The Fountain: Mini-review and discussion

[troymclur]

This will be a disjointed, and confusing post. Sorry for that, i blame whiskey.

Synopsis: The Fountain, writen by Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel and directed by Aronofsky, tells the story of Hugh Jackman as three different character, spread by 500 year time jumps: A Conquistador sent to find the Tree of Life, a scientist trying to discover the cure for cancer, and a futuristic cosmonaut heading for the Mayan afterlife (a Nebula wrapped around a dying star, IIRC).


Background:

Now the movie has been marred wih controversy every since it's birthing 7 years ago. Originally Brad Pitt was going to play the title role, and the movie was set for a 75 million dollar budget. A rumble here, and shake there and suddenly Pitt is out, and the movie is dead. Fast forward a few years and Aronofsky has penned a re-write and the movie is green-lit at almost half the original budget and with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weiss in the lead roles.

The movie then premieres at Cannes film festival, and is met with simultaneous boo's and cheers. Add in the fact that the rottentomatoes rating is an abysmal 45% and most reviews are heavy on the hating side, calling the film pretentious, unfocused, rambling, and just frustrated. You'd think with this kind of reception you'd be met with a movie that is all over the place, enigmatic in message, and fuzzy on story arc. Honestly, i have no idea what the [censored] these critics are smoking.

Mini-Review:

The movie opens with Spanish Conquistador Jackman praying before a serious confrontation. I don't think it'd be a spoiler to say that he the scene ends with a duel for the tree of life, and immediately cuts out before resolving it, saving it for the end i assumed.

Then the movie moves along to present the arc of each story, but choosing to double back the arcs apon each other. So you'll have a scene of FUTURE Jackman (in all his bald glory), traveling through space in a funky futuristic bubble of a spaceship and looking back to see PRESENT Weiss speaking to him. Then the movie cuts to PRESENT Jackman's house with FUTURE Jackman seated in the chair and THEN cuts back to PRESENT Jackman in the chair to plant us firmly in the present and give us a chunk of it's story arc. I'm sure there's an easier way to say all that, but trust me when i say it makes sense in the theater.

It's this consistent doubling back that will be an important key in deciphering the ending.

Now the story generally follows this: Spanish Queen (Weiss) sends her Conquistador (Jackman) as her realm is being seiged by a really f'ed up Inquisitor. Jackman travels to South America to find the tree of life. PRESENT Jackman has a wife (Weiss) who is dying of cancer, and he has been feverishly testing monkey's to find a cure. FUTURE Jackman is traveling trhough space, in a bubble that contains a tree (we obviously assume it's the tree of life).

As i watched the film, i was somewhat underwhelmed with the basic story it was telling. Sure, the 500 year apart Jackmans were cool, and the visuals were SPECTACULAR (seriously, like '2001' spectacular), but I was really waiting for it to deepen...and then the ending came, much like an offensive line-man orgasming 100 pounds off his body. The climax took the movie from 0-60 in about -4 seconds, but with the immaculate soundtrack, it kinda worked.

It is this climax that sends people packing, and undeservingly so. I can understand if you walk out of the movie thinking "double-you tee eff, mate?", but this movie is garnering some serious backlash, and i'm baffeled. There seems to be something keeping this movie from 'greatness', you can certainly tell that the writer/director Aronofsky was reach for the stars, but it still a good movie, and not at all pretentious. I fail to see how somebody can praise a movie like Eyes Wide Shut (which was critically hailed) and turn around and call this movie pretentious. Whatever you have against the movie, i'll say this: I'd rather see an artist swing for the fences than bunt a safe single.

Score: 4 (out of five)

[jws43yale]

I agree with many of your thoughts. Biggest problem is that in this day in age, the most 'popular' (highest grossing) films are Michael Bay style, blow everything in sight up, action movies. I have had several people tell me the movie sucked b/c it did not make sense. In this day in age people like to be spoonfed and don't want to think.

I saw this with 5 guys last night and every one of us found it spectacular. We spent the next 3 hours discussing the movie's ideas, plot, and implications. I doubt this film will achieve any acclaim not, but I feel 25 years down the line this will be looked at as a classic.

I can't wait to see it again and try to better understand it.

[troymclur]

Word. I remember, at the end of the film, i heard people kinda-sorta chuckling and was reminded of a description of 2001: A Space Oddessey's premiere at Cannes. At the beggining of the movie, Rock Hudson started stomping up and down the isle asking out loud: "Can somebody please tell me what this movie is about?" Yet, the movie became a cinimatic icon. I don't know if this movie will do the same, but i do think that initial reviews will be tempered with time.

[Dominic]

I saw this at a screening two weeks ago...while I appreciate Aronofsky's attempt at something profound, the film is disjointed, uninvolving and finally not that interesting. A definite example of an artist's reach exceeding his grasp.

[Case Closed]

I just saw the movie tonight. I don't think I fully understand the entire movie. I feel as though I am on the second level of understanding while the film makers are on the third level laughing at me.

Aside from that it is visually stunning. Defiantly worth watching in the theater due to the interesting way the sound is set up.

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with many of your thoughts. Biggest problem is that in this day in age, the most 'popular' (highest grossing) films are Michael Bay style, blow everything in sight up, action movies. I have had several people tell me the movie sucked b/c it did not make sense. In this day in age people like to be spoonfed and don't want to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the film is disjointed

[/ QUOTE ]

Pointing out what you like about the film, what you thought it did well, etc, is a much more convincing argument in its favor than saying, "You didn't get it, you dolt." Obviously there are intelligent people out there who found the film confusing or otherwise not well-done, like Dom.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw this at a screening two weeks ago...while I appreciate Aronofsky's attempt at something profound, the film is disjointed, uninvolving and finally not that interesting. A definite example of an artist's reach exceeding his grasp.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, at least he's trying, right?

[Peter666]

"This will be a disjointed, and confusing post. Sorry for that, i blame whiskey."

I blame the movie.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I saw this at a screening two weeks ago...while I appreciate Aronofsky's attempt at something profound, the film is disjointed, uninvolving and finally not that interesting. A definite example of an artist's reach exceeding his grasp.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, at least he's trying, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. Even though I think it's a failure, it was an interesting failure and I'm glad I saw it.

[ScottyP431]

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"