Nov. 20, 2006, 9:35 a.m. CST
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
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
Great interview. This guy is pretty fuckin talented, looks like a beautiful film
Nov. 20, 2006, 10:18 a.m. CST
...I can barely contain my anticipation.
Nov. 20, 2006, 10:57 a.m. CST
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
by THE KNIGHT
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
Easy boy. Put on some Looney Tunes or something
Nov. 20, 2006, 12:06 p.m. CST
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
and whether he's still interested in directing an episode.
Nov. 20, 2006, 3:31 p.m. CST
by Fing Fang Foom
The interview ended suddenly. Is there a part 2?
Nov. 20, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST
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
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
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
by The Ender
COULD THIS GUY BE ANY COOLER! THIS FILM LOOKS AMAZING! BRING IT!
Nov. 20, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST
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
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
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
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
by S-Mart shopper
they called the cops on me. I thought think they did!
Nov. 21, 2006, 3:21 a.m. CST
I don't agree with your attitudes towards love, but that post was fried gold. Cheers.
Nov. 21, 2006, 3:28 a.m. CST
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 thing...you 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
...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
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
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
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
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
Another cinema legend passes
Nov. 21, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST
Nov. 21, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST
The Player is one of my all-time faves. He will be missed.
Nov. 21, 2006, 11:47 a.m. CST
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
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
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
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
No politics = Bliss! Thank you very much. I am not joking, Capone.
Nov. 21, 2006, 2:05 p.m. CST
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
...Harry's obsession with Rachel's "amazingly lovely haunches"?
Nov. 21, 2006, 4:34 p.m. CST
by jack scagnetti
SK909, F.Y.I. PICASSO AND BRAQUE APPROPRIATED THEIR SAVANT- CUBIST STYLE FROM IMPORTED AFRICAN SCULPTURE .THEY CLAIMED IT WAS JUST PRIMITIVE AND ANIMIST.THEREFORE OKAY TO STEAL FROM PICASSO WAS THIEF, AND HIS CUBIST PAINTINGS WERE THE SCRIBBLINGS OF A SYPHILITIC AUTISTIC SAVANT.YES HE WAS A GREAT SHOWMAN,BUT HE WAS A PRICK. KUBRICK ON THE OTHERHAND MADE SOME AMAZING MOVIES,NO QUESTION.JUST THAT 2001 AINT ONE OF 'EM. IF YOU THINK THAT 90% OF ALL MOVIES DONT MAKE SENSE, OR HAVE NO STORY,YOU NEED TO WATCH MORE MOVIES OR GET SOME NEW GLASSES.
Nov. 21, 2006, 4:42 p.m. CST
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I think Aronofsky will become this generations Malick or Kubrick. Great interview Capone.
Nov. 22, 2006, 1:50 p.m. CST
by Harry Weinstein
This has recently gone from an R to a PG-13. According to mpaa.org it has been edited for the lower rating. So what got chopped?
Nov. 22, 2006, 5:03 p.m. CST
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
...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
Oh, and Hugh Jackman DEFINITELY needs hair.
Nov. 23, 2006, 3:22 a.m. CST
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
by jack scagnetti
whats a bwoy? is that patois? what happened to the queens engish?
Nov. 23, 2006, 8:32 a.m. CST
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
Thankfully he kept his boring intellectual hands off Batman.
Nov. 24, 2006, 12:05 a.m. CST
I loved it
Nov. 24, 2006, 1:01 a.m. CST
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
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
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
think is fair. Zardoz is more entertaining with its ridiculous camp factor.
Nov. 25, 2006, 10:35 p.m. CST
by Lenny Nero
What a childish, petulant critic.