destroyed long before they married, and they’ve returned to fix it up before starting a family. That’s her plan, anyway. He — a world-famous poet with a bad case of writer’s block — mostly sits in his study and broods over the empty page. At least, until the Man (Ed Harris) comes-a-knockin’. The Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) — and chaos — soon follows.
Aronofsky and Paramount have launched one of the more secretive marketing campaigns in recent memory, which is odd because “mother!”  is a not a particularly twisty-turny affair. Both parts of the film play out like the first few chapters of “The Hobbit,” where a growing number of unexpected guests pop in to break the leads’ bucolic solitude, and twist them toward different ends.

“mother!”


The first part plays as an impish psychological thriller, with Man and Woman foisting their own family drama on the childless central couple. It coasts on delicious, low-simmering interactions, like when the cat-like Pfeiffer playfully interrogates the more restrained and shy Lawrence, unearthing all of the younger woman’s innate insecurities, before devolving into outright chaos. The second part finds the now nine-months-pregnant Lawrence contending with the throngs of fans who have come to meet her husband, but spins it toward an apocalyptic frenzy.

Husband Bardem welcomes the visitors in both acts, tying the pandemonium into his own artistic life. In the first part, the chaotic new guests lend him the inspiration to finish his new text; in the second, the masses come to herald its soaring success. But the film does not follow Bardem; it follows Lawrence for nearly every single one of its hefty 120 minutes.

Cinematographer Matthew Libatique’s handheld camera bops and swerves alongside the lead, often holding her in tight super-16 close-ups (fans of the both dynamic actress and celluloid grain are about to have a field day) that capture her growing horror as her life spirals out of control. The camera also stays within the confines of the house for the film’s full length, save one exterior shot around 45 minutes, which makes us gasp because it’s the first time we’ve seen the outside.

Aronofsky doesn’t lean toward claustrophobia. He externalizes his lead character’s horror into the foundations of the house. The house bleeds, it has oddly human-looking orifices, it has a beating heart. Aronofsky sends his characters into a nightmarish dreamscape that grows and evolves, particularly in the bonkers last third, which builds in pitch, scope, and sheer cinematic audacity, picking up overt religious and political resonance.
                                                
               
        
The film freely dips from both Testaments. Lawrence’s character ties it to the Garden of Eden at one point, noting “I want to make a Paradise.” It becomes anything but. In one way or another, the film references all 10 of Pharaoh’s plagues (up to and including the last one. This film goes places), and trots in real-life brothers Domnhall and Brian Gleeson to play versions of Cain and Abel. At one point the film engages in a brazen act of cannibalism, forcing us to confront specific religious dogma.

It also forces us to confront specific political overtones. As characters swarm the Bardem and Lawrence home, they bring with them the fissures and ongoing conflicts of the outside world. “mother!” does not try to evoke specific images, as Alfonso Cuaron did in “Children of Men” or even Bong Joon-ho in “Okja,” but it has a similarly bracing effect. As rioters, protesters, and refugees overtake the house, Aronosfky’s political message becomes clear.
Try and hide all you want. You’re still a part of this world, and it’s coming for you.

Grade: A-“mother!” premiered at the Venice Film Festival. It will hit theaters on September 15.

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/09 ... -bardem-1201872856/

Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 6-9-2017 12:39 PM | Show all posts
@Syd

tgk citer ni plak
review omputih kate sume bagus..

http://www.cinema.com.my/movies/ ... vs5RhHMz1TqoX0ir.97
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 6-9-2017 12:44 PM | Show all posts
review yg bukan positif plak
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 6-9-2017 12:45 PM | Show all posts
Venice Film Review: Jennifer Lawrence in ‘mother!’                                                                                                                                                                  
Owen Gleiberman                               
Chief Film Critic               
@OwenGleiberman        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Screenshot
  September 5, 2017 | 01:30AM PT                                                                                                                                                                                Darren Aronofsky's head-trip horror movie, starring Jennifer Lawrence as a woman who slips down a rabbit hole of paranoia, is dazzling on the surface, but what lies beneath? Maybe nothing.                                                                                                                                                  

If the only thing we wanted, or expected, a horror film to do was to get a rise out of you — to make your eyes widen and your jaw drop, to leave you in breathless chortling spasms of WTF disbelief — then Darren Aronofsky’s “mother!” would have to be reckoned some sort of masterpiece. As it is, the movie, which stars Jennifer Lawrence as a woman who slips down a rabbit hole of paranoid could-this-be-happening? reality (she flushes a beating heart down the toilet; blood in the shape of a vagina melts through the floorboards; and oh, the wackjobs who keep showing up!), is far from a masterpiece. It’s more like a dazzlingly skillful machine of virtual reality designed to get nothing but a rise out of you. It’s a baroque nightmare that’s about nothing but itself.

Yet for an increasingly large swath of the moviegoing audience, that may be enough. “mother!” is often entertaining in a knowingly over-the-top, look-ma-no-hands! way. To ask for a film like this one to be more than it is — to ask for it to connect to experience in a meaningful way — may, at this point, seem quaint and old-fashioned and irrelevant. Considering the number of cruddy recycled horror movies made by hacks that score at the box office, the film is almost destined to be a success, maybe even a “sensation,” because Aronofsky is no hack — he’s a dark wizard of the cinematic arts. Yet his two greatest films, “Requiem for a Dream” (2000) and “The Wrestler” (2008), are both steeped in the human dimension, whereas “mother!” is a piece of ersatz humanity. Its dread has no resonance; it’s a hermetically sealed creep-out that turns into a fake-trippy experience. By all means, go to “mother!” and enjoy its roller-coaster-of-weird exhibitionism. But be afraid, very afraid, only if you’re hoping to see a movie that’s as honestly disquieting as it is showy.

In the remote green countryside, Lawrence plays the young second wife of a middle-aged celebrity author of feel-good poetry, played by Javier Bardem. (The characters are identified in the credits only as “mother” and “him.”) She’s renovating the couple’s exquisitely tasteful and spacious rustic Victorian mansion. The place sits in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by nothing but grass and trees and wind, like a wooden octagonal country castle: no road, no driveway, no cell-phone service. It’s a house with great bones, as they say, but the place was burned in a fire, which destroyed everything Bardem had, including his first wife. In the ashes, he found a burnished crystal, which gave him the faith to go on (it’s mounted in his study), and Lawrence wants to feel the faith too. She isn’t just fixing up a house; she’s restoring their lives.

That, however, is going to be a challenge, since Bardem, who has been a blocked writer ever since the fire, skulks around with knitted brows and a bitter scowl, treating Lawrence less as someone he loves than as the ball-and-chain he’s already sick of. The oddest thing about “mother!” is that it pretends to be a “psychological drama,” but the Tensions Simmering Below The Surface are all on the surface. Aronofsky, who wrote as well as directed the film, seems to be drawing characters and situations out of a ham-handed tradition of overly blatant B-movie horror. But can intentional obviousness be an artful style? There’s no subtext to “mother!” — just the film’s hyper-synthetic, flattened-out pop reality.

Early on, there’s a mysterious knock on the door. It’s a skeevy and deranged-looking Ed Harris, who has somehow found his way to the house, late at night, and acts oddly aggressive and familiar (to Bardem: “Your wife? I thought it was your daughter!”). The even stranger thing is that within minutes, he and Bardem are sitting around like old drinking buddies, as if they were in the middle of a conspiracy. When Bardem invites him to stay over, Lawrence quite understandably says, “He’s a stranger. We’re not going to let him sleep in our house.” That Bardem treats a stranger like family and his wife like crap doesn’t really make sense, but the film asks us to accept that we’re in the “Twilight Zone” version of a “Green Acres” universe, where everything Lawrence thinks, says, and does is wrong, and she’s going to suffer for it, all because…well, there is no because. All because that’s the movie’s sick-joke rules.

“mother!” is a nightmare played as a hallucination played as a theater-of-the-absurd video game that seems to descend, level by level, to more and more extreme depths of depraved intensity. You could say that Aronofsky is drawing on “The Shining” (the isolated setting and Bardem’s stony resentment) and also on “Rosemary’s Baby,” the greatest of all paranoid horror films. If so, however, he heads right for that film’s in-your-face, party-with-the-devil final scene (“Hail Satan!”), which director Roman Polanski took an entire two-hour movie to work up to. That movie was a bad-dream vision of pregnancy in which Rosemary paid the price for her trust and naïveté. But what, exactly, is the sin Lawrence is paying for?

The way “mother!” portrays it, she’s an addict of countrified good taste who’s too obsessed with her Martha Stewart home-restoration project. But seriously, this is a crime? The role, as written, is so thin that Lawrence, long hair parted down the middle, has to infuse it with her personality just to create a semblance of a character. She makes this victim-heroine a warm, eager, reasonable sweetheart who is full of feeling (and wants to have a baby herself), but watches her life turn into a funhouse of torment.

She does take a mysterious golden elixir, which may have head-altering properties. (But then she stops taking it, and the madness escalates anyway.) The fact that she imbibes any substance at all may link the film, in Aronofsky’s mind, to the Ellen Burstyn section of “Requiem for a Dream,” in which the director imagined addiction to amphetamines as a hallucination from hell. But that outrageous and memorable episode expressed something deep and true: that this is what drugs could do to your brain.

In “mother!,” the filmmaker basically just keeps coming up with bigger and better ways to punish his heroine. Harris’s wife comes over, and she’s a noodgy drunk played, with blaring ferocity, by Michelle Pfeiffer. A little later, we meet the couple’s adult sons (played by Brian and Domhnall Gleeson), who are at loggerheads, and everything that’s happened so far begins to look like child’s play. We’re now more or less rolling with it, taking refuge in Aronofsky’s puckish skill at staging the delirium, even as his relentless use of hand-held close-ups grows claustrophobic.

There’s an abstract audacity to “mother!” The film’s horror plays off everything from the grabby hordes of celebrity culture to the fear of Nazis and terrorists to — yes — what it means to be a mother (complete with the world’s most ironic exclamation point). All of that makes the film seem ambitious. But it also makes it a movie that’s about everything and nothing. You might say that it’s Aronofsky’s (confessional?) vision of what it’s like being married to a famous egocentric artist. But you could also say that “mother!” is so intent on putting an undeserving woman through the terrors of the damned that there’s a residue of misogyny to its design. Toss in a twist ending worthy of M. Night Shamyalan (a good or bad thing? Maybe both), and you’ve got a head-trip horror movie with something for everyone — except, perhaps, for those who want to emerge feeling more haunted than assaulted.
                                                                                                                                                                                       

Reply

Use magic Report


ADVERTISEMENT


Post time 6-9-2017 12:45 PM From the mobile phone | Show all posts
dauswq replied at 6-9-2017 12:34 PM
@cyclops_psycho

thn ni tahun joyah lah nmpknye

Film baru Guillermo del toro pun bagus review dia, ramai kata his best since Pan's labyrinth. Pelakon wanita utama dia pun Ada chance tercalon best actress.
Kalau best actress comedy golden globe rasanya Emma stone yg bakal menang, tapi Oscar susah sikit kot.

Harap harap joyah Tak dpt nominasi di Oscar nanti...
Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 6-9-2017 12:48 PM | Show all posts
putehkundor replied at 6-9-2017 12:45 PM
Film baru Guillermo del toro pun bagus review dia, ramai kata his best since Pan's labyrinth. Pela ...

aritu ade gak post psl sally hawkin tu
sbb role dia membisu jek dlm filem tu
dia leh talk dgn alien wlpn bisu

Reply

Use magic Report

 Author| Post time 6-9-2017 12:52 PM | Show all posts
putehkundor replied at 6-9-2017 12:45 PM
Film baru Guillermo del toro pun bagus review dia, ramai kata his best since Pan's labyrinth. Pela ...

klu joyah tercalon pun okay saje
sbb role dia kali ni definitely berbeza dgn 3 role yg dia dpt nominasi oscar melalui director david o russel..
more like glen close's fatal attraction, ellyn burstyn's requem of dream, rosemaund pike's gone girl..



Reply

Use magic Report

Post time 6-9-2017 12:59 PM From the mobile phone | Show all posts
dauswq replied at 6-9-2017 12:52 PM
klu joyah tercalon pun okay saje
sbb role dia kali ni definitely berbeza dgn 3 role yg dia dpt no ...

Latest prediction I

-annette Benning
-jes Chastain
-sally Hawkins
-joyah
-acik meryl/Kate Winslet/soirse ronan

Judi dench payah kot sbb film tu Tak berapa bagus review dia, sama jugak dgn Diane Kruger walaupun dia dah menang Kat Cannes haritu
Reply

Use magic Report

You have to log in before you can reply Login | Register

Points Rules

 

ADVERTISEMENT



 

ADVERTISEMENT


 


ADVERTISEMENT
Follow Us

ADVERTISEMENT


Mobile|Archiver|Mobile*default|About Us|CARI Infonet

29-3-2024 05:44 AM GMT+8 , Processed in 0.270063 second(s), 43 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2021, Tencent Cloud.

Quick Reply To Top Return to the list