The Fountain

[grand theft sparrow]

This might change after a second viewing but, after reading this thread in-depth now that I've seen it, the criticisms are just as valid as the praises.  I'm kind of in Ghostboy's boat, where thinking about the film is almost a more satisfying experience than watching it.  And whoever said it was closer to 2046 than 2001 nailed it.  I wasn't expecting the science-fiction aspect of the film to be largely peripheral, and I anticipate that a second viewing will sit better with me now that my expectations are out of the way.  As it stands now, I liked it a great deal more than the critics but somewhat less than most of xixax.  Though, I can see myself growing to love it despite its flaws. 

As has been said before, the dialogue was occasionally weak and - I know I might be the only person to feel this way - Rachel Weisz just didn't do it for me here.  I think I'm hard on her because I believe she could be as good as someone like Kate Winslet if she tried but she just isn't.  In fact, that's sort of the problem I have with the film.  I felt like, as good as it is, it could have been GREAT.  It was a 2-hour-plus epic squeezed into 1:40.  Whether Aronofsky intended a shorter film from way back in the Pitt days, or if it was due to the smaller budget for this version, I don't know, but the length hurts the story in my opinion.  I really wanted a more than was there.

But what was there was good.  Visually it's spectacular, the stories do come together nicely, I will be buying the soundtrack immediately, and Hugh Jackman... holy shit!  It's great to see Aronofsky showing his softer side without compromising his storytelling style (and that he was able to keep from compromising his storytelling style without using his "hip-hop montages" and the bag of tricks that worked in Pi and Requiem).  If nothing else, I admire him and The Fountain a great deal.  It's going in my 2006 top 10 but I still stand firm behind my vote for Children of Men for the Xixax Awards.

[Xx]

...

[Fernando]

  yay for Darren, he's the man. 

[squints]

i sent my e-mail. The Fountain on Criterion? fuck yes.

[modage]

Hi Cory,

We don't have plans to release "The Fountain" at this time, but thanks for
your email! Title suggestions are always welcome.

Sincerely,

Tamara

[squints]

I got the exact same e-mail

[modage]

your name is Cory too?!

[polkablues]

That's what we expected, right?  We already knew they don't currently have plans to release the Fountain, which is why we're all sending them emails.

[picolas]

i asked for Gerry and didn't get a reply.

[The Sheriff]

i asked for Armageddon as a joke once.




its all my fault

[Xx]

...

[Raikus]

Forgive my lateness to this subject. I bought the DVD when it came out and only now got around to watching it.

The movie itself transcends the genre. I watched it late last night just before I went to bed and it was almost a luxury being able to mull it over in my semi-conscious brain in that limbo before sleep. I woke up eager to see what everyone had to say about it and discuss some of the final scenes. The movie itself isn't very confusing but it gives some ideas that are hard to wrap your brain around. More importantly, it recreated the cyclical story in a refreshing way. But let me get to the real point of the post before you give up on me.

I thought throughout the movie that Tommy (the Captain) was the same person the whole time. Of course we have the scene where the Captain drinks of the sap and erupts into foliage and drops the ring. I was unsure if that was meant to be symbolic or literal. Is it a case of reincarnation? Of the two star-crossed lovers finding themselves in another time? Is the Queen killed by the Inquisition and the Captain dead by the fountain only to be reborn again? If that's the case the story becomes something completely different to me and its meaning changes drastically. It becomes a movie completely about loss and the fight is not about the losing of the goal, but of obtaining the second chance. If the Captain and Tommy are not the same person, but instead the same spirit, then his goal becomes seeking out death, not preventing it. In that way the spirits are reborn to have another chance.

On the other hand if Tommy is all three characters -- if the reborn scene after first drinking out of the fountain is symbolic -- then the theme becomes the fulfillment of love. Everything Tommy does after losing Izzy is to complete her memory. He does it to honor her more than save her. It fits much more with the narrative theme of the movie, but also feels more hollow.

Help me out.

[edison]

Director's is now available.

[squints]

Roger Ebert reviews The Fountain a year after its release.

When a $75 million production goes into turnaround and is made for $35 million, elements get eliminated. When a film telling three stories and spanning thousands of years has a running time of 96 minutes, scenes must have been cut out. There will someday be a Director's Cut of this movie, and that's the cut I want to see.

btw: I'm about thirty minutes into the commentary and its pretty interesting.

[ElPandaRoyal]

This one had an awfull distribution here in Portugal, playing in only two theaters. I first saw it back in February, at Fantasporto and was quite amazed by it, but most of the people didn't - and we're talking about the last day of the biggest film festival in this country, so most of those guys were at least interested in film.

I really need to watch this again, because it's one of those who needs a second viewing, since there were probably a lot of details I didn't get or something, but those images, those colors, those close-ups... that was great, great filmmaking. And Darren had some huge cojones to make it like that: tight, quick and uncompromising (box-office wise). So, I'm not even sure there is a bigger cut of this, since I don't see the point why The Fountain should be any longer. For my money, it was a great achievement, and one of the best movies I've seen this year.