The Fountain

[keyser-soze]

I just watched The Fountain and it was one of those film experiences where your mouth is open in awe and you don't want to get up after its over, and when you do you don't know what to do with yourself.

However, the movie is not for everyone (you probably heard about it getting booed at Cannes), so I was curious see what you guys thought. Love it or hate it?

I'm obviously on the love it side and it is currently battling with The Departed as my favorite movie of the year. It should be noted that I am already an Aronofsky fan and love both Pi and Requiem for a Dream so I may have been predisposed to liking this one (although it is quite different from those).

[satansmagichat]

I'm also an aronofsky fan, but from the trailers, I can't tell for the life of me what this movie is about. Is there a way you can describe this movie without actually telling us anything about it? By that I mean, can you compare to other films or concepts? I want to see this, but am unsure if I should wait for dvd or not. kthx!

[keyser-soze]

Yeah, I can try.

First off, see it in theaters. Even you don't end up liking the movie, the visuals are something you've gotta see on the big screen.

Anyway, the movie is pretty simple when you strip it of all its science fiction, philosophical, metaphorical stuff. It's just a movie about a guy who loves his wife so much that he will stop at nothing to save her from dying...even if doing so is not the right thing to do. It's a heartbreaking love story that has all these other elements thrown in that add a deeper meaning to it all.

I would call it a simple love story wrapped in a existential sci-fi package.

As far as movies I would compare it to, I would say some kind of cross between 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, and Eternal Sunshine in a Spotless Mind.

[keyser-soze]

Oh, and just on a side note. I've been holding on to the graphic novel of The Fountain since it was released about a year ago. I wanted to see the movie first but I finally get to read it tonight and am really interested to see the differences between the two.

The graphic novel was based on his original script which was revised when production on the film fell apart and he had to write something that could be done on a smaller budget.

[satansmagichat]

I would call it a simple love story wrapped in a existential sci-fi package.

So, it's Darren Aronofsky's The Matrix? I'm sold.

[psbp516]

So, it's Darren Aronofsky's The Matrix? I'm sold.

ewewew! That comparison just made my mind melt.

[keyser-soze]

So, it's Darren Aronofsky's The Matrix? I'm sold.

As far as being idea driven sci fi, yes. But it is not an action movie, it's not space ships and laser guns sci fi.

I think it has more in common with poetry than it does with film. There is a ton of visual rhyming and metaphor.

[diela]

I'll see it just because it's Hugh Jackman in a sci-fi context... now that I hear it described I know I'll enjoy it all the more.

[dicknixon]

I'm actually not a huge fan of Aronofsky, but I have been so excited about this film since I saw the trailer. I can't wait to see it, and it has been one of the movies I've been most looking forward to this year. So I'm pleased to see some good reviews.

[wildchild]

I've been following this movie since it was supposed to come out something like 2 years ago?

Anyway, I heard that the movie wasn't going to get made so I bought and read the graphic novel. A little 'out there' for my tastes, but I can see it being done well in a film format. Hope it does well.

[dicknixon]

So it turns out that you all get to see this now, but here in the UK I have to wait to February 2007. I'll probably be able to buy the US DVD before it comes out in theatres!

[iggystar]

Since I was familiar with the director's previous films, I knew I'd have to turn off my analytical side and enjoy the ride...that proved very difficult at first. Eventually, I gave in to the visuals, the awesome score, the chemistry between Hugh and Rachel and the theme...a person willing to sacrifice all to stay with his love, forever.

It was a challenging film to watch for sure. My friend, along with others laughed at the end. I think it was a normal reaction if you didn't really have a clue as to what to expect prior to seeing it. One of my buddy's shortcomings..she will often not find out anything about a movie for fear it will reveal too much of the plot...well with this one, it lead to her overthinking what was happening and being let down in the end.

One of the review stated.."Mindblowing!" and it was for me. Allegory, metaphor, philosophy, religion, ancient civilizations, the Spanish Inquisition, space travel...it's all there, this is not a very literal movie. I enjoyed it, but it's not a popcorn flick by any means.

[briangilmore]

Don't see it. Even for over-the-top artsy movie, it's very dry and trite. Melodramatic. Give me a David Lynch movie over this film any day, here's why:

Darren Aronofsky's last two films actually had a narrative, and a cohesive story with characters that he made us care about through the way he told the film, you know, through what the characters' were going through. Both main characters had ambitions and a goal, you were rooting for the characters because you wanted to, and easily could not have. This film was too one dimensional and even handed by telling the exact same thing to us three times from three separate perspectives.

(on a side note: this film was particularly disappointing because of how much i absolutely adored Requiem for a Dream and its original perspective both cinematically and in regards to its narrative)

There are films that should be watched for art, Drawing Restraint 9 (for one) was amazing and it was visually stunning in its realism because most of it was completely real. Whether it was water, costume, blood, make up, or whale fat, if you're looking for a film that IS art, with a message that doesn't need to be shoved down your throat by melodrama that's already been covered in every love song ever written, then Drawing Restraint 9 is what you're looking for. The Fountain is useless. It brings nothing new to the table and even some of the most stunning scenes in it, visually, were computer generated, which for me, eliminate the impact of whatever it would have because it detaches it from reality so harshly.

Don't see it, see Drawing Restraint 9 or a Lynch Flick. They at least bring originality into the picture. That's my two cents.

[senoj1]

i am sick of these "give you random pieces of story, put them together , and review at the end" kind of movies, its just not fun anymore

i hated how he was a astro monk, i must not have the highten inteligance for this movie i guess

[satansmagichat]

i must not have the highten inteligance for this movie i guess

Or any movie, for that matter.

[keyser-soze]

Don't see it. Even for over-the-top artsy movie, it's very dry and trite. Melodramatic. Give me a David Lynch movie over this film any day, here's why:

Darren Aronofsky's last two films actually had a narrative, and a cohesive story with characters that he made us care about through the way he told the film, you know, through what the characters' were going through. Both main characters had ambitions and a goal, you were rooting for the characters because you wanted to, and easily could not have. This film was too one dimensional and even handed by telling the exact same thing to us three times from three separate perspectives.

(on a side note: this film was particularly disappointing because of how much i absolutely adored Requiem for a Dream and its original perspective both cinematically and in regards to its narrative)

There are films that should be watched for art, Drawing Restraint 9 (for one) was amazing and it was visually stunning in its realism because most of it was completely real. Whether it was water, costume, blood, make up, or whale fat, if you're looking for a film that IS art, with a message that doesn't need to be shoved down your throat by melodrama that's already been covered in every love song ever written, then Drawing Restraint 9 is what you're looking for. The Fountain is useless. It brings nothing new to the table and even some of the most stunning scenes in it, visually, were computer generated, which for me, eliminate the impact of whatever it would have because it detaches it from reality so harshly.

Don't see it, see Drawing Restraint 9 or a Lynch Flick. They at least bring originality into the picture. That's my two cents.

I think it should be noted that you liked Civil War #5 and therefore cannot be trusted.

Just kidding, kind of. Anyway, I don't see how you can say there is no narrative here. There is a very clear, straight forward narrative about a guy trying to stop his wife from dying. All the other stuff is there to add depth to that. The characters are motivated and I for one did care about them.

And a good deal of the visuals are not computer generated. He used microphotography of bacteria and chemical reactions for much of it. And even if it was all computer generated, I fail to see how that would detract from the visuals, which were absolutely stunning.

[spazkake]

I hope this gets reviewed on Geekdrome

[senoj1]

haha your really funny satan
i mean your like making fun of people on a forum
if thats not cool i dont know what is

[satansmagichat]

haha your really funny satan
i mean your like making fun of people on a forum
if thats not cool i dont know what is

I know. I'm like the internet's James Dean.

[imagineer99]

Just saw it last night...

Let's just say that visually, the movie is beautiful. Aronofsky can shoot a beautiful picture.

But, beautiful images do not a good movie make. I feel as if "The Fountain" is like the visual realization of a poem--filled with meaning, but so tightly compacted and personal, that it only holds resonance for a few.

I'm all for trying something different, and I think the concept of the three parallel stories is interesting, but I just don't think it holds together well. I'd be curious to see what the original vision of this movie was, prior to the studio shuffling and Brad Pitt dropping out.

I also didn't think the relationship between Izzy and Tomas/Tommy/Thomas was real enough. Show the same pretty images of a woman frolicking in the snow does not equal true drama.

[inthraller]

This movie is quite bad. It is true that it has many beautiful shots, the story is very weak. It seems that in some parts Aronofsky seems to be saying "hey, look at the this shot I thought of... now back to the story." The shot of Hugh Jackman doing Tai Chi in silouteed by the stars in the bubble is one such shot- it does look very nice, but doesn't move the story along at all. The whole "astro monk in a bubble" thread of the movie could have been left out completely and not hurt the story at all.

[dannyt]

I thought it was an interesting movie. I kinda liked it/ kinda didn't. The filmmaking was awesome-- the script wasn't so good. Ultimately it just didn't say anything about the subject matter that I didn't already feel I had seen felt before. And there were highly emotionaly scenes that I felt very distant from. That being said-- the visuals-- AWESOME. I kept thinking throughout the movie how SQUARE aranofksy shoots. Like-- not rectangular (16:9), but square. I thought about it while watching and realized there are a lot of FRAMES within FRAMES. Like doorways and such "enveloping" the frame. A lot of interesting camera work that would start on a subject then pull back to reveal what they were involved in.

ALSO, while I felt that the movie was mostly distant and objective there was a GREAT moment where Jackman was walking down a busy city street-- there were no natural sounds-- just silence and his footsteps, he's deep in thought-- until a car almost hits him and suddenly SFX snap on. really cool moment.

Anyway, in interesting movie-- visuals worth seeing in a theater, but if the script wasn't shot how it was-- not so good.

-dannyt

[zombi]

Dan just pointed out someting Ive been worrying about. Visually it looks amazing, I mean Im digging just how ambitous the filmmaker is, but I dont know if the interesting shots and occasional "moment" can keep in my seat. From the trailers and clips Ive seen it seems like the shots/framing/style is great but is that all there is to it?

[psbp516]

okay, I saw this movie on sunday and after reading all of your post it is obvious that you are very ignorant of the movie and maybe didn't follow it quite well. Just for anyone who hasn't seen it, what you've heard is true. This movie is not for the faint of heart, not for someone who doesn't want to think it over, not for someone who doesn't like artsy movies full of complicated metaphors, biblical references, etc. If you like Darren's other movies then you are probably not a person like this and you will probably like this movie. It touches death with a very simple message shrouded with many complications that give you the full effect of the basic love story seemingly happening in the background. I would recommend that some of you do some research and re-watch the movie. You really need to know every line, every sequence, and you have to go through a lot of thinking to "get" it, in my opinion.

[imagineer99]

okay, I saw this movie on sunday and after reading all of your post it is obvious that you are very ignorant of the movie and maybe didn't follow it quite well.

I hate comments like this. I understood it. I appreciated it. But, I still didn't LOVE it.

Strip away the beautiful imagery and you've got a movie that is pretty simple in its message--life and death are connected. Death is a form of rebirth. Blah. Blah.

I think what bugs me the most about the flick is that Aronofsky appears to believe that what he is saying is revolutionary. For all intensive purposes, the commentary this film attempts to make about life and relationships have been in Hallmark cards for the past 25 years. The film is being sold as a philosophical mind bender, when really the message isn't all that impressive.

If Aronofsky would have backed up his message with a more substantive relationship between Izzy and Thomas--something more than a bathroom makeout session and a repeated images of her running away from him, I would have not only been more interested, I actually would have cared.

[iggystar]

I hate comments like this. I understood it. I appreciated it. But, I still didn't LOVE it.

I agree. I think most people understand the movie, but it's still getting very mixed reviews. It's very arrogant and kind of condescending to think otherwise, in my opinion.

For me, something about the movie clicked, story, visuals, along with the score. I still think it's original...aren't there only a few basic universal themes that exist anyway? I think just because it's a story that's been done before, (birth/rebirth) why is that necessarily bad? Show me a movie with a truly original concept..... It's about execution and I thought it was done wonderfully, but it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[keyser-soze]

Anyway, in interesting movie-- visuals worth seeing in a theater, but if the script wasn't shot how it was-- not so good.

-dannyt

I'm glad you posted here. I was really curious to see what you guys thought and was worried that I'd never know with the end of Geekdrome and all.

This movie has been the source of a lot of great conversations (not arguments, which is usually what occurs when me and my friends get into it over a movie) over the last couple of weeks. I went to see it again and was a bit worried that upon second viewing I would fall in line with what a lot of others are saying but it still impressed me just as much.

I agree that the movie would not have been good if not for the visuals but I don't think that that is a mark against the story. The visuals are integral to the story. They carry the emotions and meanings of the film more than words.

I also think a lot of people are simply thinking too hard. They assume that because its put together in an unusual way that it is some complicated puzzle that they have to figure out. It is really a very simple story with a very simple message and I think you need to just sit back and let yourself be carried away with it.

[briangilmore]

Strip away the beautiful imagery and you've got a movie that is pretty simple in its message--life and death are connected. Death is a form of rebirth. Blah. Blah.

I think what bugs me the most about the flick is that Aronofsky appears to believe that what he is saying is revolutionary. For all intensive purposes, the commentary this film attempts to make about life and relationships have been in Hallmark cards for the past 25 years. The film is being sold as a philosophical mind bender, when really the message isn't all that impressive.


exactly imagineer, that's how I saw it as well. I'm a HUUUUGE fan of this film, as well as films like it that are not necessarily conventionally "linear" like Primer or any Lynch movie except Blue Velvet and my favorite movies actually are the ones that are artsy and stuff. Like I said before, if you're looking for a pretty flick with a message told in a unique way, watch Drawing Restraint 9. If you want a flick that tells you something you've heard over and over again in a way that THINKS it's being original...it's like watching Carlos Mencia...ok the film wasn't THAT bad, but I still think the content was much more trite than a lot of people make it out to be (already done, tired, etc.) and the visuals WERE great. But Aronofsky has a better narrative and creative mind than that and THAT'S why I was disappointed.

oh yeah, and no arrogance in the drome psbp230942098. :p

[dicknixon]

I managed to see this movie (let's not go into how) and I really liked it. I have to say that I was expected more plot, from the trailer, but I didn't think it suffered to much from the slower pace. The visuals were amazing and I loved that it wasn't traditional CGI but microphotography (if I remember reading that correctly).

[bcool]

I thought it was an interesting movie. I kinda liked it/ kinda didn't. The filmmaking was awesome-- the script wasn't so good. Ultimately it just didn't say anything about the subject matter that I didn't already feel I had seen felt before. And there were highly emotionaly scenes that I felt very distant from. That being said-- the visuals-- AWESOME. I kept thinking throughout the movie how SQUARE aranofksy shoots. Like-- not rectangular (16:9), but square. I thought about it while watching and realized there are a lot of FRAMES within FRAMES. Like doorways and such "enveloping" the frame. A lot of interesting camera work that would start on a subject then pull back to reveal what they were involved in.

ALSO, while I felt that the movie was mostly distant and objective there was a GREAT moment where Jackman was walking down a busy city street-- there were no natural sounds-- just silence and his footsteps, he's deep in thought-- until a car almost hits him and suddenly SFX snap on. really cool moment.

Anyway, in interesting movie-- visuals worth seeing in a theater, but if the script wasn't shot how it was-- not so good.

-dannyt

dammit, I was totally going to come here and write about how much I liked the sound in this movie, that part on the street especially. The music was really good too, I thought.

As far as the story, I don't see how marking off points for it not being a revolutionary idea is fair. Most movies have very old themes as stories - the hero narrative and the like. I thought this presented the death/life rebirth thing in a very original way, both in structure and aesthetic. I think some may have been expecting too much of a shock after seeing his other films...