The Fountain: Mini-review and discussion

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought this movie was totally awesome. People who don't like it haven't really been able to explain to me why they didn't. I would really like to here someone like Dominic explain with a little more depth than "disjointed, uninteresting"

[/ QUOTE ]
-
I appreciate what he was trying to do, really. It just didn't work for me. I wish had had concentrated on one of the stories, because all three together didn't work.

The modern day one: soap opera plot. ypu know how many bad movies have the brilliant doctor/scientist trying to cure his love before she succumbs? I think Roger Ebert called it "movie Disease" or something. You know, the kind of unnamed malady that makes a pretty young thing grow even prettier compassionate and wise - the closer she is to death. Plus, how in the hell could anyone write a first draft of a novel in beautiful caligraphy without once making a mistake or having to rewrite something? It was stupid.

The Spanish Section. or me, the most interesting part of the movie. I would've loved to see the whole movie devoted to the Spanish search for this tree - THEN the ending with Hugh Jackman becoming part of the myth might've carried some weight.

The "Space Globe" Section Was this a space ship? Heaven? Hell? Limbo? the constellation Rachel Weisz is writing about in her book back in today's time? Is Hugh Jackman tripping? Or is he immortal and stuck in this globe with the Tree of Life for some reason? What is it?

I know there are various theories, but the fact is quite simply, the movie is muddled, confusing, and finally, uninvolving.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought this movie was totally awesome. People who don't like it haven't really been able to explain to me why they didn't. I would really like to here someone like Dominic explain with a little more depth than "disjointed, uninteresting"

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought the film's major flaws were 1) Aronofsky is, simply put, not a good writer. sections of the script were ridiculously bad and there wasn't all that much dramatic heft to the whole thing. 2) the film tries much too hard to ensure we're following the 3 story lines, specifically the fact they're linked. after a while, it was just repeating the same thing, over and over, for no reason. i found that kind of insulting myself.

there's a brilliant film there, i think. problem is, it's probably only 75 minutes long.

[troymclur]

I also think it's impotant to note that the IMDB rating for The Fountain is the same as The Right Stuff's IMDB rating, even though the formers metacritic rating is past the basement. Even though IMDB isn't even close to a 'great' barometer for greatness, it's still indicative of...something worthy of attention.

I still maintain that as many faults you can find in this movie, pretention cannot be one of them if you like either 2001 or Eyes Wide Shut. It boggles my mind how both those movies are critical darlings while this movie is critially [censored] on.

2001: A Space Oddessy begins with MONKEYS!!! and ends...with a fetus floating in space. Right...

I love that movie, and resepct it's reaches, but how dare somebody hail it as a masterpiece while calling this movie pretentious. Call it fractured, call it unfocused, call it anything but pretentious. I realize that a bald Wolverine pimping the lotus position can seem pretentious, but compared to 2001? It's a beanie baby to 2001's Cabbage Patch Doll. How can a film begin with monkey and end with a floating fetal baby dare call itself: A Space Oddessy, while a quick 90 minute jaunt into 'something other than Bruckheimer' is pissed on as a prententious piece of sh*t?

It just boggles the mind.

[pryor15]

1. Eyes Wide Shut is not a critical darling.

2. pre·ten·tious, "b : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature"

I'd say the main problem with The Fountain is it's only about half as smart and challenging as it thinks it is. Narratively, he's over his head by quite a bit.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's impotant to note that the IMDB rating for The Fountain is the same as The Right Stuff's IMDB rating, even though the formers metacritic rating is past the basement. Even though IMDB isn't even close to a 'great' barometer for greatness, it's still indicative of...something worthy of attention.

I still maintain that as many faults you can find in this movie, pretention cannot be one of them if you like either 2001 or Eyes Wide Shut. It boggles my mind how both those movies are critical darlings while this movie is critially [censored] on.

2001: A Space Oddessy begins with MONKEYS!!! and ends...with a fetus floating in space. Right...

I love that movie, and resepct it's reaches, but how dare somebody hail it as a masterpiece while calling this movie pretentious. Call it fractured, call it unfocused, call it anything but pretentious. I realize that a bald Wolverine pimping the lotus position can seem pretentious, but compared to 2001? It's a beanie baby to 2001's Cabbage Patch Doll. How can a film begin with monkey and end with a floating fetal baby dare call itself: A Space Oddessy, while a quick 90 minute jaunt into 'something other than Bruckheimer' is pissed on as a prententious piece of sh*t?

It just boggles the mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretention is like arrogance: if you can walk the walk, you can talk the talk.

2001 walks the walk. The Fountain only talks the talk.

[ThaSaltCracka]

is this really worth seeing? Need to know ASAP.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
is this really worth seeing? Need to know ASAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

it really depends on what sort of mood you're in. it has a real "art film" vibe

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's impotant to note that the IMDB rating for The Fountain is the same as The Right Stuff's IMDB rating, even though the formers metacritic rating is past the basement. Even though IMDB isn't even close to a 'great' barometer for greatness, it's still indicative of...something worthy of attention.

I still maintain that as many faults you can find in this movie, pretention cannot be one of them if you like either 2001 or Eyes Wide Shut. It boggles my mind how both those movies are critical darlings while this movie is critially [censored] on.

2001: A Space Oddessy begins with MONKEYS!!! and ends...with a fetus floating in space. Right...

I love that movie, and resepct it's reaches, but how dare somebody hail it as a masterpiece while calling this movie pretentious. Call it fractured, call it unfocused, call it anything but pretentious. I realize that a bald Wolverine pimping the lotus position can seem pretentious, but compared to 2001? It's a beanie baby to 2001's Cabbage Patch Doll. How can a film begin with monkey and end with a floating fetal baby dare call itself: A Space Oddessy, while a quick 90 minute jaunt into 'something other than Bruckheimer' is pissed on as a prententious piece of sh*t?

It just boggles the mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretention is like arrogance: if you can walk the walk, you can talk the talk.

2001 walks the walk. The Fountain only talks the talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. And probably what makes The Fountain, IMO, merely a good movie rather than a great one.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Eyes Wide Shut is not a critical darling.

2. pre·ten·tious, "b : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature"

I'd say the main problem with The Fountain is it's only about half as smart and challenging as it thinks it is. Narratively, he's over his head by quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't really pay attention as much back then. But i got the impression that critics generally liked Eyes Wide Shut and also thought that the added CG shots were tastefully done. It does have 80 percent at RottenTomatoes, so take that for what it's worth.

[ScottyP431]

Dominic,

I guess if I am reading you correctly your beef comes from the lack of connection you see between the 3 stories. The reason you can't have a movie about just 1 is becuase they are supposed to be related to prove a point. I don't really know how to evaluate a dispute over a point like this because with movies things are oftentimes clear to some but not to others, so if you didn't think it was clearly connected then that is clearly a problem with the film because you are a pretty knowledgable guy.

I will say though, some of your comments are a bit nitish, like not having scribble marks in the manuscript... I'm guessing if the story had been more engaging to you overall you wouldn't have a thought like that, so again fault film maker, but come on guy, is that really important in the grand scheme of things?

******POTENTIAL SPOILERS********************


So back to the disjointed part, as i see it the basic premiss of the movie is this:

The only real people are the Tomy and Izzy in the present, the scientist/monkey time. The spanish conquistador part and the space part are a story written within the story by Tommy and Izzy. Izzy writes the spain part, the inquisition is a metaphor for her cancer, as it consumes spain the same way cancer is consuming her body. Her conquistador runs away to try and solve the problem instead of staying with her. Her story stops with the Mayan priest about to kill tommy and she tells him to finish it.

Tommy tries to finish the story in that time period, eating from the tree/turning into a bush etc. But izzy told him the story ends in Xibalba, the sci fi part is tommys attempt to end the sotry where it is supposed to go. The tree dying right before he gets to the dead star so it can be reborn is Izzy dying right before he finds out he has discovered a cure.

I'm not saying any of that is like blindingly clear, its just what i came to think after i thought about the movie for a while.

Now as for its just another disease bringing enlightenment story, I think you are a little off the mark. Izzy is really a minor character in the film, Tommy is the main guy. I think the movie is about how do you deal with someone who reaches some kind of pseudo enlightenment like that when you yourself have not, i.e.,how people around the dying try to cope when the dying have accepted their fate. I thought that was kind of interesting becuase you are right, the disease leading to revelation is a cliche, i thought this movie looked at a differant angle on that cliche however.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
Dominic,

I guess if I am reading you correctly your beef comes from the lack of connection you see between the 3 stories. The reason you can't have a movie about just 1 is becuase they are supposed to be related to prove a point. I don't really know how to evaluate a dispute over a point like this because with movies things are oftentimes clear to some but not to others, so if you didn't think it was clearly connected then that is clearly a problem with the film because you are a pretty knowledgable guy.

I will say though, some of your comments are a bit nitish, like not having scribble marks in the manuscript... I'm guessing if the story had been more engaging to you overall you wouldn't have a thought like that, so again fault film maker, but come on guy, is that really important in the grand scheme of things?

******POTENTIAL SPOILERS********************


So back to the disjointed part, as i see it the basic premiss of the movie is this:

The only real people are the Tomy and Izzy in the present, the scientist/monkey time. The spanish conquistador part and the space part are a story written within the story by Tommy and Izzy. Izzy writes the spain part, the inquisition is a metaphor for her cancer, as it consumes spain the same way cancer is consuming her body. Her conquistador runs away to try and solve the problem instead of staying with her. Her story stops with the Mayan priest about to kill tommy and she tells him to finish it.

Tommy tries to finish the story in that time period, eating from the tree/turning into a bush etc. But izzy told him the story ends in Xibalba, the sci fi part is tommys attempt to end the sotry where it is supposed to go. The tree dying right before he gets to the dead star so it can be reborn is Izzy dying right before he finds out he has discovered a cure.

I'm not saying any of that is like blindingly clear, its just what i came to think after i thought about the movie for a while.

Now as for its just another disease bringing enlightenment story, I think you are a little off the mark. Izzy is really a minor character in the film, Tommy is the main guy. I think the movie is about how do you deal with someone who reaches some kind of pseudo enlightenment like that when you yourself have not, i.e.,how people around the dying try to cope when the dying have accepted their fate. I thought that was kind of interesting becuase you are right, the disease leading to revelation is a cliche, i thought this movie looked at a differant angle on that cliche however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your interpretation. Sounds like a movie I'd be interested in. However, the filmmakers did not succeed at telling that story interestingly or clearly.

Now, I'm not one to jump on film for not being clear - hell, my favorite film of the last 25 years is probably Kieslowski's "Red." I still have no clue what it might be about, but the emotion it makes me feel is so strong, I don't care. I love that movie.

If this movie is doing the same for you, then great.

Usually, a flawed movie with high pretensions, like The Fountain, at least gets me to think about it and figure out what the filmmaker was trying to say and do, even if he didn't quite succeed. This film did not. it immediately left my thoughts when I left the theater.

Again, not saying it can't be a good film...it just didn't work for me as a whole, that's all.