Customer Reviews

The Fountain [Blu-ray]

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I take to task the various reviewers that lambaste this film due to it's non-linearity and apparently confusing storyline. Aronofsky does not make films that are easy to watch, or easy to figure out the deeper themes of for that matter. The Fountain is purely an abstract hypothesis, or rather three, that are woven together in a glorious cinematic representation that is so beautiful to watch that the need for a defined narrative takes a bow in favour of the visual splendour. If you are so inclined, you can get the general idea of what the character motivations of Jackman and Weisz are in their triptych representations. When peeled back, it's actually not that complicated - love is an engine that if you let it, will drive you to do anything for whom you bestow it upon. This theme is interwoven through three time periods, all photographed by third time Aronofsky DOP collaborator Matthew Libatique. There are enough films out there to fulfill the mainstream's insatiable desire for easily digestible, instantly forgettable, high-carb, low substance genre fare. The Fountain, on the other hand, and other films such as Michel Gondry's The Science of Sleep, Spike Jonze's Being John Malkovich, and the entire catalogue of Peter Greenaway, fulfill a vastly different mandate. These film-makers are artists painting from a different cinematic palette, whose films may work better when played on a white wall in the contemporary wing of an art gallery. A setting such as this would most likely find an audience more in tune to the non-mainstream dynamics that films such as these represent. Not to say the average cinema go-er shouldn't try to expand their horizons every now and then, it's just that The Fountain wasn't made to be an average film for the average viewer, so people should keep that in mind when they view then review it.

Darren Aronofsky has never made movies that were easy viewing. Examples? Just watch "Pi" and "Requiem For a Dream," and you'll see why this underrated director has made one of the most astounding sci-fi movies in ages.

"The Fountain" is basically a sprawling tale that is half "real," half outside the mind -- love, immortality, death, grief and a tangled plotline that may take a few viewings to get right, but is exquisite in its simplicity. Not satisfied with depth, Aronofsky also makes it an absolutely stunning visual experience.

Research oncologist Tommy (Hugh Jackman) is trying to find a cancer cure by animal testing, so he can save the life of his dying wife Izzie (Rachel Weisz), including an unsanctioned test from a mysterious tree. As she hopes for a cure, Izzie has been writing a book about a Spanish conquistador who is seeking the immortality-granting Tree of Life.

As we see in other flashbacks, that conquistador is a version of Tommy (and Izzy as Queen Isabella). And far in the future, Tommy still struggles with his wife's loss, as he travels to a distant nebula to revive the tree. But as he finally gives in to his wife's last wish, he becomes enmeshed in a mysterious rebirth that stretches through the ages.

"The Fountain" got a royal whupping from critics, and was even booed by test audiences, who presumably couldn't understand the three storylines -- or rather, one non-linear storyline, in which the lines between reality and imagination are blurred. Perhaps all of it is true, or perhaps Tommy's mind is creating the 1500 and 2500 scenarios to help him cope.

As befits a movie that tackles so many deep themes, Aronofsky weaves mythology, creation beliefs, religion and the fear of death together, and binds it together with the universal theme -- love that even death can't overcome. The dialogue tends to be more spare than the story, rather than loading it down with unnecessary ponderings.

And he does it beautifully and surreally. The whole movie is tinged in gold -- gold light, gold costumes, gold Tree of Life, gold nebula, gold deserts. The camerawork is filmed poetry: there are sweet moments like planting a seed in a grave, the Tree lit by the sun, and the sight of Tommy inside the nebula. The most exquisite moment comes when Tommy kneels before Izzy, under the Tree, with drops of golden light falling around them.

This is undoubtedly Jackman's best movie, making us feel Tom's love and sorrow for Izzy ("There's no hope for us here. There is only death"), and the lifelong struggle against death. Your heart really breaks for him. Weisz is sweet and wilting as Izzy, and the chemistry between the two leads makes their time-busting love seem entirely reasonable.

Aronofsky has made a story that is pure art, exquisite in theme, and while you might have to watch "Fountain" a few times to really "get it," but you won't regret the experience. Even if you don't like it, in an era of bland popcorn movies, its ambition is worth praising.

non-chick flickers: Head scratching/scathing lunacy & headaches Ahead.

*** possible spoiler alert ***

Movies with exceptional impact, on it's audience deserve recognition, and this is one of them.

Force torturing me this movie, is my chicky; and as mentioned by others, there a 3 different realities/worlds in this movie.

One such reality focuses on a space-faring tree with a human occupant? So imagine a tree, literally uprooted with roots, grass, soil and an occupant, propelling through outer space with an energy beam shooting out the tree's arse, whizzing by comets and all.

Next up is a reality similar to ours, with a doctor working on a gravely ill patient beyond the point of obsession.

The third and last reality is a mythical story of Aztecs and Spaniards.

Basically, the journey of the space-faring tree, the doc's patient/wifey, and the aforementioned Aztecs/Spaniards ended with the focus of each reality dying/dead.

Ultimately leaving it's viewer(s) numb, in a post brain surgery state.

A movie has to be real bad, when the person pushing you to watch, also admits it.

I had to write a review after seeing what's already here. The Fountain might be the best movie I've seen. It is both visually stunning and has a very powerful message. It is a cohesive film, but it takes a bit of effort to get into. I was still thinking about it for days after I saw it. If you don't like things on the abstract side, and are looking for easy entertainment, don't see this film. If you're after something a bit more cerebral and artful, give it a try, it is extremely rewarding.

I thought this movie was very good. There is a degree of abstract to the film that can make it hard to follow. However, if you have ever studied relgion, mythology or mysticism you'll really enjoy this movie. It deals with a number of issues in religion and mysticism that are extremely abstract and often elusive. The movie is beautifully filmed. I haven't read the graphic novel on which this film is based, but the cinematography of the movie does give a bit of that graphic novel feel. I think one of the reasons some people didn't enjoy this movie is because they expect movies to entertain them or give them the answer to something. This film can be extremely abstract, but I don't feel that it pretends to have the answer to all our mystical questions. This is one man's story about his experience of life and love, and how those things connect to the universe around him.
This movie is most definitely not for eveyone, but if you like films that make you think about the universe around us and what life is really all about, you should give it a try.

"Therefore, the Lord god banished Adam and Eve and placed a flaming sword to protect The Tree of Life." - Genesis 3:24

Three intertwined stories that parallel in different eras (1500 AD, 2000 AD and 2500 AD). Three parallel journeys from darkness into light.

We see a person (Hugh Jackman) struggling to hold on to life at any cost. Will he succeed, fail, or learn something about just letting go in the process?

Great background film score which has just as much presents as the actors. Brilliant images of Petri dishes and Rachel Weisz. We get a close up of the Tree of life and a new twist on its meaning.

I have to be honest the first time I watched this movie I wasn't such a big fan. I enjoyed it but I wouldn't think anything special of it at first. Then I watched it a second time.

Three words: Amazing beyond words.

The whole movie is like a giant puzzle from start to finish, each piece having its own meaning which is tied in with the bigger picture. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie very much and I recommend it for those who enjoyed a movie like Donnie Darko. One that is connected and full of thought.

Leave it to me to love this often trashed film even more than Aronofsky's strong
'Requiem for a Dream' . (although a solid minority of critics went for it too).

Just as experimental as 'Requiem' and 'Pi', but with a more complex,
humanistic, metaphysical message, here all Aronofsky's visual pyrotechnics
(and the film does look amazing) feel like a means to an end not an end in
themselves.

A love story that takes place in 3 time frames (the 1500s as a
conquistador hunts for the source of life, the 'fountain of youth', the
present where the same man, now a scientist tries to find a cure for
cancer before his beloved wife dies and 500 years in the future, where
the same man again is with his love, who is now a tree, still looking
for eternal life.

Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weitz are terrific, and I the score is creative and
effective. Ultimately a very moving look at the nature of life and
death. Yes there are a few pretentious moments, but I'll take slightly
flawed grand ambitions to explore something in a new way - ala '2001'
over the same old, same old every time.

(possible spoilers ahead)

The fact that the past and future segments are part of a fairy tale
book started by the dying woman and finished by the scientist seemed
very obvious to me, but seemed to leave a shocking number of critics
scratching their heads,confused as to which story is 'real'. I can see why,
if you miss that, the film could seem confusing and arbitrary, but
it's laid out pretty clearly along the way,

I enjoyed this film, but it seemed to be reaching for something it couldn't quite grasp. It reminded me a bit of what I view as pretender films ... Hyped movies that are supposed to be enlightening and intriguing and complicated and complex and visually beautiful, but don't have that magic or cleverness (or a combo of things) that makes them so. Not quite. This film is missing something but I can't figure out what that is.

I've seen and read this type of story before, so it wasn't hard to understand and enjoy this film.

I felt that it was too dry (this has nothing to do with it being abstract) and I wanted to see something very new. I wanted to be delightfully surprised. But, it was so cliché in too many ways. I was also irritated by the supremacy status the main figure was given. It would've been nicer if he had been a person of colour, or if he hadn't been called a certain term. I probably would've given this film a higher rating if I hadn't had such high expectations of it. It's certainly a good film. One of the nicest love stories I've watched.

Maybe I just wasn't in the right frame of mind when watching it but I thought "The Fountain" to be a tedious exercise in boredom. The movie centers around a man's eternal love for a woman, interwoven into three stories; one in ancient Spain, one in the present day and one several years in the future; all 3 timelines with the same man and woman. It follows a non-linear approach where it goes back and forth between times. Also has to do with a mythical tree, although at this point I was so confused I didn't know what the heck was going on. Yes, it has artistic value but as far as overall entertainment goes, give it a pass.