The Fountain

[TylerDurden182]

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/Durden_182/fountain.jpg

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn, Mark Margolis

Plot Outline: Spanning over one thousand years, and three parallel stories, The Fountain is a story of love, death, spirituality, and the fragility of our existence in this world.

Release Date: Wednesday, November 22

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/Durden_182/01-45.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/Durden_182/03-25.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/Durden_182/06-13.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/Durden_182/07-12.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/Durden_182/11-12.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/Durden_182/13-8.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/Durden_182/20-3.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j150/Durden_182/05-19.jpg

My most anticipated movie of the year. Can't wait to see it.

[Criminal Rock]

9/10

I had a chance to screen this film and have a sit down Q/A with Aronofsky a few weeks back... I have to say it's one of the best films this year, right behind Pan's Labyrinth..

[DareDevil]

Can't wait... going to smoke a lot of weed and go see this with the girlfriend! Should be a good time.

[DaMovieMan]

My most anticipated movie of the year as well.

The number one spot is reserved for this gem...those pictures are simply gorgeous.

DMM

[blankpage]

Along with some of the other schmoes, this has been my most anticipated film of the whole year. It looks absolutely breathtaking. I'm not gonna try and hype myself up too much, but ya...I can't wait.

[Cronos]

along with Pan's Labyrinth, this is my most anticipated film of the year, it looks absolutely amazing and the visuals look gorgeous

[ChemicalRomance]

Most anticipated of the year. Can barely wait anymore.

[Scarfather]

omgggg

Been waiting two years eagerly, looks wicked awesome.

[Lost in Space]

yea...so... i have been waiting long enough, lets see the damn thing

[RandalGraves]

My friend kinda had a point when he said this looks like if Tim Burton was remaking What Dreams May Come, but I'll be checking it out on dvd.

[Criminal Rock]

Keep in mind, when watching the film... know that only 2% of the entire movie was done using CGI. fucking crazy...

[Strider]

This is my most anticipated film of the year. I am absolutely dying to see The Fountain - it looks fantastic. I'll be there on opening day.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, I recently saw a television spot for the film, and its rating has been changed from an R to a PG-13.

Strider

[daddiefatsacks]

Originally posted by Strider

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, I recently saw a television spot for the film, and its rating has been changed from an R to a PG-13.

Strider

ugh

everything else looks cool about this film, and i love how the score is performed by Mogwai

[SpikeDurden]

This has been my most anticipated film of the year for as long as I can remember, and I will be there at the first showing on Wednesday morning. And then probably the one after that. And the one after that. Seriously.

[Jessica3000]

Hands down, my most anticipated of the year. I had and still have high hopes for this film, however I was reading over at rottentomatoes.com and was kind of distraught that it looks like it may not be accepted widely by many as a good film. Actually, it seems you either love it or hate it. Some are claiming it's the worst movie they've seen, and some are hailing it as genius. I guess we'll find out on Wednesday.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_fountain/


I don't care what they say, I still can't wait for this.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by Jessica3000
it looks like it may not be accepted widely by many as a good film. Actually, it seems you either love it or hate it. Some are claiming it's the worst movie they've seen, and some are hailing it as genius.

those are usually the kind of films that get into my top lists...
does anyone else get that feeling when they know they're going to love a movie even if they havent seen it yet?


DMM

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by Jessica3000
Hands down, my most anticipated of the year. I had and still have high hopes for this film, however I was reading over at rottentomatoes.com and was kind of distraught that it looks like it may not be accepted widely by many as a good film. Actually, it seems you either love it or hate it. Some are claiming it's the worst movie they've seen, and some are hailing it as genius. I guess we'll find out on Wednesday.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_fountain/


I don't care what they say, I still can't wait for this.

the film is truly an avant-garde film, that’s for sure.

That said, I still find it funny that it was booed in Italy... so much for European open mindedness, right? :p

[Shockwave]

..does anyone else who has seen this think it has a chance at the Oscars?

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Shockwave
..does anyone else who has seen this think it has a chance at the Oscars?

Highly unlikely at best. It has a 50% rating at rottentomatoes right now, and only a 17% with cream of the crop critics. Average score is only 3.1/10 with cream of the crop. Maybe a technical nomination, but that's it.

[Shockwave]

Well, im rooting for THE DEPARTED either way. (even if V for Vendetta is probably still my favorite movie of the year so far, i know it doesnt have achance in hell as a comic book movie)

[dman476]

Got my f'n tickets for tomorrow night! :cool:
I'm pumped...soon as I'm off school and work, I get to see, possibly, the best film of the year.
Who's going tomorrow as well?

[TylerDurden182]

Originally posted by dman476
Who's going tomorrow as well?

I'm planning to go to the 2:30 showing. Can't wait.

[thedudeman69]

Damn it. I am going on vacation for Thanksgiving, so I dunno when I a m seeing this. :(

[dman476]

Originally posted by TylerDurden182
I'm planning to go to the 2:30 showing. Can't wait.
Eh...you have to beat me don't you. :D

I'd like to see what you think (although I have ZERO doubts your score will be anything lower than a 10).

[dman476]

Originally posted by thedudeman69
Damn it. I am going on vacation for Thanksgiving, so I dunno when I a m seeing this. :(
Sorry by the way.
Hope you get to see it.

[ilovemovies]

It looks FANTASTIC and I have been really looking forward to it, but I'm a bit scared now because a lot of people have been comparing the ending to the movie to the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey and I HATED the ending to 2001!

[daddiefatsacks]

39% at Rotten Tomatoes

YIKES

[Rated R]

Oh Canada...

Correction...New Brunswick. The only movie my theater is getting today is Deja Vu. Guess I'll have to wait until the weekend for both Tenacious D and The Fountain. I know the critics don't like this, but that does not deter me too much. If Rick Groen of the Globe and Mail hates it, I know I'll probably love it....if only out of spite for that self important jackass.

[chinton]

seeing this tommorow morning


And is it just me or are critics becoming less and less forgiving with weird movies. It's pretty sad.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by dman476
Who's going tomorrow as well?

I've got Tyler beat...12:40 showing, oo-rah! :D

[TylerDurden182]

Originally posted by dman476
I'd like to see what you think (although I have ZERO doubts your score will be anything lower than a 10).

It would have to be pretty disappointing to get something lower. I've built it up in my mind way too much, but sometimes that's ok.

[TylerDurden182]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
I've got Tyler beat...12:40 showing, oo-rah! :D

You forget the time difference. When you sit down for your 12:40, I will be an hour and ten minutes into the film.:D

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
I've got Tyler beat...12:40 showing, oo-rah! :D
Damn. :mad: (;))
And...this is coming from the one who wasn't excited for the film? :D
Oh well...I guess I'll have to resist looking on here until the end of the 7:30 showing. :(

Originally posted by TylerDurden182
It would have to be pretty disappointing to get something lower. I've built it up in my mind way too much, but sometimes that's ok.
I'll be happy if it gets an 8/10 from me...but, I hope you like it and it doesn't disappoint you. I know you've been dying with anticipation.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by TylerDurden182
You forget the time difference. When you sit down for your 12:40, I will be an hour and ten minutes into the film.:D

Aw, doodlebug.

That's what I get for not looking at your location. :D :o

[The FamilyJulas]

I have this nagging feeling I'm going to hate this film...but I'm going to check it out anyway, probably on Saturday.

[Backstabba]

My most anticipated movie of the year....

I just really hope it doesn't turn out to be this year's "The Interpreter" (I anticipate it to death, and then I hate it..)...

But, I expect AMAZINGNESS!

[ZenDude]

I really liked Clonney's version of Solaris, and love What Dreams May Come..I dig Vanilla Sky and Eternal Sunshine...I know I am going to love this movie. :)

[bubutthead]

just saw it today........wow.....

first off: i'll definately be going to see it again, not only because it was a great movie (not a masterpiece to me....well, not yet, more on that later...), but also to really understand it and the questions it asks...

the performances: easily hugh jackman's best performance IMO, not necessarily oscar caliber (but hey if he does win that would be great), still a great performance nonetheless. rachel weisz(sp?) was....well...rachel weisz. the only other movies ive seen of hers are The Mummy and The Constant Gardener (which i thought she was much better in). ellen burstyn and ethan suplee (dude lost a ton of weight!) both give pretty good supporting performances.

The story: well, first of all the trailer is somewhat deceiving (then again, many trailers are), but really just in the way the story's told. its also not told in sequence......but for good reason (you sort-of find out why). i found it very engaging, even though it can become really surreal and confusing.

The visuals: i went in fully knowing there really wasn't any cgi used for this film.....having said that, well, lets just say if this doesn't win the Oscar for Visual effects, i will be very pissed. the visuals simply blow anything away ive seen recently (and im a big fan of ubertastic-cgi films like the Lord of the Rings and the new Star Wars). the visuals were presented so....well....."unique" that its just so hard to describe. and those of you planning on seeing it "high," well.........it could quite possibly one of the best highs you'll get (NOT THAT I CONDONE IT OR ANYTHING).

Overall: Well this film is definately NOT FOR EVERYONE. Its also one of those films you really CAN'T "leave my brain outside the theater." having said that, i really found it to be one of the best sci-fi/fantasy/romance films i've ever seen.

In the end, don't listen to any criticism really (good or bad), you really have to see it for yourself, this film really won't have middleground in terms of criticism i think.

About my "not quite a masterpiece comment:" it took me 4-5 times to see how great a masterpiece like 2001 was....so i feel its going to be the same for this....

For fans of: 2001, Solaris (both), Requiem for A Dream

9/10

[TylerDurden182]

The Fountain- 9/10

Amazing. I have a feeling after a rewatch it will be a 10.

[DareDevil]

Last year I stopped reading reviews (anything next to joblo that is) because I didn’t want my opinion swayed in any way before I saw a movie, For the first time in much over a year I went to rottentomatoes and I can say I honestly don't agree with most the movies critics loved this year, Casino Royal in the high 90% makes no sense to me, with that being said my point is I could care less what RT# is, I will be seeing the Fountain whether it was 100% or 0%, also I wish people wouldn’t post rottentomatoes scores because I bet I'm not the only person who avoids them.

[jolanar]

I agree with everything Tim said on the main page. His review was spot on.

This is easily one of the best movies of the year. A visual masterpiece.


The Fountain - 9/10


This has been anamazingly successfull year for Hugh Jackman.

X3, The Prestige, Scoop, The Fountain as well as voice talent for Flushed Away and Happy Feet.

[Shockwave]

HOLY SHIT!!

How the fuck can this have such a low score on RT?!

My going to NOT post a score until i see it a second time, but i loved it!

This year is turning out incredible so far. I think ive seen more great movies this year then the last few by far, and its not even over yet.:cool:

[Lost in Space]

AH i want to see this, but i also want to see tenacious D, i have 20 minutes to decide.

[Scarfather]

9/10

Beautiful.

[ilovemovies]

Pretentous crap saved only by some good acting and neat visuals.

I give this a VERY generous 4/10.

[Scarfather]

lol

[ilovemovies]

SPOILERS!








Actually, the ending is pretentious crap. And the scenes taking place in the future were terrible. I got pretty bored whenever they cut back to the scenes with a bold Hugh Jackman in the star. How the hell did he even get there anyway?

The scens in the past and present were actually pretty good for a while. The present day scenes cease being interesting after Weisz's death though. And the ending is a mess. And it made the movie feel like a pointless waste of time. It was a waste of my time.

It's not really a terrible movie actually. Just a terribly disappointing one.

It's trying to ape 2001 A Space Odyssey and I HATED that ending as well.

[bubutthead]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
SPOILERS!








Actually, the ending is pretentious crap. And the scenes taking place in the future were terrible. I got pretty bored whenever they cut back to the scenes with a bold Hugh Jackman in the star. How the hell did he even get there anyway?

The scens in the past and present were actually pretty good for a while. The present day scenes cease being interesting after Weisz's death though. And the ending is a mess. And it made the movie feel like a pointless waste of time. It was a waste of my time.

It's not really a terrible movie actually. Just a terribly disappointing one.

It's trying to ape 2001 A Space Odyssey and I HATED that ending as well.

as i said....you're either going to love this or hate it

[dman476]

Yeah...I hated it.
I'm sorry, but I won't even start listing why (though there are plenty of reasons). I don't get paid for it, and for me it's always on a bad & un-professional level, but I feel like I've wasted enough time on the film as it is...and it isn't worth another second of thought. Sorry.

3/10

[Lazy Boy]

5/10

It could go lower, the more I think about it, it's less distinguishable than something like, say, What Dreams May Come.

[DaMovieMan]

Verrrry interesting...i love it when a movie has such mixed responces,

Friday will be the night hopefully, hopefully...I CANT WAIT TO SEE THIS!!!!


DMM

[Jerk Shapiro]

I guess I've just done too many drugs or something...

But I need someone to come in here and explain to me

*spoilers below*

what the FUCK actually happens near the end when bald Hugh appears before that Maiyan dude, and then drinks the sap and turns into flowers... I mean, everything in the movie makes sense except that motherfucker turning into flowers.

*end of spoilers*

Aside from that visually orgasmic and well-scored, by the way. Fuck Darren Aronofsky for being the only guy in Hollywood who sits around his house, smokes copious amounts of pot, then one day says: "Hey I've got this cool idea for a movie about the fountain of youth and instead of CGI I'm going to use bacteria in petri dishes."

Gotta love someone like that.

8 or maybe a 9 / 10 depending on if I ever figure this shit out.

[Criminal Rock]

To jerk,

*spoilers*

It symbolizes our rebirth as well as it ties in with the main theme of the film: How can we accept death as a part of life?

*end spoilers*

[Chris411]

Ok first of all- WHO BRINGS A TODDLER TO A 9:30PM SHOWING OF THIS MOVIE. SERIOUSLY.

Anyways, the movie: Wow. Absolutely exactly what i wanted from it, the most beautiful movie i've seen in a very long time. The only complaint i can say about it is that the amazing music from the trailer wasn't in the movie. Clint Mansell kind of let me down- i was expecting crazy requiem for a dream style pieces, but instead got perfectly matching scores instead. So you couldn't really call it a complaint.
There is some really amazing things in this movie that i never even came close to noticing (it took my english major friend to point them out to me).

Also, to Jerk




SPOILERS WHOA MEGA SPOILERS

In tom's conclusion, the conquistador feeds from the tree of life and becomes a tree himself, just like he feeds from the tree (living 500 years) and becomes a tree himself (counting his years by rings and reaching out for the dying sun), just like the tree father the mayan recognizes him as.
The parallelism and motifs in this movie are insane... the ink and pen izzy gives to tom is wrapped by a ribbon in the shape of a cross... the 1600s have lots of triangles, the 2000s lots of squares, the 2500s lots of circles...


OK END SPOILERS



This movie... just wow. Definitely a movie you can put no stock whatsoever into a review on. To all the disappointed: what did you find so "pretentious" about it? That seems to be the buzz word with people who were disappointed with this, but i just don't see it.

[Scarfather]

Everyone who "got" the movie and still didn't like it is untouchable, but anyone who didn't like it BECAUSE they didn't get it, I'll explain it best I can. The fragmented storyline brought the film down. But when put the pieces were into place, I thought it was a masterpiece, like 21 Grams, it was an interactive experience.

I'll have a review up later today nonetheless.

[Shockwave]

..after a second viewing im going to give this a 9/10. I really did love it as a peice of art.

This seems to be a very LOVE IT or HATTTTTTE IT type movie reading over the reviews in this thread. Either way im glad to see people giving it a chance. No one movie is going to please everyone.

[SpikeDurden]

Wow. This was everything I hoped for and more. Sitting in the theatre watching this film was a spiritual experience, really. Aronofsky has created something absolutely incredible, and Hugh Jacman gives the performance of a lifetime. I still have to get some of my thoughts into order, and at that point I'll write more of a review with more of an in depth analysis as to the events of the film. But needless to say, this is probably my favorite film of the year right now, period.

[Strider]

The Fountain - 7/10 or ***1/2/***** stars

Six years after the critically acclaimed Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky has finally released his follow-up feature: The Fountain, a science-fiction epic that, unfortunately, never reaches greatness due to its painfully short running time. Aronofsky also wrote the screenplay, a grand and epic screenplay, but it feels as if he is desperately trying to squeeze too much story into a film which simply is not long enough. Although their characters are not fully developed, Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz deliver solid work here, and Jackman's performance, especially in the film's final moments, is actually quite moving. The Fountain fails greatly in its attempt to become a masterpiece of its genre, yet it is an ambitious, spiritual, and visually striking piece of sci-fi cinema, nevertheless.

Strider

[darkface]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountain

The page for the Fountain helps explain a few things. It helped me in some parts to understand more.

The more I think back to the movie, the more I love it. Yes, it's a slow paced, odd movie, but it was beautiful to watch, and was very dream-like (I love those movies).

Now that the movie makes more sense, I want to see it again.

A solid 8/10, but I'm sure with more viewings it will probably go up.

This is definitely not a movie for everyone. I saw plenty of people walk out, a lot didn't like it in the end, but only a few just sat there afterwards and let it sink in fully.

[DaMovieMan]

what the hell is up with the running time? 96 minutes?!?! this was supposed to be an epic adventure, the original script was for a 3 hour+ movie :mad:
Im seeing it tonight most probably, but im hoping once the DVD gets out it will be some crazy extended director edition with an R rating!!!
The hell is wrong with studios these days?

DMM

[jolanar]

Originally posted by DaMovieMan
what the hell is up with the running time? 96 minutes?!?! this was supposed to be an epic adventure, the original script was for a 3 hour+ movie :mad:
Im seeing it tonight most probably, but im hoping once the DVD gets out it will be some crazy extended director edition with an R rating!!!
The hell is wrong with studios these days?

DMM

I actually very much enjoyed the movie length. It was very refreshing.

[Chris411]

The movie length is perfect. It just cements that the idea behind the movie is relatively simple. Its a movie about concepts, not pure plot, and doesn't need 3 hours.

DaMovieMan it sounds like you have the wrong expectations for this movie. I have a strong feeling you're going to be coming back dissapointed.

[Jig Saw 123]

I really enjoyed this movie it was original and beautiful this movie was the best movie of the Fall.



Seasons Best:


Spring: V for Vendetta 10/10



Summer: The Departed 10/10


Fall: The Fountain 10/10


Winter: ?

[ilovemovies]

The Departed was a Fall movie as it came out in October.

[DaMovieMan]

The length was perfect, I agree with you guys... actually what you said here:

Originally posted by Chris411

The movie length is perfect. It just cements that the idea behind the movie is relatively simple. Its a movie about concepts, not pure plot, and doesn't need 3 hours.

is exactly what I think as well...although I still want an extended DVD release coz I know Aronofsky edited it big time :p

So I saw the film this night and I just sat after the credits started, sat through the credits and up until the WB logo and couldn't believe what I just experienced.
Like someone said before, this is what movies are made for; visually gorgeous & breathtaking, seamless and intelligent editing, powerfully moving music, a simple yet complex storyline focusing on two people but delivering a message for the whole world told in the most beautiful dreamlike fashion, superb acting (Hugh Jackman definately deserves a nomination), everything in this film worked, everything.
I will see it again in theatres because I won't pretend like I understood all of it (although my small background in South American history definately helped and no, the ending isn't as perplexing as 2001: A Space Odyssey although it's close).

You were wrong Chris.. it took my breath away and made me utterly speechless.
9/10 [will most probably hit the perfect mark and declared "movie of the year" after second viewing]

Aronofsky outdid himself. :eek:

Wow.

DMM

[chinton]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm amazed that anyone would think this is an impenetrable film to understand. I read the critic's reviews and honestly once you take away the fancy visuals what you have is a simple but powerful story of a man who pins for his sick wife in both reality and imagination and in life and death. I really didn't see what was so hard to understand about it. Just goes to show what I've been saying. I've noticed a distinct trend lately where if the movie's a slightly bit weird it's like a lot of critic's just kind of give up on it.

Anyway a truly unique and fascinating film. I'm still trying to digest it so I'm not sure if I emotionally love it or was just kind of blown away by a unique experience. Anyway you won't see anything like this anywhere. Go see it.

8/10

[darkface]

3 days later, and I'm still thinking about the movie. I've been reading a lot of discussions about the film, and so far I've come up with my personal simple idea.

SPOILERS***


The movie isn't about one man that lives for eternity like the marketing makes it out to be.
It's about three parrallel stories in three different time periods showing the same idea in different ways.

There's a manuscript part of the movie that's part of the written book 'The Fountain'. And a 'real' part of the movie that takes place only in the present time period.

The Past and Future parts are part of the book.
The past is written by Izzy before her death, and before she dies, Izzy gives Tom just enough information about her theory of death and rebirth to let Tom finish the ending to the book. I believe everything in the future is written by Tom.
The present time is all real.

Another side theory is the future is Tom's mindset while he's in present time dealing with Izzy's death.

There's a lot to be analyzed here, so there will be many different opinions.

[Criminal Rock]

you basically got it spot on darkface...

[ElderPredator]

I'm still really looking forward to seeing it.

[blankpage]

In one sense, The Fountain wasn't what I was expecting, but it was everything I had hoped for.

The core of the story is what made it for me. Beneath all the breathtaking visuals and such, there's a very beautiful love story and there's a man obsessed with the idea of death. The minute I kind of realized what this movie was all about, that's when I couldn't take my eyes of screen. It took about 10 minutes to really get into it, but after that, I was transformed into Aronofsky's tale.

The film was extremely beautiful to look at. It's amazing what Aronofsky and crew did with such a small budget - and with no CGI.

Honestly, I can't take this film off my mind. When the film was over, everyone in the theatre just sort of sat still for about a minute. I didn't leave until the credits were finished.



******SPOILERS*******







The image of Jackman turning into the tree has haunted my mind.







******END SPOILERS******



I'm gonna try and organize my thoughts into a proper review over the weekend.


9/10 - probably the best film of the year

[chinton]

I just find it funny so many critics are complaining that it doesn't make any sense or is confusing. It's not that hard just takes a little brainpower. One's the real world. One is the part of the manuscript alreayd written. The future part is Jackman's deteriorating minset that has been influenced by Izzy's Mayan mythology.

[DaMovieMan]

Yeah its quite obvious that the past is what is written in the book and the present is where the real story is. The future is a bit harder to put exactly where it is but i find it hard to believe that it's Jackman's mindset because it would break the three-periods idea and it is meant to be hapenning in 2500.

********SPOILERS***********























I believe the book finished when Thomas drank the sup and became part of the earth. The future Tom was a vision seen by the Mayan who called him the 'First Father' so the vision was there in Tommy's mind when he was writing that part.
I need to see it again, I know this doesn't really explain anything. All i wanted to say was that I dont think the future is Tommy's mind or that it's written in the book. It actually happens and it's Tom's journey to the nebula with the tree (that is Izzy because he planted the seed)....I need to see it again....








****END SPOILERS********












DMM

[ChemicalRomance]

THIS IS NOT MY EXPLANATION!

This is from someone on the RottenTomatoes message board named nived84 who wrote a great explanation and interpretation of the events in the film.

Enjoy:



******SPOILERS AHEAD********



The way I look at is that all the 1500 scenes were part of Izzi's novel, when Tom confronts the Priest at the end he is writing the ending to the story that she left for him to finish. I think in Izzi's story Tom dies (or she just left it open for Tom to finish), but when he finishes the story his way he's able to get to the Tree of Life.

The "real" story is just the present scenes, about a man having to face the fact that he won't be able to save his wife. And that through her understanding or belief in that "death is a means of re-creation" he finds comfort in that, but only once she's gone can he really be open to the idea that when he dies they'll be reunited again in the afterlife for eternity.

The 2500 scenes that supposedly take place in space I think are just the psychological state of mind of Tom in the present day as he's struggling to keep Izzi alive (hence the tree). I think the tatoos and rings on his arms are simply just fond memories of her that remembers after she has past away, "You pulled me through time." I don't think that line it meant literally, like as in time travel. I just think the lines are similiar to the inside of a tree, and on his arms are the years they spent together in the present time period. And him moving out of the bubble is symbolic of him being able to move on with his life... serperate from his wife, who's been haunting him in his head by repeating "Finish it" over and over again. Which is why he says "Why can't you leave me alone."

I think him turning into flowers may have just been symbolic that when we die we return to the Earth. And him planting a seed on her grave I think was just something he did to honor her memory/last wishes.

I think Aronofsky planted a few things in this movie to throw people off a bit, or allow people to come up with many different interpretations (Kubrick tried to do stuff like that in 2001 also). I think him planting the seed was one of those things. But I think the "space" scenes were just in Tom's head. I think this because it's Aronofsky; he kinda did the same thing in PI, and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM certainly took you into the mind of what the addicts were thinking, seeing and feeling. I think Aronofsky has taken sci-fi and brought it back to a human level, not really one of intergalactic travel, but an exploration of the mind, heart and soul.

[Monotreme]

Re-posting my review from when I saw the film in the Haifa Film Festival in October earlier this year. Note in particular the last paragraph. This was destined to be a film some would live and some would hate, as seen both in the posts in this thread, among the RT critic compilations, and all. Also note how I write that the film's plot is indescribable, and all plot descriptions of it are null and void - as many have already discovered for themselves here, the past and future scenes in the film are most likely a part of the characters' minds, and not actual events.

Here goes:



As I am writing this review I really don’t know where to begin. It reminds me of the feeling I had as I left the theatre after the closing credits rolled on the film – absolutely bewildered. I can’t even begin to describe the feelings I left the theatre with, but I can safely say that no movie has affected me quite like The Fountain has since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind two years ago (and which is known as my all-time favourite movie). All summaries and attempts to present the plot are futile, because it’s truly indescribable. Any summaries you may have read about the plot are null and void – truly, don’t judge the film by what it sounds like it will be like. It’s a movie you must experience for yourself. And what an experience it is.

I find it much simpler to focus on the technical aspects of the film, which are, as expected from director Darren Aronofsky, absolutely incredible. His use of camera angles and movements that repeat themselves throughout the film, such as shots from directly above the action, and extensive use of zoom/dolly outs (an important emulation of the film’s message, at least what I perceive it is). The entire colour tone of the film is absolutely gorgeous to observe – a beautiful combination of gold and black colours. Much of the lighting is sharp but in a soft gold colour, which creates a really specific atmosphere. Many scenes in the film take place in a hospital-type setting – the setting you’d normally see in filmed mediums lit with very bright white lighting. Aronofsky lights these scenes with very specific soft golden lights, which place most of the setting in blackness and create an eerie, melancholy atmosphere.

Both Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz are absolutely phenomenal in their roles, with Weisz particularly standing out, playing her character with what I can only describe as held-back intensity. It’s a performance both of subtlety and of passion at the same time. Extra kudos must be given to Ellen Burstyn who delivers an extremely heartwarming and absolutely brilliant supporting performance.

The musical score by Clint Mansell is absolutely, completely and utterly gorgeous. It’s minimalist (serves as quite a polar opposite to the profoundness of the film itself) but extremely intense. It is a score that perfectly emulates the feeling, emotions and mood of the film. It’s the perfect type of score, and the melody itself is extremely appealing to the ear, with extensive and almost exclusive use of string instruments.

And of course, the special effects (and when they appear, they are quite prominent) are nothing short of amazing. Just… amazing. I have nothing more to add, just see it for yourself and be impressed.

But really, one finds it difficult to remove ones mind from the spectacle that is the film. The Fountain is, quite simply, unlike ANY other film I have ever seen. The only movie it even only slightly resembles in terms of vagueness and atmosphere is 2001: A Space Odyssey, although The Fountain is only ever so slightly more down to earth. This isn’t to say that it’s an imitation of Space Odyssey nor that it has similar things to say, but you do get that feeling while watching The Fountain that you are experiencing something incredibly profound. And profound it is. I never stopped thinking about the film since I saw it last Saturday, and I still don’t think that I fully understand everything the film has to offer. But it is absolutely loaded with substance ripe for interpretation. I have recently developed a theory regarding SOME of the themes of the film, but there is still much to decipher. What is important to say is that it is the type of film in which every single shot. Every single editing decision, every single is thought out right down to the last little detail, because it is all these little details that combine to create the broader picture, the profound meaning.

The Fountain isn’t “this year’s Eternal Sunshine”. It isn’t the “next Space Odyssey”, although I can assure you, if you enjoyed either of these two films (and preferably both), you should find much The Fountain that will appeal to you. It’s a movie that many people will not like, perhaps even hate. But I was profoundly affected by it. See it. Decide for yourself. It’s definitely one incredible film experience.

RATING: 9/10.

[The FamilyJulas]

I didn't hate the movie like i thought i would, although i am still a bit confused. The whole love story was touching and the affects were great, but it was very weird for me. I give it a 7/10.

[The Prowler]

I caught a friday afternoon matinee and it was a great experience. Very little people in the audience and it was dead silent. What a perfect way to watch this movie. I love movies like this, the ones that really settle into your head after you get done watching it and driving back home.

I didn't find it confusing but it definately was not mainstream which is another reason I loved it. I also felt the emotion portrayed in this and thought Hugh Jackman was terrific for this role. I really thought he pulled off the drama really well and he had terrific chemistry with Rachel Weisz. Speaking of her, she is just beautiful. I really like her as an actress and I am glad she is getting more meaty roles.

The symbolism and heartwrenching scenes made me feel the emotion, something that hasn't been done since Big Fish or The Notebook (guilty pleasure of mine). All in all a very interesting film and I give it high marks for originality and breaktaking scenes like the one in Scarfather's avatar. A great sci-fi and probabaly the best one in years.

9/10

[notchreturns]

Pretty crazy stuff.

I think I get it for the most part, but I'm still iffy on some of it (mostly the stuff dealing with Tom finishing with book...)

Still, amazing film...

9/10

[Runawayrunaway!]

There's so much in this movie I can get behind, but I must seriously question some of the more whacksauce elements, like bald Jackman levitating in the lotus position. That shit's a little bit much, IMHO. Maybe it'll gel better when I see it again, which I really want to do as soon as possible.

RT is a terrible place to get a consensus on this sort of thing, particularly because two and a half stars out of four sometimes counts as positive and sometimes counts as negative. More and more I see RT and Metacritic as unhealthy and mechanical, reducing movies to numbers with quotes.

[therealjohng]

I like it a lot more than I thought I was going to.



8/10.

[thedudeman69]

It was confusing as fuck and I left the movie flabbergasted by it, but when I talked it out with my companinon for the movie, I realiized that there were deeper meanings in the movie and that Darren Aronofsky is possibly the new Kubrick.


9/10

[QUENTIN]

I get what Aronofsky was trying to do and I appreciate that someone out there is trying stuff like this, but I think he failed. An ambitious, grand, pretty failure.

5/10

I do honestly wonder how much people's anticipation of the film is effecting their critiques of it. I was dying to see it too and thought I'd love it, but that doesn't mean I have to even if it's so heavily flawed and poorly constructed.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
I get what Aronofsky was trying to do and I appreciate that someone out there is trying stuff like this, but I think he failed. An ambitious, grand, pretty failure.

5/10

I do honestly wonder how much people's anticipation of the film is affecting their critiques of it. I was dying to see it too and thought I'd love it, but that doesn't mean I have to even if it's so heavily flawed and poorly constructed.

That's a shame man, you're one of the schmoes whose taste in films I appreciate a lot seeing as it's so similar to my own.

I honestly expected it to be longer and that's about the only thing that didn't fullfill my expectation but it's true that a movie of this nature doesn't need a long running time. Why do you think he failed?
He told a unique and original story in a unique and original way. Exactly what the movie was built up to, in my opinion..

DMM

[Backstabba]

I wasn't able to see it today (my plans fell apart) and I know if I don't see it by the end of the week then I'll probably have to wait for DVD.

I'll run to the nearest theater, I don't care, I'm seeing this movie.

[daddiefatsacks]

Cool idea, i think after a few viewings, i'll find more stuff in the movie that connects, like how in the modern world all the signs and writing around on buildings was in caligraphy, the same writing in Izzie's book. Aranofsky is a good director, and the fact he can make those visuals without CGI is mind boggling.

6/10

[Shockwave]

After 3 viewings, i think i got a handle on things. A rock solid 9/10.

Im hoping for an extended version on DVD.

[Bourne101]

This movie has been getting great reviews, terrible reviews and reviews that aren't even rated because the reviewer didn't even know what the hell happend. I have to see this soon to see what all the fuss is about.

[ChemicalRomance]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y192/SSHS/thefountainposter.jpg

The Fountain - Rating: 9/10 http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/smilies/fresh.gifhttp://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/icons/icon14.gif

A work of art like The Fountain is rare. This film is unspeakably beautiful, maddeningly complex, yet touching beyond a reasonable description. It is writer/director Darren Aronofsky’s most daring effort yet, which is saying something when you’re talking about the same man who penned and shot Pi and Requiem for a Dream. The film tells three parallel love stories, taking place in different time periods. One is in 16th century Spain, where a conquistador named Tomas (Hugh Jackman) makes a promise to Queen Isabella (Rachel Weisz) to find the tree that will give everlasting life to whoever drinks its sap. In the present time, Tom Creo (Jackman again) is a genius, envelope pushing doctor who experiments on monkeys with the bark of trees to save the woman he desperately loves, Izzy (Weisz again) who is dying from a brain tumor. Now in the future, around 2500, Jackman is a bald headed astronaut traveling through space in a bubble with the tree of life amidst the stars. A long gestating project six years in the making, Aronofsky’s time spanning love story is an exhilarating, albeit difficult gem of a movie.

With a story spanning over a thousand years and such an epic story and scope, it has become a wonder to many people that The Fountain runs at a slow burning 96 minutes. Originally planned to be a $75 million vehicle with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, this idea fell apart when Pitt left to work on Troy, citing creative differences with Aronofsky. Slimming the budget to $35 million and casting Jackman and his wife Weisz as the female lead Aronofsky is almost magically still able to convey more than certain movies double the length of The Fountain. Aronofsky’s career has been made up of making divisive works, and The Fountain is certainly not going to help his case. However, those who dismissed his visceral visual style as “film school trash” and ostentatious are almost sure to be nothing but floored by the man’s eye for beauty in The Fountain.

From the very first frames, as the camera creeps and observes a gruff Jackman conquistador navigating toward a dark Mayan pyramid it’s almost instantly evident that the film is a labor of love and creativity. Love in the amount of glowing close-ups he provides of his wife, Weisz, trying to outdo Carl Theodore Dryer rubbing the camera in the face of Maria Falconetti in The Passion of the Joan of Arc. Even if the number of close-ups seems to become almost creepily obsessive of a man making love to his wife through a camera lens, it’s almost all forgotten in the context of such a beautiful woman acting her heart out right back at him. Creativity in that the 16th century sequences are so intricately decorated on a relatively small budget, the modern day evokes such an incredible sense of endless love, and the 2500 segments are some of the most dazzling visual pieces I’ve ever seen. The rumor that only 2% of computer generated images were used in the film, if true, would be one of the most utterly insane things I have ever heard. In a list of movies that the big screen was made for, I believe The Fountain has found itself housing, propelled by the brilliant direction of Darren Aronofsky. To be honest, the proper praise escapes me.

Besides directing, Aronfosky wrote The Fountain, which was originally written to be 3 hours. The effects of the film being cut in half do show themselves in certain instances, namely some of the beginning which feels like it’s head was cut off and the body was sent to do the rest of the explaining. Strangely though, this short running time still works perfectly, providing more than enough connective tissue and meaning between the stories to make a really meaningful story and script. Complaints have been that it lacks character development, though I never really saw this because there wasn’t one second that I didn’t buy the love story between the two leads. This heartbreaking relationship is in great thanks to the writing but even more so from the devastating performances by the two leads. This is Jackman’s sixth movie of 2006, and within it there are no signs of talent descending or slowing down…no, this is his best of 2006 and his best performance ever. Outdoing his fantastic turn as the sympathetically persevering magician in The Prestige, Jackman is both uncomfortably and reasonably frenzied in trying to find the cure to keep his wife with him. As a conquistador he’s a tough man with an allegiance, as a doctor he’s a man driven by science and love, and as an astronaut he’s a man pushed forward and held back by his past. The duality but still similarities to these three characters made Jackman’s job even harder, but they’re all so well played, with such a tremendous amount of anguish, that it’s somehow never overkill…it’s always just right. In contrast, Weisz as Izzy is not afraid of death; though she loves Tommy she understands that death is a part of life. The different mindsets of the two drive their love for each other, but it also makes their quests in every time frame even more tragic.

There are times of heartbreaking acceptance and revelation, and among such beautiful filmmaking and painful performances, the movie seems happy to leave us guessing again and again. There’s such an explosive, yet contained chemistry between Jackman and Weisz that I find it hard for anyone to really dismiss their performances and the love between their characters, be it in Spain 500 years in the past, the present time, or space 500 years in the future. Unmistakable though is the moving score for The Fountain, composed by a man who knows how to initiate heartbreak through musical notes and symphony. Clint Mansell who put together one of the most effective scores ever for Requiem for a Dream, joins with the Kronos Quartet and Mogwai to craft a subtle masterwork of build up and intensity. Even though the main cello riff might be used excessively, the music is so ideal and immersive, I was able to forgive a little extra here and there. The track used for the finale has to be the most appropriately selected and scored songs in a long time, for with it exclamation points are added with seamless authority to the already effective climax and crescendo of the film.

If some of this review sounds jumbled and doesn’t make sense, it’s because it’s one of those reviews that was really difficult to write. The Fountain, and mainly it’s blisteringly frantic and possibly indecipherable ending (think Kubrick’s 2001) is a jumbo puzzle where I’ve still, days later, only put together a few of the pieces. When it ended, I knew it was one of the most indescribable things I’d ever seen. But does that make a movie a 1/10 or a 10/10? It’s then I realized that this kind of cinema that shoots for the stars and does not hold our hand is what makes movies so very magical. Even if Aronofsky’s talent and ambition are in a battle of what’s bigger, this type of renegade moviemaking is as important as it is frustrating. What will we do for the continuation of life, love and happiness? What are the limits of existence in this world, with each other? If The Fountain doesn’t try to answer these questions, it at least makes our hearts wrench and our minds think. What The Fountain may lack in crystal clear coherence and reasonable structure, it more than makes up for in stunning, awe-inducing beauty and the admirable ambition of a true artist: Darren Aronofsky.

-Andrew Guarini

[dfd3657]

I'm debating on whether I should see this or go see Casino Royale again. I absolutely loved Casino Royale, but I've been wanting to see this one since I first saw the trailer months ago. I'm always up for a good Jackman flick. He was fantastic in The Prestige (which I thought was amazing).

[thedudeman69]

The Fountain - 8/10


Three stories. One love. Hugh Jackman as a Spanish conquistador, a modern scientist, and a future astronaut. Rachel Weiz as a queen, a woman dying of cancer. He must rush to save her from cancer as it tears away the fabrics of their relationship and he deivolves himself into finding the cure. shows that love can last in every generation.

When I walked out of the movie, I had feelings of weirdness simmering all over my body after I watched a remarkable film. The film was simple yet made complex with the imagery and the hidden meanings. The meanings don't damper the film, it makes the film all that better, it makes the audience think, about what they just saw. Movies these days don't make you think. They apply the same motions to you and they expect you to clap and cheer for that movie, but no, this movie in itself is not like that. It leaves the audience, with a sense of confusion when they leave because the film bombards you with breathtaking things and multiple meaning imagery. The director wants you to figure out what was going on, and how you would interpret it because this film doesn't have just one meaning applied to the same situation over and over again. It has multiple meanings that are constantly changed based on your viewing experience. The meanings vary from person to person.


The acting in the film was not all the best. Hugh Jackman delivers the most avant garde performance of the film, going all out and showing more range than he has as Wolverine or any other film roles. He takes his role seriously and he earns my respect as a dramatic actor because he certainly has proved that he can be a damn good one. Ellen Burystn, of Requiem For A Dream fame, is really underused in the picture. She really doesn't provide anything new to the movie and didn't really spark my interest in the performance. Rachel Weiez, the wife of Aronofsky, was good for what her role provided her. She took the role and tried to make it her own, and she looked beautiful in the process.


The directing aspect of the film was top notch. Using the bacteria patterns for the 2026 scenes or whatever future year was perfect and spell binding to me. Also, I noticed that he used natural light opposed to artificial, I liked it, it gave the movie a more gritter feel to me in the past and future sequences. Also, There were some excellent shots, for example, Hugh Jackman walking towards The Tree of Life, and the whole futuristic sequences were outstanding. Although Aronofsky has been known for making really long films, the films length, over a hour and 30 minutes, was perfect for it as the imagery didn't get tiring and stale. He hit you with enough of it to stick in your head.


When you make a film that can possibly have a audience love or hate it, and it sticks in your head and you disscuss it and have conversations about the hidden meanings in the film, then it is a fine film for what goes through your thought process and the film maker's job is done when it leaves you with that feeling. I have a weird feeling that I am going to thinking about this movie for days to come.

[Tayzlor]

Originally posted by QUENTIN

I do honestly wonder how much people's anticipation of the film is effecting their critiques of it. I was dying to see it too and thought I'd love it, but that doesn't mean I have to even if it's so heavily flawed and poorly constructed.

That's an interesting point. Especially on these forums I get the same reaction. Surely not every movie anticipated highly receives the highest grade. It's kind of like blind buying a DVD -- you may be more inclined to like it, or highlight the positive aspects over the negative, to ensure that you received your money's worth (even if it's in your head).

It's creepy to speculate that somehow someone's opinion may be misguided, anyhow.

Seeing this tomorrow, and cannot wait. I'm honestly not expecting much, but it's images have already marked it as a must-see for the big screen.

That "2001" is referenced in a-many reviews is a testament to how singular that experiment was and it's neverending influence. Or maybe there's simply no other slow moving space adventure precedent.

[Tayzlor]

Originally posted by daddiefatsacks
Aranofsky is a good director, and the fact he can make those visuals without CGI is mind boggling.


This bothers the piss out of me. It's not likely the director fashioned the images himself or even headed the team that did.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Tayzlor
it's images have already marked it as a must-see for the big screen.
Well, if you think that will fortify your experience, surely you will be disappointed.
I was hoping that the visuals would make the dreadful experience better; they didn't. There's not nearly enough of it...

[daddiefatsacks]

Originally posted by Tayzlor
This bothers the piss out of me. It's not likely the director fashioned the images himself or even headed the team that did.

how do you know?

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by dman476
Well, if you think that will fortify your experience, surely you will be disappointed.
I was hoping that the visuals would make the dreadful experience better; they didn't. There's not nearly enough of it...

Nah, Tayzlor: when you're not gaping at the screen as your pupils dilate at the space scenes, you'll be stunned by the camera angles/movements in every other, bewitched by the lighting or simply awed by Weisz's beauty :D
No other film this year is more worthy to be seen in a cinema this year. I'm going to see it in the cinemas again and that's very rare for me..

DMM

[AaronisMe]

10/10

Very moving. The emotions were so strong that I felt like I was there with them.

Hard to critiquw because watching this film is a very personal experience and pends on someone's views on life.

[AwesomeJ33]

Took me over 48 hours to digest this as well.

I'm sure seeing it twice will really help out alot.

And as previous posters have replied, the only parts of the stories grounded in reality are the parts where he misused his time that he had left with Izzy. The crazy Mayan section as well as the crazy Sci Fi future section are all Izzy's book, The Fountain related, with Tommy finally catching up to that star where her soul would lay and wait for him. But alas we are all suckers to time and space and we don't know what we have until its gone.

Visually arresting, sonically mastered, this is the film of the year. And maybe any year. This guy has so much talent, and probably alot of pain in his heart as well.

To come up with movies that deal with loss and despair like Requiem and The Fountain, I feel for him.

9.5/10

[notchreturns]

I'm thinking the stuff in the future was real. It was strongly hinted he had found a cure to stop aging. It was also explained that according to one of the religions if someone dies and you plant a seed over their grave, their spirit becomes the tree. I think the tree in his bubble really was Izzy and he was traveling with her to the nebulla?

I think...

I can't believe how split this film is with people either loving ir or not getting it all. Craziness!

[TylerDurden182]

Originally posted by notchreturns
I'm thinking the stuff in the future was real. It was strongly hinted he had found a cure to stop aging. It was also explained that according to one of the religions if someone dies and you plant a seed over their grave, their spirit becomes the tree. I think the tree in his bubble really was Izzy and he was traveling with her to the nebulla?

That's an explanation my friend and I came up with also. It makes perfect sense.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by notchreturns
I'm thinking the stuff in the future was real. It was strongly hinted he had found a cure to stop aging. It was also explained that according to one of the religions if someone dies and you plant a seed over their grave, their spirit becomes the tree. I think the tree in his bubble really was Izzy and he was traveling with her to the nebulla?



Yep, that's how I saw it too.


DMM

[Powerslave]

That's how I saw it as well. I got the feeling he was talking to her, just from the words he was using and whatnot, but he was speaking directly to the tree, and saying "I only need a little more" when taking the bark. Though I'm still thinking about it, and I'm still considering the whole "only the present day parts are real" thing. And if you accept the former answer, then you'd have to figure out what the book had to do with it, and how the only supposedly fictional part of the story factors in. And furthermore, if accepting that answer, how did Tommy finish the book?

But yeah, still thinking on it. And the more I think, the more perplexed I become. At first I felt somewhat cheated/disappointed, but it grew on me quickly. This is one of the only times I've actually been able to accept the fact that someone else's opinion might actually differ from mine in a way that I don't find completely ridiculous, haha. Anyway, I'm loving this film, I'd give it a 9.5/10 (thus far).

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by Tayzlor
This bothers the piss out of me. It's not likely the director fashioned the images himself or even headed the team that did.

With that logic, you can say that about anything... good acting, good camera movement, good lighting... whatever. The fact is, the director is in control of everything on and off the screen. Including FX. And besides the fact that Darren personally answered a similar question at a Q&A I attended a few weeks back, this degree of responsibility pertains to most, if not all directors in the business. Darren chose who made those FX, and therefore makes him responsible whether or not they’re good.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
I get what Aronofsky was trying to do and I appreciate that someone out there is trying stuff like this, but I think he failed. An ambitious, grand, pretty failure.

5/10

I do honestly wonder how much people's anticipation of the film is effecting their critiques of it. I was dying to see it too and thought I'd love it, but that doesn't mean I have to even if it's so heavily flawed and poorly constructed.


So basically if you didn't like the movie but a lot of other schmoes did, something must be wrong with the way they approached it. Ok, cool. Perfect-o.

[dman476]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
So basically if you didn't like the movie but a lot of other schmoes did, something must be wrong with the way they approached it. Ok, cool. Perfect-o.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all.
Approach has nothing to do with it...he's contemplating whether prior thoughts interfere with what the objective rating is and should be.
He's not even asserting it is so; merely wondering.

[AaronisMe]

Movie watching is more of a subjective experience than most would want to admit. How one reacts to a film is primarily what a viewer brings to the table.

[Strider]

The Fountain was my most anticipated film of 2006. I hoped it would blow my mind away, but it didn't. I still liked it, and I appreciated its ambition. I'll be seeing the film again soon. I wonder how I'll feel about it after a second viewing.

Strider

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by dman476
I don't think that's what he's saying at all.
Approach has nothing to do with it...he's contemplating whether prior thoughts interfere with what the objective rating is and should be.
He's not even asserting it is so; merely wondering.

Saying 'i wonder' is just a covert way of plain 'ole SAYIN' IT.

[echo_bravo]

I cant wait to see this. I really want to see it stoned out of my mind, but since I have to be drug tested that wont be happening.:(

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by echo_bravo
I cant wait to see this. I really want to see it stoned out of my mind, but since I have to be drug tested that wont be happening.:(

Remembering the movie rather than the experience (at least when you see for the first time) is more worth it i think. Although yeah, this is one of those films to definately see when stoned (or high by other natural substances that need no mention here)
The movie will get you high by itself :D

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Saying 'i wonder' is just a covert way of plain 'ole SAYIN' IT.

I'd also still like to know why exactly he thinks it failed...


Originally posted by Strider
The Fountain was my most anticipated film of 2006. I hoped it would blow my mind away, but it didn't. I still liked it, and I appreciated its ambition. I'll be seeing the film again soon. I wonder how I'll feel about it after a second viewing.

Strider

I have a feeling this is one of the movies whose rating will change after repeated viewings..let us know what you think after you see it again



DMM

[Fisting Ackbar]

Originally posted by DaMovieMan
Remembering the movie rather than the experience (at least when you see for the first time) is more worth it i think. Although yeah, this is one of those films to definately see when stoned (or high by other natural substances that need no mention here)
The movie will get you high by itself :D

With the average weed high being around an hour and a half, it's as if Aronofsky specifically cut the film down to 96 minutes so stoners would get the most out of it.

But having seen the film sober, I thought the short running length was perfect. Quite frankly, I have a hard time remembering exact plot details of what happened and how everything fitted together. Yet it doesn't matter much in my mind - the experience alone was overwhelming, and I could have done a lot worse for $8 on a rainy day.

8/10

[echo_bravo]

Saw this movie last night. I really dug it and thought Hugh Jackman gave an Oscar worthy performance. I really hope he gets nominated. I am also glad I didnt see this stoned, because I probably would of been weeping like a little pussy. LOL

I really feel like I need to see this movie again to fully appreciate it because there were a lot of things I dont think I picked up on.

The direction was fantastic as was the score. Still, if I had to rank Darren Aronofsky's films in order
1. Requiem for a Dream
2. Pi
3. The Fountain

That isnt a slam on The Fountain. I just really liked his other two movies better ( I havent seen his earlier work). My opinion might change once I view The Fountain again.

Also, is it just me or does Aronofsky seem like the type of husband that likes to watch his wife get fucked by other guys. I could picture Aronofsky in the editing room jerking off to Jackman/Weisz scene in the bathtub.

The Fountain 8/10

[Max Cady]

7/10
I left confused and was like WTF???
It was good enough to keep me interested the whole time and the score was great...

[bigred760]

It's a little hard deciding where to start with this movie. You've got the overall theme to the movie, the stunning visuals, the great acting, its production values, and hell, we'll throw in the f*cked up way it's presented.

The movie's basically about the search for immortality; it's presented in three different timelines: a doctor trying to medically save his tumor-stricken wife, a Spanish conquistador searching for the Tree of Life (as told of in Genesis), and a man travelling through space in a globe heading toward a nebula and dying star. The male lead in all three stories is played by Hugh Jackman and the female lead is Rachel Weisz. It was pretty cool watching the three storylines interact with each other and it was pretty clear how the three related with each other. Or so I thought, while there were connections, the ending threw me for a loop and threw all the connections I thought existed away.

The movie's still a very thought-provoking ride and has several other things going for it other than its look into the impossible. For starters, the movie's visuals are spectacular, especially the scenes where Jackman's in the globe travelling through space. Aranofsky certainly has an eye for the spectacular and its evident during these scenes. The conquistador scenes are kind of claustrophobic with a lot of face close-ups or limited scenery, save for one scene with the conquistador and the queen - which is a pretty cool visual scene. The doctor and wife scenes bring out the emotional side of the movie and are probably the movie's best. Probably because they're the scenes we can relate to the most.

And Hugh Jackman's performance is the reason we can relate to them. He is superb in all the roles he plays, but particularly when he plays the doctor trying to save his wife's life. As the doctor, he's determined to the point of alienating his coworkers and even his wife, but he also shows he's a caring husband as well. As the conquistador, he's only interested in preserving the greatness of Spain and protecting his queen, maybe even to the point of insanity. Rachel Weisz didn't really have much to do except when she plays the dying wife; it's really Jackman's movie all the way.

It's definitely an interesting movie, but it's not perfect. It's a little confusing at times, particularly when it comes on how the three stories are connected and the extent to which they're connected. I think it's clear what Aranofsky is trying to present, but the way he presents it could be clearer. But he definitely created a visually exciting film and with Hugh Jackman delivering a great performance, it's a movie that's worth checking out, even though it's not a movie for everyone.

7/10

[veddhead83]

**Review May Contain Spoilers**

I am still thinking about this film. It has been a few days since viewing it, but I am still trying to sort things out.

I just don't think the film worked. Aronofsky is an acclaimed director, so I think he is getting a little benefit of the doubt from fanboys. I think he tried too hard to mix up the story, and in turn he has made a grand failure.

Now don't get me wrong. The performances he received from his two leads are amazing, especially Jackman, who has never been better. Usually I am a huge fan of unique storytelling, "21 Grams", "Crash", "Babel", "Eternal Sunshine.." but this was above and beyond anything I have seen in a long time. In fact, this tactic has hurt the film.

The storyline is so jumbled and never really seemed to settle until halfway through the movie. And by that time I was very agitated. The 1500s scenes were okay. The Present scens were the best. But the Future scenes, whether Jackman's fantasy or not, just didn't fit or make sense while in front of me.

The point of confusion and frustration sank in during the 1500s while Jackman was fighting the Mayan Ruler and BAM!!! The future Jackman appears hovering above. I was in a total state of confusion.

Aronofsky could have touched on Weisz's book, "The Fountain" a little bit more. Giving us more as to what was written, rather than having the camera pan over it in a complete blurr. I don't think he lets us in as to what is real and fantasy. Now don't get me wrong, I love to think while watching films, but this was just too much. I think he wanted us to know more before seeing this or he is demanding numerous viewings. Too bad for him, he likely won't get multiple viewings from a lot of us.

The Fountain: C

[bigred760]

Originally posted by veddhead83
**Review May Contain Spoilers**

. . . But the Future scenes, whether Jackman's fantasy or not, just didn't fit or make sense while in front of me.

The point of confusion and frustration sank in during the 1500s while Jackman was fighting the Mayan Ruler and BAM!!! The future Jackman appears hovering above. I was in a total state of confusion.


These were the scenes that really took me out of the movie, making me think: "Why is this here?" Like I said in my review, it appeared like there was some connection, but a the end it wasn't clearly stated or was just too confusing. I agree with you on these points in the movie.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by veddhead83
**Review May Contain Spoilers**
















The point of confusion and frustration sank in during the 1500s while Jackman was fighting the Mayan Ruler and BAM!!! The future Jackman appears hovering above. I was in a total state of confusion.

Aronofsky could have touched on Weisz's book, "The Fountain" a little bit more. Giving us more as to what was written, rather than having the camera pan over it in a complete blurr. I don't think he lets us in as to what is real and fantasy. Now don't get me wrong, I love to think while watching films, but this was just too much. I think he wanted us to know more before seeing this or he is demanding numerous viewings. Too bad for him, he likely won't get multiple viewings from a lot of us.

The Fountain: C

Heh, it's what you make of the movie.
I feel you're giving it a low grade because you didn't understand it, and that's something I don't understand. If one likes the story, the idea, the presentation..(none of which you really mentioned so I'm guessing they didn't grab you that much) and one still feels they didn't get it then of course they'll go to see it again to try and understand it.
About some specific things in your review, how much more do you need to understand about the book in the film; it was obvious that the 1500 scenes were her book, everytime Tom started reading it that pan and blur lead to the 1500 scenes so it's farely easy to make the connection. As for Jackman hovering as the 'First Father' in front of the Mayan, I am confused about it as well but that confusion leads me wanting to find out more and try to figure it out as opposed to rejecting the film.
A lot of the great films out there deserve multiple viewings to be fully understood.
Just my thoughts...I'm gonna get the graphic novel which I'm sure will shed light on some things

DMM

[bob]

I loved it, I was in awe by the end. Hugh Jackman's performance was one of the best I have seen in a long, long time. I think that performance launched him from being a "cool" actor to being a great actor. I was just floored by the entire thing.

[Bourne101]

I may check this out today. Not really sure what to expect.

[veddhead83]

To DMM


The idea of the film: The idea was alright. I think the trailer was more mis-leading than anything. It showed us that all of these characters were the same. So going in, I assumed that they were, well, the same. The whole movie I am feeling that I am watching one man and one woman passing through all of these years together.

The use of the book in the film: It was not obvious, or more than a couple of people would in this entire blog or anyone who has watched it would have gotten that point. It wasn't obvious.
As to wanting to view this again to gain a perspective, I just think I want to waste my time when I didn't really enjoy it much the first time around. If that is something you want to do, the more power to you. I don't think I am the only one who feels that here in this blog.

Watching muliple time: True, but as mentioned above, I don't believe I will be giving this a second look. Maybe had I found it more enjoyable this first time.
I have watched many films multiple times and find out more and more about them, but this won't be one of them.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by veddhead83
To DMM

The whole movie I am feeling that I am watching one man and one woman passing through all of these years together.

That's a wonderful way to look at it and you wouldn't be wrong.

The use of the book in the film: It was not obvious, or more than a couple of people would in this entire blog or anyone who has watched it would have gotten that point. It wasn't obvious.
As to wanting to view this again to gain a perspective, I just think I want to waste my time when I didn't really enjoy it much the first time around. If that is something you want to do, the more power to you. I don't think I am the only one who feels that here in this blog.

I don't know how more obvious you wanted it to be when she clearly said what she was writing her book on, and whenever he read it we'd read the words and fade into the period and to the exact scene the words desribed. But that's just me and some other people here.
If you didn't enjoy it the first time around then it's like I said before, the idea, themes and visual presentation just didn't impress you enough. That's completely fine. It just seems to me that everything was overshadowed by your not understand it.


Watching muliple time: True, but as mentioned above, I don't believe I will be giving this a second look. Maybe had I found it more enjoyable this first time.
I have watched many films multiple times and find out more and more about them, but this won't be one of them.

That's cool.

DMM

[Powerslave]

First off I loved the film, but I have a question. I've given the film alot of thought and worked out my own opinions on what was happening and what the themes/symbols/motifs/metaphors/etc were and what they meant, and I've read what other people have said, but my question is this; What was the purpose of the convoluted unclear narrative? How did it express or strengthen the message of the film? Because I mean, with a film like this one, and a story told this way, both with the grandiose scale and the esoteric symbols and visuals and so on, you'd expect some sort grand all-encompassing philosophy on life/human nature/whatever, at least to justify the use of such a complicated method of story-telling, but to me it felt like a fairly personal story about one person.

I dunno, that's what I've been feeling about it. I still loved it, I'd give it a solid 8.5 or 9 (need to see it again), but can someone clarify this for me?

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by Powerslave
What was the purpose of the convoluted unclear narrative? How did it express or strengthen the message of the film?

As mentioned before, I don't think it helped the story in any way. I believe it actually harmed the film. It has turned many viewers away and has narrowed the scope of appeal.

When I watched it, 3 maybe more, walked out of the auditorium. That is never a good thing.

I also listened to Richard Roeper's review online(which take what you will from it, he is just another critic like the rest of us) - and he said when watched it in Toronto, tons of people walked out of the screening. He said he had never seen anything like it before.

[bigred760]

I got that Izzy was writing the book about the conquistador (and I'm betting the Queen was supposed to be Queen Isabela. Isabela = Izzy, get it?). My minor beef with it was the space travelling scene. Because I too was under the impression, from the trailer, that these characters were all the same and had stayed together through the course of time; the book angle doesn't come in until almost halfway through the movie. Once it was obvious that the conquistador scenes were from a book, then the only question was how does the space travelling sequences connect with everything else - storywise. I never found the answer. And that annoyed me.

I hate it when people leave a movie in the middle of it; especially when it's a free screening. My guess is that most of the people weren't able to follow it that well and didn't want to try. God forbid a movie makes you think or wonder about things in life. I'll give this movie that, it does make you think about the line between mortality and immortality.

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by bigred760
I got that Izzy was writing the book about the conquistador (and I'm betting the Queen was supposed to be Queen Isabela. Isabela = Izzy, get it?). My minor beef with it was the space travelling scene. Because I too was under the impression, from the trailer, that these characters were all the same and had stayed together through the course of time; the book angle doesn't come in until almost halfway through the movie. Once it was obvious that the conquistador scenes were from a book, then the only question was how does the space travelling sequences connect with everything else - storywise. I never found the answer. And that annoyed me.

I hate it when people leave a movie in the middle of it; especially when it's a free screening. My guess is that most of the people weren't able to follow it that well and didn't want to try. God forbid a movie makes you think or wonder about things in life. I'll give this movie that, it does make you think about the line between mortality and immortality.

Very true.

[mutesaint]

Originally posted by bigred760
I got that Izzy was writing the book about the conquistador (and I'm betting the Queen was supposed to be Queen Isabela. Isabela = Izzy, get it?). My minor beef with it was the space travelling scene. Because I too was under the impression, from the trailer, that these characters were all the same and had stayed together through the course of time; the book angle doesn't come in until almost halfway through the movie. Once it was obvious that the conquistador scenes were from a book, then the only question was how does the space travelling sequences connect with everything else - storywise. I never found the answer. And that annoyed me.

I hate it when people leave a movie in the middle of it; especially when it's a free screening. My guess is that most of the people weren't able to follow it that well and didn't want to try. God forbid a movie makes you think or wonder about things in life. I'll give this movie that, it does make you think about the line between mortality and immortality.


My take on it was that the future and the present sequences actually happened. I think he planted a seed of the eternal life tree(rememebr he put that seed over her grave) and it grew. The future ages later when he has managed to take the tree(Izzy) to the dying star. I got this mainly because of her story of the man believing that his father had become the tree.

At least you guys got that what happened in the past was her book. Many people seem to have trouble grasping that.

[optimus1]

How badly did this movie tank? Was it not a wide release because there is really no hype at all and I don't see it making money.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally posted by optimus1
How badly did this movie tank? Was it not a wide release because there is really no hype at all and I don't see it making money.

I dont think it was wide, at least in New York I heard it wasn't...its one of those films that will gain support and a true fanbase once the DVD comes out, like so many others..

!!!!SPOILERS!!!!









Originally posted by mutesaint
My take on it was that the future and the present sequences actually happened. I think he planted a seed of the eternal life tree(rememebr he put that seed over her grave) and it grew. The future ages later when he has managed to take the tree(Izzy) to the dying star. I got this mainly because of her story of the man believing that his father had become the tree.

At least you guys got that what happened in the past was her book. Many people seem to have trouble grasping that.

I really don't understand how people can get confused about the book being the past.
a) she said what she was writing about
b) as soon as he started reading it the camera would close-up on the words and pan into the 1500s and
c) the words that were panned over desribed exactly the 1500 scene that was faded into.

I think the 2500 scenes actually happen
a) because he's talking to the tree as if she was Izzy and the film ended with him planting the seed on her grave.
b) meanwhile he's remembering her words, her bed, her image all from the year 2000
c) the experiment on the monkey worked and his tumour was decreasing and his last words to Burstyn were his vows to find a cure for the disease, death. By the monkey it's safe to assume that he did find it.
d) he looked young becaue you age slowly in space

Now the 1500 scenes could of been real as well, their past lives..
Also, I loved the structure of the film because the strongest element of the film was their love and it was as powerful in all the time periods. We were meant to think we were watching only one man and one woman through all of this.

Still need to see it for the second time around to connect the tree with the finding of the cure and that ending when he goes out of the spaceship.

DMM

[Badbird]

Eh. I was dissapointed, but it wasn't bad. Just not great. Or even really good. Just good.

The present day stuff was the only really interesting story, but even in it Izzy was basicaly a one dimensional character and kind of a space cadet at that. i had trouble caring about her. Hugh Jackman was great though.

1500 stuff was basically an action movie. And 2500 was loony, exestential nonsense.

And to top it all off, it ended with what was virtually a non-ending.

Personally, I think it would have been far more intriguing if he had lived for a thousand years in order to save her. What this ended up being was a whole lot of nothing.

Here's a Wired article about how they did the special effects. Fascinating stuff. More interesting than the movie.

Link (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/outsider.html)

[KiKrusher99]

SPOOOOILLLERS!

Yea I pretty much interpreted the movie the exact same way DMM did. The 1500 scenes was definetly Izzy's story... and while I guess i'm not 100% positive... but I think the 2500 scenes actually happen. Mainly for the reasons DMM listed as well as some other little subtleties, eg "finish it", and when Jackman says "All these memories".

Anyways I felt that the movie was simply a visual representation of Aronofsky's own thoughts on mortality and death. In fact I think I read an interview where Rachel Weisz said Darren started writing the script while both his parents were battling cancer. Personally what I thought Aronofsky was specifically trying to say is that there is "creation in death". Essentially the way I interpreted the ending of the film is after the tree Izzy dies, Tommy realizes his quest for immortality is barren. This understanding allows Tommy to finish the book by having the conquistador realize his own vainglorious search for the same aspirition is just as vapid. However they both experience immortality in a more natural and beautiful sense as the conquistador transforms into the flowers, and the nebula explodes.

I must say this movie did not produce a 2001 feeling at all. I don't know I just felt like I got this movie right after it was over while 2001 still has me guessing and looking for answers. Dunno though my meaning of the film could be totally opposite of what Arononfsky intended.:confused:

I would give the film 8/10

[KiKrusher99]

Once again, Spoilers!

Actually, I kind of think that 2500 was also part of the book. However Tom realized the same thing and achieved what he wanted by planting the tree over Izzy's grave.

Kind of torn right now.

[mutesaint]

The dvd better have a damn good commentary. Like 2 of them. One for the technical side and one that is just Aronofsky(misspelled) telling us wtf is going on.

[SJQ]

*****SPOILERS*****

well, my theory on the whole things is that the 2500 scenes actually did take place in his mind. the first time i saw it i thought they actually happened: he found the cure to death and that the tree was Izzy. But after reading the idea that they took place in his mind, when i watched it back it just made a whole lot more sense. What i took from the second viewing was:

1) the future scenes can not be from the book for the simple fact they have too much of the present events and memories in them to take place in the book.

2) they also cant be real because in the book the future Tommy shows up in the end as the First Father, thus sparing the life of Tomas. Also, the future scenes all deal with Tommy trying to save Izzy and have her reborn but at the end of the movie, in the present he plants the seed over her grave and says goodbye. thus coming to terms with her death which makes any attempt to take her to the nebula and save her a little hard for me to belive.

Notice how Izzy left the book with the words "and all he saw was death". From there Tommy was suppose to finish the book but he had no idea how to. Hence he was constantly haunted by the words finisht it. The present Tommy was very unwilling to accept death and didnt know how to continue the story because to him death is the end. It was only when he came to terms with her death and accepted that death is a part of life, not the end, could he finish the story. Which is actually why i think that the future Tommy shows up in the book. He shows up right where he would have started writing the ending of the book almost symbolizing the new enlightened Tommy taking control, that he is the one writing the ending. Of course Tomas turning into flowers is a symbol for immortality through death, living on through the earth.

Also, all the scenes in the present and future are perfectly juxtapose. When Izzy dies, the tree dies. I think we all knew that the tree was meant to represent Izzy the whole time any way. But it just seemed that as everything happened in the present, it also happened in the future. Of course you also need to remember at the very end of the movie as present Tommy looks up from Izzy's grave, you see the nebula as it burns out and then relights, leading into the white out to Tommy saying "everything will be ok". Which to me once again symbolized a rebirth with in Tommy. A new man, one who accepts death and realizes that it is truly how he shall live forever with his love.

I dont know who said it on this board but I agree that the line "You pulled me through time" wasnt meant literally but more as him saying she was what kept him going through the years.

*****END SPOILERS*******

well, thats just my opinion. you can take it any way you want. there is just so much to this movie that i know i left some stuff out. this is one of those rare movies that is great to discuss and disect all the different aspects. i love this movie and plan on seeing it many more times.

10/10

[Strider]

Originally posted by bigread760
Once it was obvious that the conquistador scenes were from a book, then the only question was how does the space travelling sequences connect with everything else - storywise. I never found the answer. And that annoyed me.

I recently rewatched The Fountain, and I thought the exact same thing about the 2500 story. I couldn't find a connection on my own either, which disappointed me. The connection between the 1500 and 2006 stories is pretty easy to figure out, but not so with the futuristic story. The only connection the three stories share is the themes: love, death, and the quest for immortality.


Originally posted by DaMovieMan
I have a feeling this is one of the movies whose rating will change after repeated viewings..let us know what you think after you see it again

After a second viewing, my 7/10 grade stands. It's a solid film, and as I said before, I appreciate Aronofsky's ambition. But 2001 it's not. Hugh Jackman's performance is even better the second time around, and I paid more attention to Clint Mansell's score, which is truly beautiful and probably my favorite score of the year (thus far). The Fountain is a thought-provoking, very spiritual sci-fi drama, but I think Afronosky's vision could have been clearer.

This is a film I definitely see myself purchasing on DVD and watching several more times.

Strider

[Criminal Rock]

Minor Spoilers

Originally posted by Strider
I recently rewatched The Fountain, and I thought the exact same thing about the 2500 story. I couldn't find a connection on my own either, which disappointed me. The connection between the 1500 and 2006 stories is pretty easy to figure out, but not so with the futuristic story. The only connection the three stories share is the themes: love, death, and the quest for immortality.

Rachael wrote everything that took place in the past. Hugh wrote everything that took place in the future… “finish it”, remember? That’s how he finished the book.

[Quigles]

Hmmm. I think I'm alone on this one. I didn't love it, I didn't hate it, I didn't find it confusing, I didn't find it pretentious, etc.

I merely enjoyed it.

That's it.

As an exercise in filmmaking, I thought it was brilliant - a technical and visual masterpiece that's absolutely beautiful to look at.

But as a movie, I thought it failed. While the acting was good, the characters themselves fell flat. Even worse was the story, which to me felt very shallow.

This is also why I'm surprised so many found the movie confusing. I thought it made perfect sense, all you had to do was wait to see how things played out. And to be honest, I found it a little predictable. As soon as the book came into play, I figured the whole thing out and even got a little annoyed. It was painfully obvious what the ending was going to be, especially with Weisz constantly saying, "Finish it..."

The worst problem in the film though was how tedious it got. I didn't have any emotional investment in the film, so the fact that it just kept on going and repeating itself over and over and over... well, I just got bored.

Still, I'd rate the movie either a 6/10 or 7/10 simply because I think it's a wonderful work of art - kind of a mood poem in movie form.

I'll be happy to check it out again and study it, but other than that, I see no reason to go back for multiple viewings.

[Rukas]

Sorry (ok well Im not really sorry but meh) to bump this thread again, but it was just released in Australia and I just watched it.

Ive read over this thread and wanted to throw my 2 cents in.

Firstly, the length. To be really honest, at the time I didnt even pay attention to how long it was, it didnt even occur to me that it was short or long or just right, it just didnt seem to matter and I didnt even think about it until I read this thread.

I give the movie a 9/10, it is definitely one of my favorite movies of all time after initial viewing.

As for the plot, here is how I understood it. His wife is dying and writing a book based on what they are going through, but set in the past, in an effort to help him cope with things once she is gone. Throughout the present he is reading this book and thus we have the "flashbacks".

The future scenes are not in his mind; it is obvious the cure he finds for aging is a strong plot device otherwise it would be pointless to use. He develops a cure for aging and thus finds immortality; in doing so he discovers that living life without love and filled with regret is not living at all, and in death comes closure. Another thing that points to the future being real is that he uses the pen his wife gives him in the present to ink his tattoos in the future, but the pen is aged and damaged over the years.

He finishes the story and kills the main character, choosing death over ever lasting life and loneliness.

The tree in the future is the tree over his wifes grave, I dont think it gives him the immortality, that was his research. I think he becomes so addicted to love that he needs the tree, needs his wife. I dont know yet, I need to rewatch it, but it is possible that consuming the tree is the source of his hallucinations in the future, or perhaps they just resemble his memories, or the fact he has gone a bit crazy with loneliness/heart break.

Anyway, fantastic movie.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Minor Spoilers



Rachael wrote everything that took place in the past. Hugh wrote everything that took place in the future… “finish it”, remember? That’s how he finished the book.

But we're not certain that's what it is; for all we know, 2000 Hugh found immortality and that's how he ended up. I could be wrong, but I don't remember any connection between the writing of the book and that part of the movie.

[Rukas]

^^ Exactly. Her saying "finish it" was not suggesting the future is part of the book but in fact suggests that even in the future the book is not yet finished, thats why her memory or spirit or whatever is still nagging him from beyond the grave... Women ;)

[dannywalker17]

Originally posted by Rukas
As for the plot, here is how I understood it. His wife is dying and writing a book based on what they are going through, but set in the past, in an effort to help him cope with things once she is gone. Throughout the present he is reading this book and thus we have the "flashbacks".

The future scenes are not in his mind; it is obvious the cure he finds for aging is a strong plot device otherwise it would be pointless to use. He develops a cure for aging and thus finds immortality; in doing so he discovers that living life without love and filled with regret is not living at all, and in death comes closure. Another thing that points to the future being real is that he uses the pen his wife gives him in the present to ink his tattoos in the future, but the pen is aged and damaged over the years.

He finishes the story and kills the main character, choosing death over ever lasting life and loneliness.

The tree in the future is the tree over his wifes grave, I dont think it gives him the immortality, that was his research. I think he becomes so addicted to love that he needs the tree, needs his wife. I dont know yet, I need to rewatch it, but it is possible that consuming the tree is the source of his hallucinations in the future, or perhaps they just resemble his memories, or the fact he has gone a bit crazy with loneliness/heart break.

Great interpretation. I think the fact that both the teaser trailer and theatrical trailer prominently featured the years 1500, 2000, and 2500 when showing the three storylines confirms that the future scenes were real, not imagined or in the book.

Forgive me if someone already pointed this out. I haven't read the whole thread.

[Rukas]

Originally posted by dannywalker17
Great interpretation. I think the fact that both the teaser trailer and theatrical trailer prominently featured the years 1500, 2000, and 2500 when showing the three storylines confirms that the future scenes were real, not imagined or in the book.

Forgive me if someone already pointed this out. I haven't read the whole thread.

Not really, because by that line of thinking the book must be real too, but its not, its imaginary, so it is possible the future scenes are too based on the trailer. However I don't believe this to be so as stated above.

[Monotreme]

The problem with the "future is real" theory is that the scenes in the future contain some very peculiar and inconsistent imagery; whether it is the figure of Rachel Weisz or her lying in the hospital bed (both images appear on the floating island in the future scenes), it seems to me that while the past is how Weisz chooses to allegorise their modern day life, Hugh chooses to allegorise it using the future. Hence the constant visual references to the present day scenes in the future scenes.

[Rukas]

Originally posted by Monotreme
The problem with the "future is real" theory is that the scenes in the future contain some very peculiar and inconsistent imagery; whether it is the figure of Rachel Weisz or her lying in the hospital bed (both images appear on the floating island in the future scenes), it seems to me that while the past is how Weisz chooses to allegorise their modern day life, Hugh chooses to allegorise it using the future. Hence the constant visual references to the present day scenes in the future scenes.


I dont understand how the imagery in the future are peculiar or inconsistent, they are his memories, both of a healthy wife and of a sick dieing one.

[Powerslave]

Originally posted by Rukas
I dont understand how the imagery in the future are peculiar or inconsistent, they are his memories, both of a healthy wife and of a sick dieing one.
But memories don't appear in front of you. And there was nothing that I can remember eluding to the fact that the tree or the bubble or anything else could make you see you're own memories. If the future scenes were real, then we'd have to assume that either A-the tree can in fact show you your own memories or B-that Aronofsky is implying that we're seeing these images because Tommy was remembering them, as a reflection of his thoughts, not that they were actually there. And neither of those seem plausible to me. Maybe the second one, but what Monotreme is saying makes more sense to me.

[Rukas]

Originally posted by Powerslave
But memories don't appear in front of you. And there was nothing that I can remember eluding to the fact that the tree or the bubble or anything else could make you see you're own memories. If the future scenes were real, then we'd have to assume that either A-the tree can in fact show you your own memories or B-that Aronofsky is implying that we're seeing these images because Tommy was remembering them, as a reflection of his thoughts, not that they were actually there. And neither of those seem plausible to me. Maybe the second one, but what Monotreme is saying makes more sense to me.

We are seeing what he is seeing, that does not make it real, this is a common film tool and I have a hard time understanding why you have a problem with this.

He see's things, possibly as a result of his loneliness or partial insanity at living 500 years tortured by the loss of his loved one.

[Powerslave]

Originally posted by Rukas
We are seeing what he is seeing, that does not make it real, this is a common film tool and I have a hard time understanding why you have a problem with this.

He see's things, possibly as a result of his loneliness or partial insanity at living 500 years tortured by the loss of his loved one.
Because that's hardly made clear. And I realize that nothing in this movie is that clear, which is why we're discussing it in the first place, but to me there didn't seem to be any sensible reason why we'd be seeing Tommy and his memories on the same physical plain. Like I said it doesn't seem entirely impossible, but (keep in mind I haven't seen or thought about the movie for a while now) considering how it was shown, as 2 object in the same space, and one fading out, the idea that the future is part of the novel seems much more plausible.

[Rukas]

Originally posted by Powerslave
Because that's hardly made clear. And I realize that nothing in this movie is that clear, which is why we're discussing it in the first place, but to me there didn't seem to be any sensible reason why we'd be seeing Tommy and his memories on the same physical plain. Like I said it doesn't seem entirely impossible, but (keep in mind I haven't seen or thought about the movie for a while now) considering how it was shown, as 2 object in the same space, and one fading out, the idea that the future is part of the novel seems much more plausible.

I disagree, nothing in the novel fades in and out, there is no common narrative so to speak between the past novel and the future portion of the story.

Tom's future self experiences visions and hallucinations, whether from insanity, boredom, loneliness, enlightenment (he does meditate) or simply as a narcotic or spiritual effect of consuming the tree bark.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by Powerslave
Because that's hardly made clear. And I realize that nothing in this movie is that clear, which is why we're discussing it in the first place, but to me there didn't seem to be any sensible reason why we'd be seeing Tommy and his memories on the same physical plain. Like I said it doesn't seem entirely impossible, but (keep in mind I haven't seen or thought about the movie for a while now) considering how it was shown, as 2 object in the same space, and one fading out, the idea that the future is part of the novel seems much more plausible.
Well, I don't think the future is part of the novel as much as it is a sort of visual rendition of the modern-day events as Hugh sees it in his mind. The allegories

SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS

between the tree's dying and eventual death I think is purposefully lined up with Weisz's own death in the modern-day events. This is no coincidence, I don't think, and I think it's too far-fetched of Aronofsky to imply that not only is the tree PHYSICALLY Weisz as opposed to simply being a metaphor for Weisz as Hugh sees her in his head, but also that she does TWICE... it just doesn't make sense to me. Obviously it's hard to find sense in the WHOLE movie, but I stand by my "the future is how Hugh sees things in his mind" theory, just like how Weisz's character allegorises their relationship with the past (in the book).

[Powerslave]

Well, I don't think the future is part of the novel as much as it is a sort of visual rendition of the modern-day events as Hugh sees it in his mind.
I thought the same thing, but I just sort of made the connection in my mind---the fact that Izzy asked Tommy to finish the novel and the apparent parallel (or at least similarity) between the future parts and the present-day parts made it seem as though Tommy was reflecting his thoughts and feelings in the novel. Not that that isn't plausible, it's just that it sort of led me into the idea that future scenes were in the novel. I mean, if they aren't, but merely a visual rendition of Tommy's present-day mind, then I don't know why she told him to finish the book in the first place.

The tree, I dunno. It's sort of a vague point for me at the moment. I don't feel like I should comment on it until I've seen the movie again.
I disagree, nothing in the novel fades in and out, there is no common narrative so to speak between the past novel and the future portion of the story.
Disregard what I said; it was sort of an insignificant point and was poorly worded, too late at night, ya know.

[Monotreme]

The ending of the novel that Hugh completed was the Conquistador finding the tree of life and becoming one with it - remember that awesome scene when he finds the tree at the top of the pyramid and the plants start growing out of him? And simultaneously, in Hugh's head but not in the pages of the novel, are the future scenes, with Weisz's character constantly telling him to "finish it" (the novel). It all fits, it's just a bit confusing. I do feel that realising that the past and future scenes aren't reality is crucial to understanding the film, and all the endless hordes of critics who just dismissed the film constantly complain about how the past and future scenes make no realistic sense, when they're not supposed to be real in the first place. Just look at Roepert, a critic I normally respect. But with The Fountain, if you saw on Ebert & Roeper, he admits to guest host A.O. Scott that he didn't even understand that the tree WAS Weisz, or at least some sort of representation of her. And not understanding that basic parallel means total misunderstanding of everything else in the film, which leads to confusion which leads to frustration, agression, and negative reactions.

[Bourne101]

Just got to see this for the first time after weeks of waiting for it to arrive at my theatre. And I can honestly say, I was not dissapointed. I did not have extremely high hopes, after mixed reviews and complaints of it being to "confusing." But I gave it a shot, and I'm very glad I did.

I'm not going to go into plot details because if you have any interest in this movie, you've probably seen the movie or heard about the plot several times. I was not confused at all until about the last 15-20 minutes, but nothing a trip to Wikipedia didn't solve. I understand almost everything now.

The acting in this movie is so good. Hugh Jackman gives a great performance that was a very tough role to play. Rachel Weisz also gives a good performance in another tough role to play. Their chemistry is good, but the releationship in the actual story is occourd and I felt the two actors did a great job of playing their roles. As for supporting roles Ellen Burstyn does a good job in her small role and Sean Patrick Thomas gives an outstanding performance and I wish he had got more screen time because he nailed the screen time that he was given. If he was on one of those hospital based shows (ER, Grey's Anatomy etc), he would fucking own the show. He plays one hell of a doctor.

The film is a little messy, and that's why it may seem so confusing to some people. There were problems making this film, and it did take a very long time to make, so I don't blame the filmmakers too much, but the all over the place method did get a little out of control and took away a little bit to what could have been a better movie.

As for the visuals, where the fuck is the oscar nomination? By far the best of the year, and deserving of an oscar. Outstanding, mind bending and just a joy to look at.

Overall a very good movie, with very few flaws, other than it was a little messy. I recommend for sure.

8/10

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by Bourne101
I was not confused at all until about the last 15-20 minutes, but nothing a trip to Wikipedia didn't solve. I understand almost everything now.
Don't take this as criticism as this is just my opinion, but I believe that The Fountain is one of those films, like Donnie Darko and Mulholland Dr., that is far more interesting to try to figure out on your own, and not be told the "answer" from an external source. Especially in The Fountain, the true and final analysis is based much on personal opinion and interpretation; it's not like Muiholland Dr., which is really like a jigsaw puzzle and there is pretty much one broad explanation, although smaller details are totally up for interpretation.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Don't take this as criticism as this is just my opinion, but I believe that The Fountain is one of those films, like Donnie Darko and Mulholland Dr., that is far more interesting to try to figure out on your own, and not be told the "answer" from an external source. Especially in The Fountain, the true and final analysis is based much on personal opinion and interpretation; it's not like Muiholland Dr., which is really like a jigsaw puzzle and there is pretty much one broad explanation, although smaller details are totally up for interpretation.

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you. This is how I feel as well, just the last 15-20 minutes kind of rattled me and I knew little about what was happening, so I had to get a little bit of an explanation about the ending to clarify a few things. I feel strongly about my interpretation of the rest of the film though.