Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Capone and Darren Aronofsky discuss THE FOUNTAIN!!!

Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here, with my conversation with a long-time friend to those of us at AICN, Darren Aronofsky, whose latest work, THE FOUNTAIN, is finally, FINALLY hitting screens this week. Moriarty's been following the production and editing of this extensively over the last few months, and Darren was kind enough to let those at Fantastic Fest see the finished film as well in September. But now the rest of the world can partake of Darren's latest visual orgasm. Is it an action film? Is it science fiction? Is it the most expensive art film ever made? Or is it a simple love story cloaked in eye-popping imagery, the likes of which I've never seen before. You may be shocked to discover that it is all these things and more. To be honest, more than a month after I first say THE FOUNTAIN, I'm not ever sure I like it, but that doesn't take away from Aronofsky's accomplishments. Our talk took us all over the place, and many times he threw questions back at me just to test my analytical skills. He's one of the nicest guys I've ever interviewed, and my guess is that I could talk to him for many hours more on just this film. The interview was conducted in mid-October when Darren was in town for a screening of THE FOUNTAIN at the Chicago International Film Festival. I left in a lot of the small talk at the beginning (which I don't usually do) because I think it's funny and it gives you a sense of how laid back Darren is. He seems much more eager to have a conversation than to be interviewed, and so that's what I attempted to do. Read on…

Capone: You provided my L.A. comrade, Drew [Moriarty] with some crucial access to this film's post-production. Thanks for letting us into that process.

Darren Aronofsky: Oh, yeah, yeah. [Looks at me curiously, then the light bulb goes on over his head] Oh, God. I didn’t realize who you were. It’s a real pleasure. They didn’t tell me who was coming right before you walked in. I mean, I knew you were coming. It’s nice to meet you. I’ve been reading your stuff for a long time.

C: Thank you.

DA: You’re Capone, huh?

C: That’s me.

DA: How long have you been writing now?

C: Eight years, actually.

DA: Oh, wow. Congratulations! I went down to the Fantastic Fest. I had a good time.

C: Oh good. That’s right, ‘cause the movie was there, that’s right.

DA: I got to meet Harry, which was very cool. He’s like a rock star, man.

C: At that event, he sure is.

DA: No, not even that, but the way he…the whole look. He’s got the whole look and everything. He’s got it down. So, you represent Chicago, or…what do you do?

C: Technically, I cover the whole Midwest, but I rarely leave Chicago.

DA: Great.

C: Yeah, that’s pretty much it. I just made my plans today to get down to Austin for Butt-Numb-a-thon in December.

DA: Oh good. What’s coming?

C: Harry never tells us.

DA: That’s right!

C: It’s all a big surprise.

DA: Oh, that’s great. How long is it for?

C: It’s 24 hours--Saturday noon to roughly Sunday noon. It’s a great time. It’s always fun. It’s never been a let down.

DA: That’s awesome.

C: I almost turned down the interview because I thought think Drew had already interviewed you, at least, he’s been following him around a lot lately.

DA: Yea-a-ah.

C: I know he’s seen and reviewed THE FOUNTAIN.

DA: Yeah, I was wondering, too, because they’ve done so much coverage. Are you sure they want to do an article? Or, should we just hang out?

C: [laughs] Well so far, none of our writers have done an actual interview. Lots of reviews of the film, with many more to come, I'm sure, but, yeah, no interview.

DA: So, where do you fall? What did you think of the movie?

C: [Long pause] You know, I really had to not talk to people for a while after I saw it.

DA: When did you see it?

C: Maybe it was two weeks ago, right before Fantastic Fest. Now that I think about it, maybe it was more than two weeks now. But, I really just had to… I mean, obviously, it’s not a film that’s in any way meant to literally mean something. So, then my task was to figure out what it may have meant metaphorically. The story was more about the ideas at hand. I would never ask you to spell out the deeper meaning for you, because that wouldn’t be very much fun--I don’t want to demystify it--I just wanted to try to get a sense of what you were thinking. And, obviously, it’s the most visually compelling thing you’ve ever done. And, I say that before I say that REQUIEM FOR A DREAM was my favorite movie that came out that year. Period. End of story. That’s the movie I saw the most times that year. And, I rushed out to buy it. It’s interesting, in the age of the Internet following the progress of a film, THE FOUNTAIN has certainly been one of the longest roads to completion that a film has taken and been so well documented. I guess the obvious question is, Why were you so driven to get this movie made, rather than just put it aside and move onto something else.

DA: I just don’t know how to do that. Since 1999, when we first started coming up with the ideas, I wanted to make THE FOUNTAIN. All the other stories about BATMAN, all these other projects were just complete hype, once again Internet hype…


DA: Yeah, WATCHMEN, I was on that project for one week, it might have been more. It might have been a couple weeks, but what happened is…it came to me, it was available, David Hayter's script, and I thought David had cracked it. I had read earlier scripts that no one ever got. I thought it really was on the right track. So, I said, Yeah, and then I went to Paramount and set it up with Sherry Lansing--I think it was one of the last films she set up. And, this was right when I was prepping THE FOUNTAIN, or getting close to prepping THE FOUNTAIN to go with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. And, they said, Well, we want to go right away on WATCHMEN. I said, Well, I’m about to make this movie I’ve been waiting five years to make. And, they’re, like, We want you to hire a production designer. I said I’m not going to hire a production designer. Let’s work on the script and get it right before we go. And, they were, like, Oh well, we’re going to replace you with Paul [Greengrass]. I was, like, Okay, fine. There was no way I was not going to go ahead with my movie, after waiting all that time, even though I love WATCHMEN, I think it’s a great title. There’s just no way. I couldn’t wait to set something up…and then it didn’t even happen anyway. So, it was very frustrating to see that happen. But, I’m glad where WATCHMEN's at now, with Zack Snyder. I’m really a big fan of Snyder’s first film [I'm assuming he's referring to the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake].

C: When the graphic novel of THE FOUNTAIN, I think maybe some people thought that was as far as it was going to get for a while.

DA: It definitely was. What happened when it fell apart in 2002 in October [when Brad Pitt left the project], four years ago, we tried to save it. We tried to put it back together. We couldn’t get it back together, and it just slowly fell apart, or I should say, it really quickly fell apart. And, I went off to China and India with a backpack with something like two changes of clothes. I just went around and just lost myself for a while, because I didn’t know what the hell was going to happen. I came back to New York, and for the next seven months, I sat around with the guys--you know, my company Protozoa [Pictures]--we just sat around. And every day, I must have just annoyed the hell out of them. I’m going, What are we going to do? What are we going to do? We started developing all these new ideas. In fact, a lot of those ideas are probably the ideas that I’ll put in the next film. But, we started developing all these ideas. But I just kept thinking about THE FOUNTAIN. And, I remember at one point, Brad even gave me a call during those months. And, he was, like, How are you doing? He was checking in, because we stayed friends. I was, like, well, I’m still thinking about THE FOUNTAIN, but even though it was kind of a lie, because I was trying to find something else to do, but I said that to him. And, in that time period, I also found Kent Williams, the guy who did the graphic novel, and I got Vertigo. When I first started the project two or three years before that, I told my lawyer that we have to secure the rights to the graphic novel, because I have seen so many of these different types of movies trying to get made that get destroyed, and I want to make sure all the work we do somehow finds an audience. So, I had that right secured. And, I exercised that at Warner Bros. They were okay with it, because they thought it was dead, too. It was $18 million against the movie. And so, I went to Vertigo, and they helped me find Kent Williams, and we got it set up. And, Kent read the script, loved it, and just started drawing. Two years later, it came out. But, during that time, one night about seven months in, I couldn’t sleep, and I woke up, crawled out of bed, and I was sitting in my office, just sitting there in my underwear, you know, 3 in the morning, and all the books I had read for THE FOUNTAIN were on this one shelf, straight across from me. I was just looking at the titles and…suddenly, I had this thing. I was, like, no, there’s no studio involved, there are no actors involved. I can completely write this for myself, because for the last couple of years, I had been trying to shape it to make everyone happy. I threw it out the old script, and I said, What is the version I want to tell? And, is there a version of this that is a no-budget movie? I was, like, I’m an independent filmmaker--PI was $60,000, REQUIEM was $4 million--we have all this money being spent in weird places, and I understand what it takes to make this movie. What is the version of this film that still tells that story? And, without telling anyone, no one, not my producer, anyone, I just wrote for two and half weeks. I just sat there alone, and I just reinvented it. And, then I gave it to my producer Eric [Watson], and he was, like, You turned it into a love poem to death, and I love it. It’s much better. So, I was, like, Oh, that’s cool. So, he said we can make this for $30-$35 million. Even though I knew that there was all this money against the film, and there would be a billion hurdles to get over--and there were--I was just like, you know what, I gotta get it out of my blood. I gotta tell this story, because it’s somewhere…it still wakes me up at 3 in the morning, and I got to get it out. And, there’s a reason for that. So, I just had to trust that.

C: We obviously could spend days talking about the visuals. Where did you draw from in terms of the visuals that you have here, because they are very different than anything I’ve seen you do before.

DA: That’s a good question. And the answer is, I don’t know. There are always a lot of sources. You just try to surround yourself with a lot of different images, and then things lead to each other. And, it starts building, and it becomes its own thing. A lot of this starts with research, the truth, so you start off…you’re dealing with 16th century stains and suddenly, you look at painters from then. You look at Velázquez, and he has these guys in black and white outfits with this very, very stark lighting.

C: That’s what it looked like, that whole Spanish section, every image there I thought looked like a painting: the composition, the color, the lighting.

DA: Thank you. But, you know, when you look at the Velázquez, you see that all they wore back then was black and white. And, that starts hinting at you. The entire film is basically white, black, and gold. In fact, the entire movie is a movement from darkness into light in the most cheesy POLTERGEIST way, like, ‘Don’t go into the light.’ This is a movie about a guy going towards his death, so it’s about the light and what stops him getting to the light. And, the gold in the film is this whole world of Mayans and the whole world of materialism, and how that developed. There was so much work done on the film by me, Mattie and James and Clint, just sitting around and talking about how different things connect. It’s hard to find the sources of everything, but I can track some of them. One thing is there’s this whole geometrical thing going through the film. There’s that triangle that you see in space that we keep going back to, with the star in the middle, and that’s actually the Orion Nebula, which is what the Mayans actually thought was their underworld. That was what they pointed at. And, most people see the Orion Belt, the three stars they know, but then surrounding the Orion Nebula is this triangle. So, then we started saying, Well, you know, the Mayans, they had these triangular pyramids, and in Spain, they had these triangular towers. It makes sense to use the triangle for the 16th century. And then, you come to the 21st century, and you’re, like, well, what’s our world? You realize our world is computer screens and doors and windows. It’s all squares, you know, the shape’s evolving. Okay, so then we’re in space. What’s the next shape? Well, it’s very obvious--the planets, circle. So, maybe the spaceship, instead of going and doing the same old thing of putting trucks in space--which is what people have done since the shaping of these old…Every rocket ship is just a really souped up, pimped up car in space. You know, hey, let’s get a spherical ship. Why not? They all led to different things, and suddenly, a visual language starts to grow. But, it’s not really one source. It’s just being part of the world, and taking things from wherever you can.

C: Obviously, the inclination when you go to see any film is to decipher it in a way that your mind can hold onto and make sense of it. Was it always your intention to expand beyond the surface concepts?

DA: THE FOUNTAIN is about the search for the Fountain of Youth. It’s one of our oldest ancient myths--if not the oldest myth that people have been telling, because people have been coming up with stories how to deal with the fear of death. And, trying to find out the reason of why we’re here and what is life and what is love. And what happens when you die. These are questions that people have been asking since the beginning of time. So, there’s absolutely no way that his schmoe from Brooklyn is going to be able to answer them. That’s not the reality here. For me, it’s a film that’s a journey and it’s a trip and it’s an experience through the meditation of a lot of these questions. There are ideas in there that I believe, but I think I wanted to leave it open, so that anyone can bring their own beliefs to the table, and that it could awaken them, and people can have a conversation. Just like when we all used to sit around in college, or wherever, with friends just bullshitting about, you know, What is the world and why are we here? That’s what this film is. It’s not your normal movie, where you go and watch and to wonder if Rudy’s going to get to play the game for Notre Dame. And, there’s nothing wrong with that, I mean, that’s one of my favorite films, RUDY, but you can do other things with cinema. And, I think there is a lot of stuff in THE FOUNTAIN that is concrete that I think people will see the more they watch it. There are definitely more answers in THE FOUNTAIN than there are in “Lost.”

C: I would never be so bold as to try to pigeonhole this film in any genre. But you mentioned that someone had said it’s a love poem to death. And, I’m sure a lot of people are going to say, Oh, this is a film about this and this. To me, it was film about love--timeless, ageless love. And for those of us who have crazy, unfounded crushes on Rachel Weisz, it’s a love letter to her as well, because she’s never looked more beautiful than she does in this film. Talk a little about love, because Hugh Jackman’s character, in a lot of ways, his obsession with keeping Izzi alive was very dangerous, a little scary, and unhealthy. It’s the least sappy love story I’ve ever seen.

DA: Thank you. That was a battle in itself, because everyone’s looking for that scene where they [claps his hands together] connect in that terribly cheesy way. It seems all films have to have that moment. Do you know what I’m talking about?

C: Unfortunately, yes.

DA: There should be a name for that moment. We should name that right now! It’s like the necessary ‘falling in love with the cute character’ scene. I don’t know what it’s called. But for me, one of my biggest influences are cartoons. I grew up with cartoons. And, for me, my characters, especially the ones I write, are often very, very symbolic. Like cartoon characters, they represent something. And, I think Hugh Jackman is Man, and Rachel Weisz is Woman. And, between them is this great, great love. I didn’t want to make it too personal, you know, that they have this personal quirk, and they have that personal little ‘isn’t that funny that whenever you do that, that happens.’ That type of stuff--I can’t stand it. And, it works for some films, and some directors do it really, really well, but I’m not interested in that. These characters actually represent something, and it’s where the audience would like to put itself into that character. And, to sort of surrender themselves--either in that man or in that woman--and I’m going on this trip. So, I think that we’ve got this tiny window that we’re here, alive on this planet, in this universe, and one of the best things we can do with that time is love. And, it’s the biggest cliché, but it’s true. It’s that great victory that makes us human, not to say that other creatures don’t have it, but it’s definitely ours as well to have. I think it is one of the great things about humanity. And, for me, this is a film about what makes us human. There are two things in this film that make us human, and that’s being able to love and being able to die. And, how they play out and intermingle is what makes the film’s story.

C: Speaking of Hugh Jackman: There used to be more, but it seems there aren’t a lot of actors these days that can handle the emotional and the physical aspects that this film requires. After Brad Pitt officially left he film, how did it come about that Jackman entered this film?

DA: And, he can sing and dance [laughs]. The guy can really do a lot. To be honest, Hugh wasn’t actually on my initial list, because I had seen him in the X-MEN movies, but I hadn’t seen the work he can do dramatically. And, I got invited by his team to go see him in “Boy from Oz,” the show he won the Tony for. And, the character in that is very, very different from the character in this film. That character is a singer/songwriter from Australia [Peter Allen] who was married to Liza Minnelli, who’s a little bit different than Tommy. So, I didn’t think it would connect. But, I went to see it, and he was so committed, so talented, so multi-talented, so charismatic, so passionate, so energetic. He just lit up the room. At the end of the show, I’m suddenly with everyone else on my feet--standing ovation, you know. And, I talked to him, and he was a really nice guy, and everyone will tell you how nice a guy he is. But, he’s authentically nice in the sense that when we were on set, he would treat every P.A. in the same way he treated me. He was right in, connect, and fully present, which is just a remarkable thing for someone who has so little time. So, I thought about sending him the script. And, I said, Hey, let me just see what he says. And, he read it, and he just got it. He called me up the next day, and he understood it. He had some questions, and we had a conversation. But, it was clear that he was thinking about these things.

C: I can’t imagine what the script for this film looks like.

DA: I’ll send you a copy.

C: Please do. If you don’t mind answering the question, What is The Fountain? What is it really? Is it God? Is it science? Is it medicine? Or, is it all of those things?

DA: Let me see if you can answer it for me. What does a fountain do?

C: Any fountain? It brings forth water, in some capacity.

DA: It brings forth water. Where does the water go when it comes out?

C: It depends on what kind of fountain it is, but normally the water re-circulates around.

DA: There you go. It circulates around and then what happens?

C: What happens…?

DA: What happens to the fountain as it keeps circulating?

C: It gets rusty eventually.

DA: To me, it doesn’t get rusty.

C: Is there more than that?

DA: There’s nothing more than that. It just keeps going. And, then you think about the Tree of Life, which is a certain type of Fountain of Youth. The Tree of Life grows up, up, branches come out, has leaves, the leaves fall down, they go back into the earth, come back up through the tree, come on out, and there’s the leaves.

C: This is sounding suspiciously like the circle of life from THE LION KING.

DA: [Laughs] But, I think a fountain is a symbol of the circle of life in many ways.

C: My original question was almost, What does the tree represent, because the fountain in your movie feeds off the tree, but…Well, I guess you’ve answered it.

DA: YOU answered it. I didn’t answer it.

C: That's why journalists like you, you make the feel smart. Let me ask about stuff you’ve got coming up. Are you still linked to the LONE WOLF AND CUB movie?

DA: LONE WOLF AND CUB is another one…there’s a lot of hype. They’ve been having a hard time securing the rights from the Japanese. In Japan, as we know, it’s such a huge property. And, I don’t think Paramount ever actually controlled it, even though we started developing it, so I don’t know exactly the fate of that project. And, it’s unfortunate, because it would be a great thing to work on it, too. But it’s a lot like if Walt Disney licensed Mickey Mouse to some other country. It’s that popular in Japan, and that important there.

C: It’s a great series. What about FLICKER?

DA: FLICKER is something that a script exists, and it’s not something that I’m going to direct next. It might be something that…we’ve been talking to some interesting people possibly to direct or produce. But, it might be something I do, I don’t know.

C: Okay, that's strike two. So what is next for you?

DA: I’m developing two things, and it’s going to be one of them, whichever one they let me make next. And, one is a very, very small piece, and one is a very, very big piece. But, I don’t really want to pitch them yet.

C: It took you the better part of six years for THE FOUNTAIN. Are you getting nervous, now that you’re getting a little older that maybe you need to be more productive?

DA: Nah-h-h. I think if you continue to make films that you’re passionate about, that you believe in, I don’t think there’s anything to be worried about. That’s what gets me up in the morning is new projects and stuff. It keeps me going.

C: I was just wondering if you’re one of those people who has issues about output and ‘I should be working faster. I should be producing more.’

DA: You know what, I don’t know. I’m not interested in the quantity game. I’m just really trying to make the films that I want to make. I would love to be in that game where I could just pump them out, but I just don’t know how to do that. It’s not my strength. My strength is thinking about ideas, figuring out how they get fit together, and then trying to get them made, which is always a challenge.

C: Can you tell us a little bit about your approach to the action sequences in THE FOUNTAIN, because I think it’s the first time you’ve done any. They don’t look like traditional action sequences.

DA: Really? That’s good. I thought they went a little too traditional. Yeah, I was hoping to do something different. I had plans to do more different things, but I ultimately didn’t have the resources or the time it would fully take us. When I look at some of the battle stuff, there’s some stuff I’m very happy with. There’s other stuff that I wish I had more time to go a little further with it.

C: When this was a bigger project, were the action scenes…?

DA: It was much bigger battle scene, but you have to remember when I wrote it, it was pre-TROY, of course, and pre-KING ARTHUR and, you know, pre-Peter Jackson with LORD OF THE RINGS. And so, I wrote it after GLADIATOR and after BRAVEHEART, excited by what as a filmmaker you can now do with action sequences. But then, Peter Jackson basically made [shrugs]…why ever try to outdo one of those action sequences? There’s no reason to ever do that. After LORD OF THE RINGS, the big battle scenes in other movies were really getting boring, I mean, there were so many at this point that it was just like, Why are you watching that? So, one of the things that happened when I was rewriting was…I said, you know what, I’m not that excited about shooting this big action sequence anymore, because I’ve seen so many of them that even though I would try and do something very different and new, what really is the scene about? And, I realized the scene is very simple: It’s about one man trying to overcome impossible odds.

C: The sequence in which you have the two soldiers standing next to Jackman and then they get taken out pretty fast, that’s the most tension you feel in all of those battle scenes.

DA: I agree. That’s always the most exciting thing about battle scenes--when they figure out a way to stick an emotional core into the center of battle, instead of just watching a bunch of cool shots, which could go far. We’ll see, I’m sure somebody’s going to do something new with it.


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 20, 2006, 9:35 a.m. CST

    I love the smell of a moron on an inca

    by Im_spartasoth

    Nice interview Capone. Really.....just......Nice. I love the bit about you not doing anything but the fucking interview. You have hit the 0 on my bullshit meter (thank you so much)

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 9:36 a.m. CST


    by dtpena

    great interview, but i hoped he would talk a little more about his next projects can't wait to see the movie this week...

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 9:37 a.m. CST

    Really looking forward to this...

    by RobFromBackEast

    Great interview. This guy is pretty fuckin talented, looks like a beautiful film

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Two more days...

    by Giphangster

    ...I can barely contain my anticipation.

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Zombie, your timing is off

    by Plum

    Aronofsky started working on THE FOUNTAIN before he got together with Weisz. The real impetus for him wasn't the love story, but the questions of mortality- both of his parents got cancer around the same time he turned 30, so he had death on the brain.

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 11:20 a.m. CST



    I'm definitely looking forward to this film... Hopefully I'll get a chance to see it this wednesda....

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Zombie needs a hug!

    by DoctorWho?

    Easy boy. Put on some Looney Tunes or something

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 12:06 p.m. CST

    Flicker- One of the most relevant movies to make

    by Lovecraftfan

    Seriously if you've ever read the book you would know the ideas it talks about in relation to where cinema is today are very very true. Make that movie now.

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 3:01 p.m. CST

    I wish someone had asked him about Lost...

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    and whether he's still interested in directing an episode.

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Cut short

    by Fing Fang Foom

    The interview ended suddenly. Is there a part 2?

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Zombie, you big silly. Eternal love is easy.

    by FluffyUnbound

    All that is needed is for the object of that love to be lost. Death, geographic separation, abandonment, waste, what have you. Voila: Eternal love. Eternal love can't stand up to actually having the object of that love AROUND day after interminable day, bitching and nagging - but it does fine under other outcomes.

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 4:54 p.m. CST

    I'm not sure I'm ready for this

    by thebearovingian

    Would it be possible for them to delay the release again? Just for a couple of months. I've done my share of waiting for them to put this out. Can't they return the favor?

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Just came back from seeing this!

    by brokentusk

    It was showing as part of the World Cinema Festival in Cape Town for one night only, couldn't wait to see it! Just got back now and, while the film is really great looking and incredibly deep, it's perhaps a little too deep for its own good. In other words: it makes little sense upon a first viewing. My friends and I stood around discussing it for about half an hour after the show, which I guess is a good thing. Hugh Jackman was EXCELLENT! Seriously, I knew he was a great actor, but I didn't know he was this great. The only thing that bugged me about it overall was the fact that the trailer spoils pretty much the whole film in terms of the visuals. Nothing is left as a surprise. Still, great film, sure I'll see it again when it's released in South Africa officially. Not my favourite film of the year so far, that's a toss up between V FOR VENDETTA and CHILDREN OF MEN so far.

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Cant Wait For Wednesday!!!

    by The Ender


  • Nov. 20, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Agreed on that LOST comment.

    by brokentusk

    He basically set up Capone to ask him about it at one point, creating a perfect opportunity by talking about how THE FOUNTAIN has more answers than LOST. Not sure why that went straight over Capone's head, maybe he didn't know that Aronofsky is involved with the show? I'd love to find out if that's still happening. Would be INCREDIBLE if it did!

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Fire the editor! This movie is so emo

    by CTU Mole

    it'll cut itself! See what I did there? Seriously, this movie makes Interview with the Vampire look like Weekend at Bernies.

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 9:32 p.m. CST

    I am afraid to die.

    by pencil-man

    Every time I think I've overcome my fear of death, I realize I am totally wrong. I don't think anyone can really overcome that fear... not even the friggin' Indians, yo.

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 10:42 p.m. CST

    nice grammar check

    by esbern

    that interview was a poor read. i mean, make sense of this: I almost turned down the interview because I thought think Drew had already interviewed you, at least, he’s been following him around a lot lately.

  • Nov. 20, 2006, 11:49 p.m. CST

    I followed someone around a lot once

    by S-Mart shopper

    they called the cops on me. I thought think they did!

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 3:21 a.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    I don't agree with your attitudes towards love, but that post was fried gold. Cheers.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Why death shouldn't worry you.

    by Rindain

    I'm still working this out, but here goes: In physics, there is no such thing as "time passing". Time is a variable, but there is no absolute "now" (see relativity theory), and the past and future are merely illusions caused by the human brain's inability to comprehend anything but a small slice of time, i.e. the present "now". Think of the space-time continuum as a deck of cards, each card representing the universe at a particular moment (forgetting about relativity for a sec). Therefore, in physics, every moment in time that has ever existed and ever will exist will always exist--you ust won't be aware of it do to the fact that as a human, you are like a horse with blinders, blind to all but current stimuli. Whenever a brain happens to come into being due to evolution, chemical interactions, etc, that brain becomes a conscious person. One of those brains became "you". Consciousness is a unitary can't be two people at once. However, when you die you will free to be reborn as another brain...maybe a brain in the "past", maybe a brain in the "future", or maybe you will just live your life over again. This might not make much sense to people but I think that death really isn't as bad as a lot of people think it is.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 3:28 a.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    ...I think you mean "paean" when you say "peon." I always thought peons were like toadies.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 3:30 a.m. CST


    by jack scagnetti

    IF THIS IS ANYTHING LIKE THE TURGID AND DIALOGUE FREE DC COMIC,THEN THIS turd TREE NEEDS SURGERY.Admirable though it might be to tackle philosophical issues of DEATH, rebirth,immortality, ,etc.great narrative it aint. Kubrick and Tarkovsky both tried,and failed.THIS SMELLS rotten.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 6:58 a.m. CST

    The critics are killing this movie

    by BobParr

    I went to Rotten Tomatoes. A large portion of the critics absolutley destroyed the movie. Most of the ones that liked it says it has a lot of flaws. A few called it the "masterpiece" we've all been hoping it would be. This is very dubious. The main complaint is the narrative. If the narrative isn't coherent then all of the deep themes, visuals , and acting can't save it. This bums me out. I was really looking forward to this.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 7:05 a.m. CST

    2001's Narrative

    by BobParr

    That film sometimes gets a bad rap for its narrative. That movie had a very tight narrative. Even the monkey sequence had a great narrative. The space portion of the movie was outstanding. It doesn't get strange until they enter Jupiter. Kubrick intentionally made the last 15 minutes of the movie confusing.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 9:42 a.m. CST


    by Shigeru

    Critics are complaining about a confusing "narrative"? Do they not know what to expect with this film? Are they expecting frikin Kate + Leopold or something? What's wrong with abstract storytelling? Answer: Nothing.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 10:21 a.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    Before we get all "the critics are teh stoopid," it's probably important to recognize that 'Requiem for a Dream' was pretty well-received. So it's not like those foolish, foolish critics simply cannot appreciate the genius that is Darren Aronofsky.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 10:43 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Another cinema legend passes

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST

    R.I.P Altman

    by Jugs


  • Nov. 21, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST

    R.I.P. Altman

    by Wazoo

    The Player is one of my all-time faves. He will be missed.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Said it Was Crap 3 Months Ago

    by DrKodos

    And it still is. Get off the chump. It's bad. Whatever critics are killing it are gaining some credibility. Slow, ponderous, and the set pieces are gay.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 11:59 a.m. CST

    This interview vs. AVClub interview

    by Jonesey1111

    Hey Capone, you did a really great job with this interview. I just read the AV Club interview, and it sucked. It did not flow at all. I can really tell you guys enjoyed talking to each other. Fantastic job!

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 12:08 p.m. CST


    by jack scagnetti

    narrative coherence is ALL. without it you have nothing. KUBRICK's version of 2001 was a mess. The Fountain is a mess. It's not hard to make sense or to tell a story, what's hard is to tell a story with significance and meaning. 2001 can go fuck itself!

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 1:18 p.m. CST

    2001 is a mess?

    by SK909

    You're entitled to your opinion, I just think you're a fucking moron. I guess anything Picasso did is a 'mess' of a painting too. Oh, and apparently it IS hard to tell a story or make sense, since 90% of all movies that come out, both from Hollywood and the independent scene have neither. There are OTHER things that can be done with cinema besides Shawshank Redemption-like stories and I applaud anyone who tries, let alone anyone who succeeds at it.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 2:02 p.m. CST

    the Lost comment was interesting

    by Freakemovie

    I'm not sure what he was implying by it: that he was still involved and interested in doing a Lost episode, or that he gave up on the idea after possibly losing interest in the show. Either way, he was obviously expecting to be asked about it so he could clear up the ambuiguity...oh well, I guess we'll find out sooner or later. As a fan of Lost, it'd be awesome if he did an episode. Course, I'm looking forward to The Fountain, too.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Nice clean interview

    by fireclown

    No politics = Bliss! Thank you very much. I am not joking, Capone.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 2:05 p.m. CST

    2001, to me, was kind of a failed experiment

    by Freakemovie

    I think it's been hyped too heavily for the past forty years. The prologue with the apes is interesting, HAL is a great story, and the end could've been a great sort of hypnotic experiment...but a lot of the film was just plain indulgent and unnecessary. Most of the dialogue is just dialogue for dialogue's sake, and the classical music was originally just a placeholder until Kubrick decided he liked it. Slow-paced movies are great if it seems like there's a purpose behind it, but the 815 minutes of rotating space stations left me pretty detached.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 2:28 p.m. CST

    I wonder if they talked about...

    by Strabo

    ...Harry's obsession with Rachel's "amazingly lovely haunches"?

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 4:34 p.m. CST


    by jack scagnetti


  • Nov. 21, 2006, 4:42 p.m. CST

    90% OF ALL MOVIES DONT MAKE SENSE???????????

    by jack scagnetti

    it really isn't that hard to make sense. Try it.It's easy.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Where are people's brains?

    by ye olde shiza

    I have to agree with some of the people on here. This movie, like other's of Aronfsky's is about symbolism. The two big factors in our lives, light and dark, love and death. I think it's sad that people can't understand the symbolism Aronosky is using ... but people will more than likely understand the symbolism of a cross, a burning bush, an apple in a tree, a snake ... need I go on? What's the difficulty, folks? A movie comes out with incredible imagery and no one gets it. I guess we'd better go back to watching Little Miss Sunshine and considering that an art-film.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 5:44 p.m. CST

    2001 is brilliant

    by Jared

    I find that people who dislike it usually don't understand it. The dialog is bland because one of the film's many themes is mankind's dehuminization as technology increases. That's why HAL's voice has more emotion than any of the human characters. I think the narrative is extremely compelling and interesting. Sure, no explosions or laser beams, but I'll take 2001, Primer, Gattacca, etc. over Independence Day every time.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 6:10 p.m. CST

    I saw this last night...

    by Novaman5000

    And I enjoyed it. It doesn't immediately make sense, particularly the future sections; There were alot of confused expressions when the lights came up, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. Visuals and soundtrack were fantastic... It's worth seeing for them alone, I think. I think that this is a film I'll eventually REALLY like, maybe even love, but I'm not quite there yet. I don't think it's a film you can just dismiss as bad, though. Oh, and I GET 2001, but I think it's overrated as well. It's good, some of it great (fantastic setup, IMO), but Kubrick admittedly made it confusing just to make it confusing, and that pisses me off. The payoff was weak compared to what came before.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 8:35 p.m. CST

    wow - there are

    by K|LLDOZER

    there are some bitter fucking assholes that troll this site, i swear. So there was a bit of logrolling in the interview, so Aronofsky likes AICN - what the hell...GET OVER IT. wow.

  • Nov. 21, 2006, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Ok shit Jack... I guess we better notify

    by SK909

    every publisher of art history books in the world! Jack Scagnetti has figured out that because Picasso had, GASP!, outside influences that he internalized and then regurgitated in his own way, through his own brush, and Jack has informed us that because of this, he's just an imposter! An untalented hack fraud! Seriously, this should really make the news, thanks for showing us the way! And Kubrick did not deliberately make 2001 confusing. I know enough about Kubrick to know that he made the movie he wanted to make. He deliberately went away from conventional narrative, but I don't think he intended it to be confusing. It's confusing if you try to explain it, because, as Kubrick repeatedly said, he felt it was in the feel of it, not the 'think' of it. It seems that he was aiming for something that, when you try to explain it with words, it loses all meaning because there really aren't any. HOWEVER, having said that, I will say that I think the movie has dated quite a bit, simply because it's just not as amazing to see the space station rotating endlessly or the stargate sequence for instance. The ideas that are there are still very relevant, perhaps even moreso, but even Kubrick didn't have the hindsight to know that technology would date even his flawless effects, many of which are just meant to be nice to look at. I think Barry Lyndon is his best film, followed by Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, Paths of Glory, The Shining, 2001, Eyes Wide Shut, The Killing... and on down the list. And I'm fucking sorry, but 90% of movies ARE incoherent messes with no story to tell. Sure they make sense and tell a story in the strictest terms, as in this happens, then this happens, then this happens, but to me, it makes no sense that many of them get made I'm dumbfounded when I see most trailers that that's the best they can come up with and the best thing they can think of to spend millions of dollars on. Objectively, I understand that studios are about making money and it's about being safe and serving the larger good of the conglomerate's many arms, but even so, movies are a gamble no matter what you do, and there just aren't a lot of chances taken. At least with The Fountain (bringing it back) Aronofksy took a chance.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 2:50 a.m. CST

    action sequence dilemma

    by joe b

    They truly can be done differently than LOTR and all the other me-too's. Take another look at The New World battle scene, It's all about the camera work and editing. We're not taking the stance of a participant in the battle or field commander observing and weighing each challenge. Instead we're a sort of ghost, gathering the jumbled remembrance of the frenzy of battle, trying to set some of the moments into a lyrical order. The fighting is intense and the camera is on the field, but we are still safe and able to reflect somehow. There's always a new way to do action sequences in a film. I'm sure Terrence Malick is not the only one who can come up with new ways to do it.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 3:03 a.m. CST


    by jack scagnetti

    It may be a revelation to you that Picasso's cubist period was swiped, but it's old news to the art establishment, and documented fact, so don't worry no books need to be changed.I just thought it was funny that you likened Picassso to Kubrick as unassailable masters,when both in retrospect, had feet of clay. NO DOUBT, Paths, The Killing,Full Metal Jacket,were brilliant, but 2001 and EYES WIDE SHUT? are you a gas huffer? Kubrick's method of composition,the WATER TIGHT COMPARTMENT screenplay structure definitely sprung a leak.His ideas are sound,but where's the resolution? SAME with the fountain.and did you read the comic-book? same inconprehensible mess, fuck taking chances,thats only a comic,two guys,relatively little risk compared to a movie, and MR. Aronofsky still cant make sense.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 4:12 a.m. CST

    jesus fucking christ, the movie DOES make sense

    by s0nicdeathmonkey

    and DOES tell a linear story. one which i've explained like 9 times on these boards.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 11:30 a.m. CST

    2001-the feel of it,NOT the THINK of it.???????

    by jack scagnetti

    SK,What the fuck does that mean? IF he couldn't explain it in words, WHAT THE FUCK DID IT SAY IN THE SCREENPLAY? lots of blank spaces? 2001 may have had meaning in the Arthur C Clarke Sentinel story, but Kubrick, dessicated it, much like he did to the Shining's original story. The ideas in 2001 aren't new,or novel. Philosophy and religion talk very explicitly about cosmic consciousness, rebirth and state of being. These issues don't need to be text to be expressed, but they need to be communicated more effectively for the screen, for example Ken Russel's Altered States expresses ideas on existentialism perfectly. These are powerful themes and the point is Kubrick and Aronofsky, (in the comic at least), don't come close. But props to Doug Trumbull, the real genius of 2001.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Aronofsky is this generations Malick/Kubrick

    by kirttrik

    I think Aronofsky will become this generations Malick or Kubrick. Great interview Capone.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 1:50 p.m. CST

    So what's been cut here?

    by Harry Weinstein

    This has recently gone from an R to a PG-13. According to it has been edited for the lower rating. So what got chopped?

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 5:03 p.m. CST

    eyes wired open

    by jack scagnetti

    When KUBRICK was alive,and living in st.Albans,he was scared to go out the house,He was scared of going out because he knew the residents of st.Albans would break his fucking head. We're like that in st.Albans, no patience,waiting for greatest director of all time to shit out another bum-egg like eyes wide shite.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Go jerk off to Reservoir Dogs for the 9,000th time...

    by SK909

    Ok, Scagnetti? You're like that in St. Albans? So you live there? You'd break his fucking head? Another englishman masquerading as a street tough, huh? I'm sorry, but you guys, including all of your crazy soccer hooligans, are about as scary as fucking harajuku girls. That's why that piece of shit Guy Ritchie's movies just don't work. The idea of english street toughs is laughable when you've grown up in a place like Jersey City, NJ. We ARE crazy over here, much crazier than you'll ever be, so change your fucking name from Jack Scagnetti to something like Jeeves Baton to reflect who you really are. A future butler or the owner of a 'chippie.'

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 6:46 p.m. CST

    And about The Fountain...

    by SK909

    I think it would have been more relevant had he actually made a movie about a man trying to save his parents from cancer instead of making it about 'eternal love'. To me, eternal love only makes sense when it's in the realm of blood relatives. No matter what, you always go back to your family in some way. And with rejection in the realm of family, the hurt never goes away and can affect you until the day you die. But with a woman, even one you've been married to for many years, it just goes away, to the point where you can't even imagine that you were ever with the person. All male-female romantic relationships are tenuous at best, but not between siblings or children and their parents or even aunts and uncles and grandparents. I think that ZombieSolutions was right in what he said earlier about the whole concept. My guess is that Aronofsky thought the concept would 'port' over to a man and a woman while he was grappling, at the age of 30, with his parents both being diagnosed with cancer. However, that's a big mistake as anyone who's divorced will tell you. I was married for eight years and never thought that would end, eternal love, blah, blah, blah, but now I see that it always, inevitably, comes back to family (i.e. blood relatives). Unless you're like 75 and still in love with your wife (but, chances are, she's probably no longer in love with you, or vice versa) or something, but I doubt Aronofsky wanted to make a movie with two senior citizens in the leads. I think it would have been more universal and struck a real chord if it were a father trying to save his kids or vice versa. The reason this smacks of inexperience is because most adults realize, like I said, that male-female bonds are tenuous at best. I guess he should have looked into his own future and watched Kramer vs. Kramer a couple of dozen times before deciding to make this about romantic love.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 8:52 p.m. CST

    Just saw it....I don't understand it either

    by Rupee88

    Although I suspect that there may not be that much more to understand. Anyway, it is 10x better than most of the shit that Hollywood puts out, so I'm glad it was made and I did find it to be a stimulating experience.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 8:57 p.m. CST

    2001 is a great film if you watch it on your computer

    by Rupee88

    That way you can just quickly skip the boring and self-indulgent parts and watch the cool parts, which are uber-cool. Based on that, it is an amazing film but if I have to sit and watch it from beginning to end, I don't feel as strongly.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 9:55 p.m. CST

    I saw it today and ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    by BobParr

    I was really dissapointed with this film. The theme of fear of death and trying to understand what waits beyond is universal. Why wrap it around an incredibly sappy love story? Aronofsky said in the interview that he re-wrote the screenplay with this love story crap. He's currently in love with Rachel Wiesz and got totally corny. I hate to say it but Hugh Jackman couldn't carry the movie. I like him but he didn't have the gravitas. The Conquistador segment was very cool. The cancer/love story was movie of the week sappy. The futuristic segment was confusing. I still don't understand exactly what he was trying to accomplish and I didn't get the multiple endings. Why would someone choose to stay alive for 600 years only to obsess over the same woman?

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 10:02 p.m. CST


    by King Willy

    I disagree with you on both of your last points. I grew up on the estates in England which I can tell you there are some crazy desperate nutters about. Jack sounds like an idiot bwoy though so it’s good you put him in his place. Back to the fountain. Your views on marriage seem cynical, but maybe you are right. There is a bond between families that is different between lovers, but neither is better or worse. When things are great with my wife and we are making love/fucking there are moments spiritually and physically that I feel we are truly one and I feel as if I’ve never been closer to anyone in my life. The love is no deeper than my love for my mother which is pure love, but my wife earned that love which makes it different. To add another twist to your story fathered my wife’s step son 4 nearly 7 years. I tell him our bond is deep as I don’t love him because of our shared blood, I love him because of who he is. I you saying that that love is any less?

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 10:09 p.m. CST

    Also saw it today...

    by Bubba Gillman

    ...and loved it, even though I found the ending a little murky. I understand the mixed reaction, but it worked for me and I plan to see it again. Regarding the 2001 comparisons, I have to agree with Jack Sagnetti - 2001's geatest achievements are technical. I'm a 2001 fan, and no one can argue that it has had a profound influence on film making and has some of the most iconic shots in film history. At the same time, while at times I can appreciate Kubrick's "deliberate" pacing, there are portions of 2001 that I find interminable. To me, the much touted Blue Danube waltz sequence seems longer than The Fountain in its entirety, and I suspect that the "ultimate trip" finale probably works better if the viewer has some medicinal assistance. I don't think 2001 is any more or less complex than The Fountain, but perhaps does trump it in terms of conveying a certain vastness. What the Fountain has that 2001 completely lacks, however, is human emotion. I would argue that there really aren't any humans or characters in 2001 - just props. I know this is heresy, so flame on.

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Say what you thought about this film on the RADIO!!!

    by The Tao of Joe

    My name is Joe, host of the Movie Show. We are starting a new segment each week called 'What The Beep Do We Know?' where listeners get to leave a message on our hotline with the possibility of having it PLAYED on the air. What did you think of 'The Fountain'? We seriously want to know. Call (336) 455-1985. Give us a call, and let the world hear your voice. -Joe

  • Nov. 22, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Blown Away

    by Mr. Winston

    I've had about three hours to think about this one...and I'm just immersed in it right now. I think it works on many levels. I think the performances are astounding, and I think that people who think this is a love story with two main characters got the wrong impression. This is a story about one guy, and the specifics could be debated for years. <br> <br> I hate most love stories, and right now I'm happy as a clam. One of the few recent films to say anything intelligent or original about love - not quite on the symbolic level of ETERNAL SUNSHINE, but still a fresh look.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 12:09 a.m. CST

    I kept hoping Jackman would not stop reading

    by superninja

    the book. DON'T PUT IT DOWN, BUDDY! The Conquistador section was by far the most visually interesting and Jackman was quite arresting in that piece. Well, he is the hottest man alive, but I digress. Definitely brought up some thoughtful things, but I think his answer to embrace death as part of a cycle; I'm just not sure it is justified based on the film. For all of its philosophical ponderings it seemed highly irrational.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 12:17 a.m. CST

    And Zombie is right - it's also a film about obsessing

    by superninja

    over another person to the point of losing yourself completely in another that person. Jackman's character is completely defined by Weisz's. His existence has no other meaning in the story and he cannot escape her. I found it to be sort of disturbing and really not overly romantic. Not to say there are not touching moments.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 12:25 a.m. CST

    This is what happens.....

    by thecomedian

    ...when you bring shrooms to a pitch meeting. This movie was a lot like Solaris only I could see the ending telegraphed a mile away with the only surprise being that she dies right before he actually discovers the cure. This was the worst date movie ever. The only fun moment was when he put the sap of the tree on his wound and I turned to my date and made a bad Wolverine joke. Seriously, what happened to the guy who made Requiem for a Dream six years ago? Jackman and Weitz were both gave brilliant performances but I couldn't have cared less. This IS 2001 for morons.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 12:37 a.m. CST

    I didn't see Solaris. Is it better?

    by superninja

    Oh, and Hugh Jackman DEFINITELY needs hair.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 3:22 a.m. CST

    Snooze Fest, but it's a DA film so he'll get a pass.

    by The Founder

    I love how the fanboys, Harry and his other contributors will latch on to a obscure director and praise him to high hell rather their film is good or not. I saw the Fountain and it was just ok and dull at times. Oh well Darren will get a free pass cause he's the cool director that the fanboys love and over praise.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 4:36 a.m. CST


    by jack scagnetti

    you really think i live in st,Albans, and im a hooligan? it was a joke you tool.sorry you didnt find as funny as i did. As for jerking off to Tarantino and Mr madge, i'll stop when stop fellating Kubrick and mr.a. respect to snooze fest.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 4:39 a.m. CST

    king willy

    by jack scagnetti

    whats a bwoy? is that patois? what happened to the queens engish?

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 8:32 a.m. CST


    by Rupee88

    haha...I thought of taking a date to this, but then realized it would be a very bad idea. After a night's sleep, I'm still glad I went to see The Fountain, although I wouldn't really recommend it to anyone else.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 8:32 a.m. CST

    Superninja, I guess it's a matter of taste....

    by thecomedian

    Clooney is really good and his story isn't quite as contrived as this one. It's more old school pre-star wars thinkin' man's "science fiction"(sci-fi's not a real word). Though Solaris doesn't have all the trippy visuals and it's not as confusing it defiantely does the love story just as well if not better. That of course may come down to Clooney being slight more nuanced than Jackman.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Yeah, Mallick is still alive

    by kirttrik

    Yeah, Mallick is still alive isn't he, thank god. Also I haven't seen the film yet so, who knows, I just might not like it. I should probably shut my hole. But I have faith in AD and I think he has more promise than the majority of filmmakers out there. Seeing as how Tony Scott and Micheal Bay are trying to be the next Speilberg, Aronofsky could be the next Kubrick.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 11:54 a.m. CST

    King Willy

    by SK909

    I don't think one is better or worse than the other, I'm just saying, it's pretty rare that it lasts in the same way and with the same depth as something familial. And as far as your stepson, I think that, again, it's a familial bond where sex and chemicals aren't in the way. It seems to be something else, probably still chemicals, but something deeper when it comes to familial bonds. I agree about feeling that closeness when you're making love and feeling that you're almost one being, I'm just not sure that it can translate well to the story that Aronofsky is telling. It's just almost impossible to not come off as hokey, ya know? Anyway, with 2001 having a lack of emotion, I think the reason the only being with emotion in the film is HAL is to make you question what consciousness really is. Is it chemical or are we really more than the sum of our parts? I have to respectfully disagree and say that I really believe that the themes in 2001 are a lot bigger than The Fountain, which seems a little naive, and, from what I'm hearing, I'm not the lone voice on this. I didn't say that I don't think some of 2001 is interminable, cause some of it is, but I just think that, at that time, Kubrick was trying to give audiences the feeling of space travel, of the infinite, of what the technology would really be like. That was fine at the time, it just hasn't dated really well. The basic themes and the opening sequence are still there to enjoy, it's just that they're occasionally buried in some pretty boring sequences by today's standards. It can't stand the test of time because it tried to predict the future. Barry Lyndon, on the other hand, recreated the past and when you do that perfectly, it WILL stand the test of time.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 12:37 p.m. CST

    sex and willies??

    by jack scagnetti

    is it just me,or did that last post weird everybody out? Making love? SK, i thought you said you was some NJ.crazy,crazy like a fox, I think that you should change your name to posy hotchkiss,and set up a stand selling wieners.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 1:51 p.m. CST

    2001...still great

    by kirttrik

    I think 2001 is less dated and more watchable than say, Contact, or even 2010. It's date is obviously wrong but the technilogical potential perdicted in the film is still possible. 'Making love'...'becoming one'...wooooow. When my balls drop I might know what your talking about.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 8:28 p.m. CST

    Hey dickheads...

    by SK909

    when any of you actually have sex with a woman, maybe you'll know what I'm talking about. "Technilogical" 'Perdicted"? Guess you're not finished with spelling yet? And Scagnetti - leave the dorm room for five minutes and go ask a girl out so she can kick you in your empty scrotum and maybe YOUR balls will drop. Then do me a favor and introduce her to kirttrik... after he finishes his spelling test and juice box of course.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 9:20 p.m. CST

    yeah, send her over.

    by kirttrik

    Oh yeah, waht I meant to write was 'technological' and 'predicted'. And, Scagnetti, send her over when your done, with a box of Capri Sun and Jolly Ranchers. 2001... still great. Aronofsky...more like 'Awesomnofsky'.

  • Nov. 23, 2006, 10:21 p.m. CST

    Darren Aronofsky boring Intellectual filmmaker

    by jegoing74

    Thankfully he kept his boring intellectual hands off Batman.

  • Nov. 24, 2006, 12:05 a.m. CST

    great movie, very moving.

    by Russman

    I loved it

  • Nov. 24, 2006, 1:01 a.m. CST

    Pretty good movie

    by mortsleam

    Could have used some more focused editing and storytelling in the initial Future sequence. Too bizarre and off-putting, and it too about 20 minutes to get into teh movie. After that, it had some really inetresting ideas to play around with. Definitely got the sense that it was specifically rewritten for a lower budget though, and there was a feeling of some crucial explanatory scenes missing (Rachel Weisz coming back from South America with the pod of the tree, etc). It won't do well, because it takes too long to get into, and most people are stupid, so Warner's will take it as yet another reason to spend less money on adventurous films, instead of admitting that if they'd given him the money he wanted in the first place, his original ideas might have made for a better, not necessarily coherent, but more satisfying film. Some of the visuals were absolutely stunning, and Weisz and Jackman were great. But it was more like a particularly odd tasting snack rather than a complex meal.

  • Nov. 24, 2006, 1:22 a.m. CST


    by snakecharmer

    I enjoyed and plan to see it again. It's not for everyone and I don't expect it to make much money. I felt bad for a lady that clearly had invited two friends to watch the film. One of them walked out half way. She liked. The other friend stayed to be polite but really wasn't that into it. I will watch it again and buy the dvd.

  • Nov. 24, 2006, 5:43 a.m. CST


    by jack scagnetti

    you're taking this a way too seriously. you sound like aronofsky and kubrick are yo'surrogate parents. it's only movies.go and do something creative. or go all the way and exuhume Kubes corpse and crawl up his stargate.

  • Nov. 24, 2006, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Zombie- I generally have respect for you but

    by Laserbrain

    shouldn't you see the film for yourself before attacking it? You're starting to sound like Moviemack. _______ I really want to like this film although I'm open to the idea it might be a misfire or an outright turkey. I've read a few reviews too, some positive and some negative, but I'll withhold judgement until I see the thing myself.

  • Nov. 25, 2006, 7:36 p.m. CST

    It was also compared to Zardoz, which I don't

    by superninja

    think is fair. Zardoz is more entertaining with its ridiculous camp factor.

  • Nov. 25, 2006, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Zombie, that link was a TERRIBLE review.

    by Lenny Nero

    What a childish, petulant critic.