Devolves into simplicity from beginning to end

Rating: 1/10 (30 September 2017)

I want to state, to begin with, that even when a movie intends to be highly metaphorical and symbolic, its purpose is still to be entertaining. Mother! wasn't.
If the trailer caught your eye, or if you expected to see something scary, you will be disappointed. I have strong feelings about this movie. I think it might be the worst I ever saw. They have to do with the camera work itself, the scenario, the use of symbolism and metaphor, and most of all with the abject simplicity the director fell into.
First the camera work. If you are a lover of Aronovsky, you will be happy to see he hasn't changed a thing from the way he directed Black Swan. The similarities between both movies are so staggering I sometimes had the impression I was watching Nathalie Portman, not Jennifer Lawrence. It is of course an unusual and daring method used, but it ceases to function after one movie. In a way it is disappointing to see a supposedly talented director so unable to innovate and clinging to his own style.
Onto the scenario. The screenplay is tremendously poor and bad. Few words are uttered, but more importantly, they lack any significance. At no point is the audience allowed a glimpse into the psyche of any of the characters due to this lack of exchange between them. Facial expressions are your only clue, and they are static throughout the movie. This is a big let down if you loved Aronovsky for Requiem for a Dream.
The use of symbolism and metaphors is usual with this director, and so I expected to be fed plenty of it. Only metaphors are interesting and intriguing when they aren't so blatantly obvious. I read some of the comments here, stating that those who didn't like the movie simply didn't understand it. I disagree. It is hard not to understand that the house is alive, and the mother, ultimately, when on several occasions the main character touches it only to feel its pulse, or sees it bleed. It also isn't hard to grasp the religious metaphor there, what with the rituals in the end and the human sacrifice. This is my main objection here. The symbolism in the movie is fed to the viewer, whether you want it to be or not, instead of being suggested. Suggestions are absolutely nonexistent. So much for intrigue and suspense. There is no possibility for the audience to make up their mind about the movie's significance or its scope. This is what I call cheap symbolism, the kind you would find in a 8th grader's essay.
Bringing me to my last point, the simplicity that Aronovsky fell into writing and directing this movie. Nothing was new in his camera work, the movie looks exactly like his last one, the scenario is nonexistent, the characters are plain and without any depth, the symbolism is force fed to you and the evolution of the movie isn't based on anything. This is a poet who, through his latest work, manages to stir up such a wave of fanaticism in his readers that within a single day he moves masses of followers into rage, anger, murder, human sacrifice and cannibalism. Yet at no point are we told about his writing or the power of his poetry. This is like an author telling you about a joke that would be the funniest in the world, without telling you what the joke was. It is too easy and it doesn't solve the puzzle. The metaphors are there for you to swallow, you have no choice in the matter, yet the one part of the movie that could give any sense to the intrigue is hidden from the spectator, and the only valid reason I can find is that Aronovsky couldn't find anything good enough to support his intrigue. It is cheap, easy, simplistic, and undeserving of a 7 as a general grade on this website.
I sincerely hope that, as it should, his career will suffer from this.