Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?

    Just saw "The Fountain"

    All I can say is, well, WTF???

    Don't waste your time or money. I've never seen such a pretentious, symbol laden, disjointed piece of garbage that went nowhere since I don't know when.

    I can't believe Hugh Jackman signed on to this... This movie could, single-handedly, destroy his reputation.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2006

    oh, I didn't think it was so bad...

    I saw The Fountain this weekend as well... I don't know whether it's some innate desire to be an iconoclast or if I just have a personal weakness for earnest productions like this one, but I really wanted to like it. Alas, the best I could come up with was admiration over enjoyment... still, I don't think it was a total waste... it was buoyed by fine performances all around, especially Jackman, and Aronofsky clearly brings a passion to the project that's hard not to like on some level... at the risk of going off on a tangent, it seems like this is the kind of film (or kind of art... it seems to be true in any mileu) that really draws the vultures-- but I'd rather see a heartfelt, personal (and yeah, fatally flawed) movie any day over the calculated product that defines the norm.


  3. #3
    Mutant from table 9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Is this an Art House movie? I was surprised to see it playing at one of our areas premier theaters, and expected to see it at the art houses.

    I'm not surprised. For what its worth, I thought Pi was unwatchable and Requiem only marginally better. I remember everyone saying "Oh, Requiem is so disturbing. It will wreck you." "Really?," I thought. I did not think so. "Oh no! The refridgerator is going to eat me!"

    For the record, I like the independant movies as much as the next guy. If your looking for a good independant flick, then see "The Queen" (I give it 5 out of 5 and saw it weekend before last). Or see Casino Royale (4 out of 5 overall, 5 out of 5 as a Bond movie) which I saw last weekend.

  4. #4
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Don't think any one movie can kill a career - otherwise Johnny Depp would have disappeared forever after "The Ninth Gate".
    This was pretty terrible though. First movie I left the theater half way through in years.

  5. #5
    Suspended PeruvianSkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006

    I finally saw this....

    Unfortunately this movie didn't play long enough around me and I am just now catching up with it on DVD. I can understand why MOST people will not enjoy this film, but in some strange way I did. I have to admit that it's slow-moving at times and is not a film that everyone is going to love. I'll try to explain my rationalization.

    The plot centers around 3 time periods 1500AD, 2000AD, and 2500AD. Director Darren Arronofsky (Pi and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM) was attempting here with a very ambitious project to take us somewhere that film has never or has rarely taken us.

    In most films we are guided along by specific plot points that lead to a conclusion, these 'steps' are very common and form the typical movie blueprint. These are conventional storytelling exercises that most films adhere to. However, there have been a handful of filmmakers who attempt to make experimental films that break convention and re-establish a new narrative pattern, often these 'motifs' are seemingly unconnected, but then we realize that there is a string or pattern that ties them all together. Luis Bunuel is another filmmaker who experimented in non-conventional films. These 'expressions' are often hard to follow and sometimes difficult to watch.

    Most people are so accustomed to tradition filmmaking that when we get jarred with these types of films we often are displeased with our experience. We expect at the end of the film to be like...."ahhh I get it now". There are no moments like that in THE FOUNTAIN, so don't look for one. It's not a BIG MOMENT like that, but rather the entire film and the pondering of it's very thesis that is to be taken in which can leave you with some sense of fulfillment. Then again, what is the purpose of seeing a movie? Depending on your answer to that, may sway you one way or another film films. Most people just want pure entertainment value, while others want to 'think' a bit, and others want to laugh. This film doesn't enable you to get emotionally attached with it's characters long enough to feel any of those things, but similar to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY that is besides the point. The existence of this film is not to 'make' you do anything or 'feel' a certain way. It exists simply for the ability to exist and express a certain thought that has come directly from the filmmakers/writers vision.

    If you notice THE FOUNTAIN is not lit in a conventional way as most of the time it's dark and almost seems like poor lighting. The soundtrack is overpowering and really plays a central character to the film, and if you also notice the acting is awkward and calculated. These are not signs of a poor film, but rather a vision that the director obviously put into motion by breaking down the conventional film in order to allow the expression to come across without the need for predictable characters, beautiful lighting, or emotional soundtrack to help make us 'feel' a certain way. In many ways the film takes a few steps back in it's attempt to try and manipulate your feelings. I can appreciate a film for that alone.

    THE FOUNTAIN doesn't make any attempt to make us "feel" THIS particular way or go THIS direction or come up with THIS conclusion. It simply presents an idea, gives some scenes to help bring life to the various motifs and then allows us to draw our own conclusions on [not what we just saw] but rather what we want to do with it.

    If you haven't seen the film you are probably wondering 'what the heck', but there are some important things to note about the films main points. The film is set in 3 time periods with our main characters (Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz) who have some connection to one another, but in different ways during each of those periods. They are connected by a certain love for one another, a sense of duty, and The Tree of Life, which enables one to live forever (or at least that's the pretense). At the same time in the year 2000 Weisz' character is writing a story called THE FOUNTAIN, which happens to center around the Mayan civilization and their protection of what is believed to be The Tree of Life from the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve were. This was the tree that they did NOT eat the apple from, that was the Tree of Knowledge.

    So the film bounces around to the various moments in time and each of these periods is connected in some particular way (i.e. a ring). The big question layered throughout though is what is the cost of love and IS love worthy of a quest that brings a person to the point that they can only break through the portals of time in order to keep that love alive. It should also be noted that quite a few people compare this film to an unfinished poem and that it's ending is based on your own conclusions of it, which I can buy that opinion.

  6. #6
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Anywhere but here...
    Hey Mark,
    How's it hangin'?

    Thanks for the warning on this one. I'll wait for it to come to cable.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  7. #7
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Ugghh, my wife made me watch this after she rented it a few months back. Damn, it was worse the second time.
    The ending was dreadful. This is the point for me where film stops being artistic and starts being pretentious. I'm easy to please when it comes to movies, but this was boring.

    I didn't think Jackman did a bad job, and kinda suspect the script looked a lot better than the final execution of the film turned out to be. He's probably not too happy about this one.

  8. #8
    Forum Regular jim goulding's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    The Dog House

    Hey Mark

    And here I thought The Fountanhead was about Ayn Rand. OK, nobody likes a wise ass AND a name dropper. I saw Requiem. How tragic can you get. I mean enough already. A couple of inconsistencies. Darren had the pupils going the other way! And surely a dude with an absess like that would have gotten medical attention even in western Nebraska. His partner didn't fair much better. Reckon he cleaned up his act? Or, did he die of AIDS, I don't remember. And beautiful Jennifer Connelly in that criminal scene. You know that dealer would have had to fix her first, but only well enough to get her thru her act. I saw the last part on cable having walked out of the movie.

    But, hey Mark, there's one thing I just gotta know . . how do you really feel? I couldn't stop laughin.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts