Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Harry contemplates and celebrates Darren Aronofsky's THE FOUNTAIN!

first by DoodlyDingDongTickTock	Nov 24th, 2006 02:58:07 PM
HA
WOO.` by DoodlyDingDongTickTock	Nov 24th, 2006 02:59:34 PM
can't wait to see this. Love how mixed the reviews are. Look at Citizen Kane or Raging Bull or a dozen other movies that got mixed reviews but were then in critics top ten list for the year or decade.
Harry: "these characters are ciphers" by s00p3rm4n	Nov 24th, 2006 03:24:28 PM
I completely agree, but this is the exact reason I didn't connect emotionally with the story for a second! It was the most schizophrenic moviegoing experience ever - thinking simultaneously how gorgeous it was, and how empty it felt. Yes, a story is just a coat to be worn by the sights and sounds and actors, but still - ya gotta sew the damn thing first before you take it off. I don't think Aronofsky did the legwork necessary to ground these characters as human. They're both clearly superhuman in their own way, but without the- I dunno- development element or spark that puts the "human" part alongside the "super" part. As a related note, this film helped me finalize my thesis about his filmmaking: Darren Aronofsky makes movies about actions rather than characters. Pi is a film about mathematics and mental illness. Requiem is a film about taking drugs. Fountain is a film about dying. Maybe it's just me, but this film wasn't about the people in it. It cared mostly about what the people did. I'm not asking for FIVE EASY PIECES IN SPACE here. Simply, without a clear picture of the Who and the Why, the What just doesn't seem as dazzling in retrospect. How fucking great was that soundtrack, though? In postscript, I want a furry edible tree in my backyard.
But Harry SPOILERS by Moonraper	Nov 24th, 2006 03:37:03 PM
If future Hugh is also past Hugh, how do you explain past Hugh being turned into a tree?
I'm going to see this movie tomorrow. by rbatty024	Nov 24th, 2006 03:49:14 PM
Aronofsky is one of the best directors out there. Too bad he makes a movie only every four or five years. I hope this film does well so that he can get the funding he deserves.
Can't wait to see this by Bean_	Nov 24th, 2006 04:03:51 PM
I'm trying not to read any spoilers, it just sounds so damn good!
Moonraper SPOILER by HEADGEEK	Nov 24th, 2006 04:15:37 PM
To me - Hugh turning planty was the self-destructive path that Izzi saw for his character. And past Hugh - was a fictional projection that was written by Izzi, not in any way, shape or form, a reality.
PR_GMR by PR_GMR	Nov 24th, 2006 04:42:29 PM
I watched 'The Fountain' last night.. and very much enjoyed. It's unfortunately one of those films which will not gain converts easily. It's multi-threaded, difficult, ambitious, and ambigous. People walked out of the screening I attended. Sadly, I think it's going to bomb. Having said all that, I loved that.. and I think there's an audience for this film, if only a cult one. I'm glad to see Aronofsky get to the finish line with this obsession, and I want to see more films from him.
probably the most divisive movie of the year. by waggy	Nov 24th, 2006 06:08:49 PM
i've spoken to friends who loved the film to death, and others who called it "the worst movie they had ever seen". personally i dug it a lot. i've been mentally going back to it ever since i saw it wednesday afternoon. i prefer to think the future and past sequences actually happened in the movie though.
I loved this film so much. by Nordling	Nov 24th, 2006 06:28:18 PM
It's a goddamn masterpiece.
I can see it by kirttrik	Nov 24th, 2006 07:32:14 PM
Police Academy may not be in the realm of Apocalypse Now, but as a series I can see it compared to BBC's I, Claudius. I mean, a comedy equivalent of course.
Booing at Cannes - ZombieSolutions by Mr. Winston	Nov 24th, 2006 07:45:25 PM
First of all, it wasn't "booed off the screen". There was a collective of a handful of critics at the FIRST screening who booed loudly and vehemently - which makes sense, considering that critics, by and large, have hated the movie so far. However, at the very next screening - still at Cannes - it was given a ten minute standing ovation. So the idea that this is "universally panned" is especially ridiculous. In fact, the ratings for it on IMDb have soared in recent days and much of the tracking has been extremely positive. Unless you've seen it I can't understand why you're so worked up about it...so relax a little. Still, I'm inclined to agree that any comparison to 2001 is way off. Not because it's a lesser film - it's not, and this is coming from a Kubrick enthusiast (and that's being calm) - but because the themes are so totally different.
Re: Zombie Solutions by HEADGEEK	Nov 24th, 2006 07:50:01 PM
1st) 8 people booed at the "Critics pre-screening" at Cannes. At the actual Cannes Premiere it received an 8 minute Standing Ovation. 2nd) At RottenTomatoes it's at 49%. Which shows that right at Half of Critics are loving it. And they're not typically the "blurbmeisters" that are loving it, but thoughtful critics. 3rd) I made no comparisons to 2001. I hold this isn't even Science Fiction, I believe this to be a drama - where one dreams in a fantasy quest - and the other dreams in a science fiction death, but both are of today... and those sequences only exist in the imaginations they each have. 4th) If I secretly hated the film and was scared of alienating the advertiser - I simply would not have reviewed the film. Having said that - I could care less what the various studios think of my openion - and I'm not so egotistical to believe they'd give two shakes if I did shit on a film of theirs. Especially the Warner's folks - I spent years alienating them when they were a shit factory. Lastly - Comparing THE FOUNTAIN to 2001 is a viable comparison. Not in that THE FOUNTAIN is anywhere near 2001 - they bear very few similar levels in which to compare. But at least they both have confounding sequences that confused and divided audiences and critics down the middle when they initially came out. The both dealt with 3 time frames - the distant past, the year the film was set 2001, and the infinite. However, your comparison of POLICE ACADEMY 17 to APOCALYPSE NOW is asinine - as those are totally different genres. A better derogatory comparison would have been to compare GREEN BERETS to APOCALYPSE NOW. But then you would need a film education for that.
"It starts in Spain... ends there." by Nordling	Nov 24th, 2006 08:00:53 PM
I think it's all one story, and the science fiction story is Tom's way of dealing with his wife's death. Izzy wrote up to the point in her book where the conquistador is supposed to die, and it's a subtle way for her to communicate to Tom that it's unavoidable. Tom writes about how she can escape death, until he comes to understand and deal with his loss.
Interpretations by readingwriter	Nov 24th, 2006 08:04:31 PM
I've always disagreed with the idea that a great work of art is one which is open to varied interpretations. It's part of the PC "no one is wrong, it's all just opinions" point of view about art. An artist working in the narrative arts has a clue as to what he's making, and saying a movie is great art because different people can interpret it in different ways is no more pertinent than saying a rock is a work of art because many people looking at it are thinking different thoughts at the time. I'm interested in what an artist is saying to me--communicating to me; inventing my own ideas about what the artist meant is not only demeaning to the artist's efforts, it is indicative of a solipsistic mindset.
Zombiesolutions by readingwriter	Nov 24th, 2006 08:12:34 PM
"an unintentionally hilarious, painfully pretensious, achingly naive, psuedo-intellectual, mind-numbingly awful stinker of a film for stoners and/or starry-eyed newly weds in their early 20s (pre-divorce, of course) "...that reads like a Rex Reed attempt to smear a movie he didn't understand. It also reeks of a childish academic's need to insult movies someone ELSE found meaning in, when what you REALLY want to say is something like "Why didn't this movie conform to my personal views of everything?" Sorry we all aren't as worldly and ultra-hip as yourself, or as needlessly cynical (someone with access to an internet movie site can't be as bad off as some starving kid shitting out his insides in some poor country, so forgive me for not believing your life is as miserable as you want us to think). Sure, stoners and newlyweds may be the absolute worst beings in a world of terrorists and child rapists, but are you aware that we are talking about a science fiction entertainment, which intends to tell a story, and not some life-altering philosophical work? So Aronofsky and company have DARED to talk about Big Issues without having their papers from The World University of Smart Guy Posters in order--I guess that means they should have gotten together and made the ten zillionth knife-kill flick instead of DARING to make a movie about issues NO ONE (not even you) has the answers to--should we castigate them for DARING to step out of liine? How about just not talking about a movie you have no interest in? Knowing one more pseudo-intellectual (the only kind of people who use that term--including me!) doesn't think Aronofsky isn't the Dalai Freakin Lama isn't going to cause him to lose one minute of sleep, which he does beside Rachel Weisz (and you don't).
Venice, not Cannes by Koola_Norway	Nov 24th, 2006 08:19:33 PM
Hey, just wanted to comment on you THREE different people who all agree this film screened at Cannes. It didn't. it screened in Venice. But I blame the first guy. I saw The Fountain on wednesday, and I can with pleasure join the chorus of the admirers. A moving, challenging film that made me face questions about mortality that my 24 year old mind has never had to worry about. I enjoy a film that makes me think way more than 100 that just entertains me. Agreed, this film might not be an instant boxoffice success, but getting a great film that'll last pleases this film lover much more than dollars.
Most naysayers... by Gil Brooks	Nov 24th, 2006 08:39:26 PM
...on the net seem to be people who haven't seen the film yet. That said, here's a my review of the film, which bears an eerie resembelence to Harry's (in POV), despite being posted elsewhere a few hours before him- "This is a difficult movie to talk about with people who haven’t seen it, as I hate spoiling movies for people. Also, it’s totally up to someone’s interpretation as to what they get out of the film. To me, in basic terms, the film is about accepting death as a way of being part of the cycle of life. All things come back around. Like letting go of love. It’s a film with a very Eastern point of view, and I can’t believe a major studio actually backed it. I guess there is hope… The film goes over 3 different time periods, with 3 different characters on a quest for the same thing, only in different ways. Different ways, physically, but with the same determination. Now, are these to be looked at literally? Metaphorically? In my mind, one time period is obviously a metaphor. Another is obviously literal. But the third is either way, though I think it’s metaphor in a different way than the 1st, but completely complementing it. To say more would be too much. I hope others here see it, for I would like to discuss more. Easily my favorite film of the year."
Wow, Koola by Mr. Winston	Nov 24th, 2006 08:44:31 PM
You're right - it screened at Venice, not Cannes. Unfortunately I had to look that up to verify it. Do you know that I read TWO separate articles last week that talked about this very situation - the small number of critics who booed the film. Both articles talked about how absurd it was that there was a rumor that the film got booed out of Cannes. Well, chalk Yahoo! up to another source I can cross off my list as posting reliable information. I wonder if the Venice Film Festival is developing a Farnsworth Complex.
readingwriter by Mr. Winston	Nov 24th, 2006 08:58:50 PM
I think you look at the idea of subjectivity the wrong way. From the interviews that I've read with Aronofsky on this film, he definitely had a very clear sense of the story he was trying to tell and had an exact interpretation of his own that he was attempting to transmit. However, he's so far - for the most part - neglected to say what his interpretation is. Why? Because on the user end, more often than not, it's a more fulfilling experience not only to draw your own conclusions about film but to put those conclusions up for debate with other viewers. It's easiest if you're spoon-fed an idea; it's much more challenging and gratifying to develop and back your own. Would the MONA LISA have been so intriguing and discussed if Da Vinci had come right out and said, "I've got a thing for bangin' chicks with no eyebrows?" I get where you're coming from, but I don't think the interpretation of art is a PC construct designed to make everyone feel they're intelligent. The measure of a piece of art is the number of interpretations it can engender that can be backed up with reasonable analysis. Most of the time a rock is a geological conglomerate of sediment, but what if a certain rock has meaning, like a marker for a centuries-old gravesite devoid of writing? You could make the same argument that a painting is just a conglomerate of oil-based pigmented paste smeared around on canvas, but that doesn't diminish the idea that the end result strikes a different ideological chord in different people.
To Put It Frankly by The Ender	Nov 24th, 2006 09:19:09 PM
If you saw this movie. And you walked out not thinking about it, or appreciating the artistry and amazing risks this Director dives into. Appreciating bold and DIFFERENT film making. Or just pondering the real brilliance in Hugh Jackman's performance. You are a fucking cunt. A Stupid, Black Souled, Anti-Good Shit, Dark hearted, cunt. Stop watching movies. And go fuck yourself. That's my review.
Readingwrite by The Ender	Nov 24th, 2006 09:24:53 PM
My hat is off to you. I bow to your superior verbal fighting skills. If I could write as intelligently as you, I wouldn't have to go around reffering to ass licking fucktards like zombiesolutions, as cunts and pancake titted bitchfucks.
Really Looking Forward To This But by georges garvaren	Nov 24th, 2006 09:30:02 PM
infinity is total horse crap. If something goes on forever, it ceases to go on because it could not of come from somewhere and can go nowhere; it mearly is and isnt at the same impossible moment. And that is scary as hell. Stil, want to, need to, got to see this movie. Nice review Harry.
I'm dubbing this the 2001: A Space Oddysey of our time. by DanielKurland	Nov 24th, 2006 09:46:47 PM
I saw the movie, and it's definitely something you need to see a few times I think. The acting is phenomenal, but I don't know if I like it more than "Requiem for a Dream"; They're obviously different movies though. I don't know if the comparison has been made before to 2001, but I definitely think it applies, and 2001 was also panned by critics.
I see 2001 comparisons have been made, and... by DanielKurland	Nov 24th, 2006 09:52:21 PM
hatred has thus resulted. Let me just clarify, I didn't mean it was like 2001 on the level of science fiction, story, or theme, but just based on the visuals of it.
DanielKurland by Mr. Winston	Nov 24th, 2006 10:08:37 PM
Though I don't believe I've taken any part in the "hatred" against those making a 2001 connection, I have to admit I don't see it. Though I agree with you that some of the visuals are similar and that there's an exploration of careening through space with nothing but your thoughts to keep you company, I think the themes are too dissimilar to make a deeper comparison between the two. So in essence I agree with you. I think most of the fire and brimstone directed at the people throwing around the 2001 thing are because the associations are made so lazily; it seems like a cult concept that everyone is agreeing without of convenience without bother to think about why they agree with it.
It's a good thing the mainstream press bashed this... by Ribbons	Nov 24th, 2006 11:00:07 PM
...because now it's being championed by people who like films that are "misunderstood." Time will tell whether or not that's a legitimate claim but I gotta say, as someone who's not seen the movie yet -- and as someone who's wanted to see it: all this talk about negative opinions being invalid because they don't "get it" (two of the most vile words in film-geekdom because of how they're overused, typically by people who don't "get it" themselves) is really putting sand in my vagina.
The Only Way to Describe this Film... by Mr. N	Nov 24th, 2006 11:39:03 PM
... is that it's a work of art. The focus of this film is not the story, characters or even action; the focus is the thematic progression. Time, Death and Love are broad subjects that painters such as Blake, Van Gogh and countless others have put their own twists on. Aronofsky's project has resulted in a highly interperative experience that's also just plain beautiful to behold. If you are going to see this, it must be done on a big screen. The images are too epic and stylistic and could not possibly be enjoyed on a small screen. This movie while it can be compared to 2001 in terms of the importance both placed on themes. Kubrick was onced asked what 2001 was suppossed to mean? He said, people would never come out of a Beethoven symphony and ask 'what did it mean?' We are taking a far too intellectual approach to this, which can be a danger to do with art as well. We should not focus on what this meant, we will never agree on that. It is meant to be experienced and enjoyed (though that is optional depending on open mindedness). Any analysis should be brought on out of smart thematic provocation, not out of nit-picking and questioning critique. It doesn't have to mean anything, it's art.
ZombieSolutions - No, I Think You're Off by Mr. Winston	Nov 25th, 2006 12:03:03 AM
Specifically here: >>As far as having an education in film; do you mean like taking a graduate course at NYU or sitting around the homestead watching DVDs? The former I would take seriously, the latter... not so much.
Ribbons by Mr. Winston	Nov 25th, 2006 12:11:46 AM
I'm growing quickly tired of that label as well. I loved this movie, but I'll be the first to admit there's very little to "get". With all the layers stripped away it's a very basic, straightforward love story. On the other side of the coin, you have to appreciate those layers and be able to recognize them as more than just mere symbolism to enjoy this film. If you can't or don't, you wont. I've been thinking about the story nonstop ever since I saw it yesterday and I've enjoyed very much debating its meaning with other film fans. But it's not an exercise so much in intelligence or comprehension as much as it is in one's ability to creatively interpret its meaning. I can understand why someone wouldn't like this film. It's not for everyone; nothing is. But I'm equally disillusioned with the people who automatically blow this off as "pretentious" - another label that's being thrown around too cavalierly. If you just toss off the imagery and the way the story is constructed as mere folly with little character development, you're passing off the test the film is throwing at you: what, here, is reality? Go in with an open mind and if you get into the structure of the story, you'll find much about it you'll dig.
Pains me to say, but I didn't like it by Freakemovie	Nov 25th, 2006 12:15:25 AM
Saw it tonight. I could think about it and ruminate on it, and I have, and the movie makes you think. To me, it's about one man finally accepting death. And the images -- beautiful. There's so much to admire and so much to think about that I almost want to say that any movie that can provoke those thoughts is "good". But I can't bring myself to say it. We didn't care about Izzy. We didn't know anything about her. Tom's obsession was compelling but oddly unsympathetic. I wish they had a stronger explanation of the future scenes -- no, not some exposition-y thing that over-explained things, but some kind of linking factor that we could follow. I suppose most succintly, I can call The Fountain a risky and beautiful but ultimately failed experiment. Still: Aronofsky, get back on your feet and keep making movies.
Freakemovie by Mr. Winston	Nov 25th, 2006 12:23:51 AM
While obviously I disagree with your viewpoint, I understand where it comes from. For my own part I have developed some specific views about the film which I won't bore you with, but one idea that I came to accept was that Izzi was less a character and more a compliment to the story of Tom. I didn't believe this was about Tom and Izzi; I slowly began to realize I found this a story about Tom. It's not that Izzi didn't have much to say; it's that I found most of what she had to say buried in the details of the book she left for Tom. And from that we learned more about their characters than is on the surface in the year 2006. If you decide to tackle the movie again, I would pay attention to the more material symbols that show up in all three stories (the ring, the dagger, the pen, the nebula, etc.). I found that they were almost like roadsigns pointing us in the direction of the narrative connections you were looking for.
Zombiesolutions by readingwriter	Nov 25th, 2006 01:00:21 AM
I'd respond to your silliness but to be completely honest? I got bored halfway through your post because of your pedestran "I read 'How to Read a Film' TWICE so I Know Film!" attitude. One doesn't have to like or appreciate or sign on to a filmmaker's beliefs in order to enjoy a movie, understand it, or put it in some kind of meaningful context--or are you saying that only those who buy into Nazism can appreciate the filmmaking of Triumph of the Will? (I'll wait while you search through your beta tapes of The Actor's Studio with James Lipton for some kind of halfway intelligent answer.)
Mr. Winston by readingwriter	Nov 25th, 2006 01:06:10 AM
"Because on the user end, more often than not, it's a more fulfilling experience not only to draw your own conclusions about film but to put those conclusions up for debate with other viewers." I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. I can watch a good movie, if it's properly made, and don't need to have the additional information from interviews to understand the point the director was trying to make. It's the essence of communication. The DaVinci example doesn't work in this context, either--if I were a contemporary at the time of its painting, I wouldn't need to read an interview to understand WHY it is such an important painting--with knowledge of the art scene of the time, I would "get" it, just as folks with some knowledge of film can "get" why something like THE FOUNTAIN--whether or not they LIKE it--is not just another movie but something that attempts to be different, that attempts to deal with issues of importance to the filmmakers. None of this has a thing to do with one's personal enjoyment of the movie; it's just about one's grasping the significance. It doesn't matter much whether zombie people like it; it doesn't matter much if a well-informed film fan or filmmaker likes it, either--I can appreciate that a movie is attempting something. (A movie doesn't become a classic, and I wouldn't consider it a good movie, if it merely ATTEMPTED something, either.) I think you took my rock comparison a bit too far, but otherwise I enjoyed your comments, have a great weekend.
readingwriter by Mr. Winston	Nov 25th, 2006 01:19:24 AM
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree - it's just nice for me to see that someone I disagree with has put thought into their opinions. I think we simply have differing (not better or worse, just incongruent) scales on what we expect a film to "tell" us. That in itself could be an interesting debate.
readingwriter by Ribbons	Nov 25th, 2006 01:19:30 AM
So what are you trying to say, exactly? Because lots of movies ATEMPT things. I'm sure Spike Lee had a lot to say about male hegemony in America with 'She Hate Me' (or whatever) that he thought we all needed to bear witness to, but does that make it an admirable or even respectable piece of art? Will you voraciously defend it from anyone who dislikes it or doesn't appreciate its ambition? What is it about this movie that, as an acolyte of Cinema, you "get," and that sets it apart in terms of significance from any other work by any other auteur who tackles themes that are Big -- or at least to them? By the way, I personally think that liking or disliking a movie for expressing ideas that you find offensive in some way is a personal prerogative. Begrudging other people for liking it is a little stickier.
Yackbacker by HEADGEEK	Nov 25th, 2006 01:28:32 AM
Re: BLADE II review - little background history - the girl I was dating at that time asked me if I could write a review drawing a comparison to any subject and I said, Absolutely. Challenge me. She said, I bet you can't write a review drawing a paralell to the way you eat pussy - and I said, oh - I bet I can. Thus a challenge was borne. That said - I got so many complements on that review - not to mention future dates. My favorite letter I got on that review came from Roger Ebert, who was jealous of the freedom I had as a writer on my site. And loved that review.
Fuck Solaris And Fuck People Who Like Feeling Smart by georges garvaren	Nov 25th, 2006 01:33:50 AM
Intelligence does not breed entertainment and entertainment is all my money gives two shits about. 10 bucks for 2 hours deserves an experience I could not get watching worn out VHS classics on my 30 inch tv. So suck my nuts ZombieSolutions and go take your Mensa mind and cram it up your loose tush, you pompous little monkey. There’s nothing “mind expanding” about 2001 and if Kubrick were alive and sitting next to your computer when you wrote that he would most certainly call Nicholson up and the two of them would take turns beating you black and blue with soap in a sock. I hope you fall down a well and are eaten slowly by, I don’t know, some sort of well dwelling flesh eating monstrous creature from the deep. Cunt.
WELL/GREAT REVIEW by THE KNIGHT	Nov 25th, 2006 01:52:42 AM
Harry took the words right out of my mouth. i also believe the future scenes weren't real.
Freakemovie - my thoughts exactly. by s00p3rm4n	Nov 25th, 2006 02:16:18 AM
And to the earlier apologist saying it's Hugh's story, he exists ONLY in relation to Rachel Weisz' character. He commits to his actions ONLY because of her. Hence, if we don't know her, we don't know him.
It all sounds a bit Highlander though... by workshed	Nov 25th, 2006 02:20:29 AM
...just kidding. Anything made by the bloke who brought us Pi ought to get you salivating at the mouth. Remember 2001:A Space Odyssey completely divided critics at the time. In fact, it was only the geeks who were taking LSD before watching it that realised it's trippy potential and, through word of mouth, defied the critics. I will always see Darren's movies because he will always try to buck what people expect of him. I think he needed to get a film about 'Love' out of his system.
s00p3rm4n by Mr. Winston	Nov 25th, 2006 02:42:22 AM
I'm not sure that I agree with that theory, especially in this case. You're absolutely right in that Jackman's character functions in the film only in the context of Izzi's situation. That's true enough. But we don't need to know much about her to know that it's love that drives him; once you know that there's nothing else that needs explained or extrapolated. We can understand the incredible drive of someone whose wife is dying; it comes from love, and in this situation we certainly don't need to know WHY he loves her, just that he does so tirelessly. I would also submit that you end up learning much about Izzi anyway by the way she not only acts in the present but how she depicts herself and Jackman in the Conquistador thread.
Tom and Izzi by Anton_Sirius	Nov 25th, 2006 03:11:32 AM
I suspect what Aronofsky was attempting here was something akin to a 'secret' cartoonists and animators have known for years -- that is, the fewer details you add to a character the easier it is for the audience to identify with... had Tom and Izzi's relationship been filled with a back story and cute catchphrases and all the other conventions of Hollywood love they might have seemed more "realistic", but by not supplying that short-hand Aronofsky made it easier for the audience to put themselves in Tom's (or even Izzi's) shoes. How would I react? What lengths would I go to if it were me fighting to hang onto the person I loved? Etc. etc.
ZS by Anton_Sirius	Nov 25th, 2006 03:12:03 AM
And truth be told, I also suspect the virulent reactions of someone like ZombieSolutions against the film are a product of not liking the answers he got back when he asked himself those very same questions...
harry, one thing you forgot... by s0nicdeathmonkey	Nov 25th, 2006 04:02:08 AM
the past is a book. that story's ending is stilted because Jackman is a scientist, not a storyteller. the current storyline and the future one are one in the same. Izzi Dies and Jackman plants a tree on her grave. then, he takes the syrum. it expands his mind and after a period of time, he becomes sick of life on earth. so, he goes to Izzi's grave and using his expanded mind he creates a telekenetic ball of energy and goes off into space to Xibulba to meet G-d, or whatever there is out there. however, when he reaches Xibulba, it is about to explode and he realizes there is nothing else. (that is a secret of this film, it implies there is no G-d). however, he does reach eternal life with Izzi through the supernova though. the two are destoryed, and their atoms spread throughout the universe to create new life. thus, creation through an act of destruction.
All Movie critics opinions are by emeraldboy	Nov 25th, 2006 05:44:22 AM
Worthless. Its the audience who decides what sinks or swims. Critics are people who are paid to give their opinions. but strangely enough a trailer can make you decide if a film is worth seeing. Take the Holiday. Starring Diaz, Law, black and winslet. I have seen the trailer twice and it does nothing for me. But then it is a crimbo-chick flick movie and one by Nancy Myers , the queen of Malsh. The London based NY film critic Joe Queenan once said to enjoy the english patient you have to be (a) english and (b)Patient and saw the english patient and I agree, what a boring film that was and concur with his recent opinion that Scarlett Joahannson is box office poison. Crtics Vs Box office, the winner will always be box office. On broadway it is a different matter. That is the one place where reviews can literally close a show.
"But then you would need a film education for that." by dtpena	Nov 25th, 2006 09:51:17 AM
For the first time in 6-7 years reading this site, I want to have sex with Harry.
about it being a love letter to weisz by dtpena	Nov 25th, 2006 10:03:49 AM
I don't know how anyone (and i'm talking to you zombie) can see this movie as a love letter from aronofsky to weisz, because he made the script, and started making the movie waaay before meeting her, and don't forget that he originally had cate blanchett in the role of izzi, and I don't think he is eternally in love of blanchett, or is he? And you know what? I think you're a fuckin asshole.
Great review by Mr Glass	Nov 25th, 2006 10:47:10 AM
Seriously, this might be the best one you wrote, it gets right to the core of a film it's easy to stumble while discussing.
Most people are to shallow for The Fountain by Cyberfury	Nov 25th, 2006 10:54:29 AM
It the same reason that a lot of people can enjoy Paulo Coelho's 'The Alchemist' without actually 'feeling' in every fiber of their being how profound it really is. It kind of makes you sad but on the other hand, evolution is slow process..
Romantic love is indeed highly overrated.. by Cyberfury	Nov 25th, 2006 11:07:11 AM
So is eternity. But Love in itself is not my adorable ignorant friend. But you will find that out for yourself eventually. You could also read Kahlil Gibran's 'Prophet' and see the truth a little quicker perhaps. (Yes I am in a bookmood today'
zombie by dtpena	Nov 25th, 2006 11:46:13 AM
again, this is not a love letter to weisz, so could you stop playing that card?
Angry little man by Dr. Hilarius	Nov 25th, 2006 11:49:17 AM
Well, the movie accomplished it's purpose as a work of art. It draws emotional reactions. In this case, it just happens to be anger from a wee boy whose mommy apparently didn't love him. Probably because she was too busy loving me as I filled her mindhole with my man tree of truth.
wow, ZombieSolutions by ar42	Nov 25th, 2006 12:02:00 PM
It must be great to get so much pleasure out of belitting other people's opinions. Myself, I find it tiring.
Zombie by Mr. Winston	Nov 25th, 2006 12:07:11 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more vehemently as per THE FOUNTAIN, but you are fucking making me laugh. I think you need some therapy and a rather heavy dose of Lithium, but still...
VERTIGO by THE KNIGHT	Nov 25th, 2006 12:10:00 PM
Not to even compare it to Hitchcock's greatness but I wonder if The Fountain will be considered a masterpiece in years to come... Everyone knows how much Vertigo was bashed when it first came out and it looks like the fountain is getting the same treatment...
ZombieSolutions, by georges garvaren	Nov 25th, 2006 12:17:47 PM
you seem to of come up with that Madonna b-side argument pretty easily. You wouldn't be a fan would you? You know the type of fan I’m talking about here; it’s the sort of boy who secretly enjoys something that forces strange feelings to arise inside him. He is unaccustomed to these new feeling and due to his unfortunate immaturity (usually the result of poor parental involvement during the early growth stages of a childs development) these new feelings are forcefully replaced with embarrassment and the inability to appreciate positive emotional reinforcement. So to rectify the strange emotions, he lashes out in an angry, childish tirade against the very thing he enjoys and those that have also partaken in said enjoyment. But I'm sure that's not the type of person you are because you do seem to be in possession of such a superior intellect. Perhaps you are the One the prophets have foretold; the One who will now lead us through our darkest two and a half hours. Oh Wisest One of Unimaginable Wisdom and Light, we kneel before your boundless supremacy and ask that you show us the way to the exit sign before we are washed into the tideless seas of a B-grade science fiction movie. Ya nit!.
Future Hugh by Turd Furgeson	Nov 25th, 2006 01:16:12 PM
I thought future Hugh was the last chapter of the book. The one she wanted him to write. So he wrote what he thought would keep them together. I got this from the telescope scene where she shows him that Myan death nebula. Anyway, wonderful film. Really enjoyed it.
Beautiful and audacious by Pabodie	Nov 25th, 2006 01:32:10 PM
The Fountain is a great example of what a film can be when it's creator has the control to execute his vision. The beauty of The F. is that D.A. respected us enough to give it to us straight. I think it both succeeds and fails beautifully. It's also a lot of fun to discuss over beers. Best film of the year.
zombie by dtpena	Nov 25th, 2006 02:23:13 PM
I quit. You're too stupid to even read my last two posts.
Zombie Mombie by georges garvaren	Nov 25th, 2006 02:44:42 PM
That is a good question: 'what Guru Aronovsky will follow up with next?" Im really not sure but I bet it will be a feature film that will most likely make its money back (therefore allowing for future film productions) and during the entire script writing process, location scouting, pre and post production, marketing, and press tour - whenever he has the chance - he'll bang the shit outta Weisz like she was a garbage can on fire. This topic has grown stale though, as I am sure you would agree, but it has been fun. Toodles till next time.
I wonder... by Novaman5000	Nov 25th, 2006 03:39:12 PM
if future Tommy isn't already dead. His journey to Xibulba in the tree sphere was his soul, post-death, going to it's final resting place, searching for Izzy, being forced to make peace with everything that had come before, being forced to "finish it" (the book, his life), and finally embracing death at the end. He imagines taking the walk with Izzy because he finally realizes that that's what's important, and instead of trying to beat death he should have been enjoying what time he had left.
I think future Tommy wasn't just a written chapter by Novaman5000	Nov 25th, 2006 03:44:58 PM
because present Tommy wasn't anywhere near a frame of mind where he would embrace death like that, so he wouldn't write anything like that (Unless it was what he wished he could do). So, either it is actually happening in real life, or it's some sort of supernatural death thing.
I also wondered... by Novaman5000	Nov 25th, 2006 03:47:00 PM
What if Tommy never did all that science discovery stuff and instead just spent the time with Izzy. That last scene we saw was what really happened, and everything else was him reimagining what might have happened had he tried to save her. Maybe he's regretting not trying hard enough. I don't know, there are many interpretations of this film.
Interesting Interpretation by Capt. Spaulding	Nov 25th, 2006 04:52:35 PM
That's what I love about this movie, it's going to be debated for decades. Name one other movie in recent memory that sparks CONVERSATION (beyond organic web shooters and Affleck sucks).
The Fountain by Dokkalvar	Nov 25th, 2006 07:33:28 PM
What have I learned from this film? That Aronofsky needs to stop making these silly films with their unnecessary repetition (yeah I got it already!) and start spending more time with Rachael Weisz.. before she's GONE.---- Now give me my 20 bucks back.
@ ZombieSolutions by Cyberfury	Nov 25th, 2006 07:55:52 PM
LOL!
Deeply flawed and hardly on par with Kubrick's film by acroyear77	Nov 25th, 2006 08:20:57 PM
Totten Tomatoes: 48%.
so.. by dtpena	Nov 25th, 2006 08:23:39 PM
zombiesolutions just made another account to lol himself... or there is someone as stupid as him out there... no I think the first one is more plausible.
Put a cape on 'em and I'd be way more interested by Immortal_Fish	Nov 25th, 2006 09:01:43 PM
Make mine Marvel, not Aranfosky.
Please remember... by Billyeveryteen	Nov 25th, 2006 09:05:09 PM
Zombie hates The Fountain, but finds Star Wars: RoTS perfect. Treat his opinions justly.
Anyone Else Think This Was A Time Travel Film, Before by The Ender	Nov 25th, 2006 09:37:22 PM
you actually saw it? I didn't see any previews but the original teaser, as I wanted to walk into this movie fresh. But from what I gathered I thought the movie was about a guy traveling through time to save a woman that he loves. I loved the idea. And aronofsky behind it, made me rejoice! I didn't get my time travel film (Aronofsky are you listening?) but I still think this movie was pretty brave film making, and I really enjoyed it. Zombiesolutions you seem pretty cool on the other boards, so I wont call you a cunt. but you're opinion of this movie is a salty little cunt.
acroyear77 by Mr. Winston	Nov 25th, 2006 10:02:33 PM
Remember, only critics reviews are on RM. Had this been 1968 and they were reviewing 2001, the count would be even less. Critics - Roger Ebert aside - largely hated the film when first released. So the notion that THE FOUNTAIN is somehow lesser simply judging by a critic meter doesn't hold up. In fact, the user rating on IMDb is 7.8/10. So who's to say it's "hardly on par"? It's certainly more accessible.
One thing I know..... by shellfishh	Nov 25th, 2006 10:41:43 PM
Any movie that encourages this much passion and debate, for AND against, is a movie worth seeing. Even if you loathe it, admire the experiment and be glad it's not a movie you forget about by the time you get to your car in the parking lot.
Good review and analysis... by Executor	Nov 25th, 2006 11:31:34 PM
...so-so movie. B+. I got it. I agree with everything Harry said as far as the themes and time frames. Just didn't affect me as much and thought more could have been done. Maybe his original "epic" would have wowed me. Now "Children Of Men"...that's some brilliance and brilliant directing...
Ribbons by readingwriter	Nov 26th, 2006 12:05:09 AM
I'm saying that I don't like a movie just because it attempts something different, but I can admire the moviemakers for not just making another popcorn muncher. A movie can FAIL and I can both enjoy it and admire it, while still admitting it failed--my favorite example of this being Alien 3, a pretty bad movie by my standards, and yet there is a valiant attempt to make something other than a slimy monster chase flick. So I am saying I can see that The Fountain is a movie that tries something beyond the ordinary (do I really need to explain what I mean when I say "the ordinary"?). Whether or not I liked the movie doesn't change the fact that it is different from most of the crap at the theater right now, that the director made an attempt to do something that hasn't been done before, and that even if I find his value system as expressed in the movie a crock, I can praise the filmmaker for attempting to make a more significant contribution to the world than the makers of, say, Daredevil, Blade 3, or The DaVinci Code.
Harry Nice Review. . .But as Empty as the Film Itself by ShelbyBach	Nov 26th, 2006 12:42:24 AM
Harry, thanks for the review. However, unlike your brilliant review of Pirates and Casino I've got to disagree with you. First of all, I'm going to have to explain how I measure and enjoy a film. It's different of course for all of us. I put filmgoing in today's times of cell phone IMs and constant connectivity on a par with going to church on Sunday. Yes, it's inconveninent and it costs money out of your pocket and you don't always agree with the sermon, but you feel so much better after the experience. I believe that going into a darkened theater filled with faceless patrons approximates the first religious experiences that man felt 50,000 years ago. Alone among others in the dark with little light watching the images flicker on the walls while the Shaman, a spiritual leader extols the 'rules of living' through epic tales and parables. We're human and we deeply desire this return to the cave. So Harry when I go to a film, and I do so multiple times to fully experience it on all levals; intellectual, emotional, spiritual I first look to the cave. How do I experience these messages from the shaman/director in the darkened theater. Do they move me? Do my fellows experience a catharsis as well? FYI I sat through The Fountain with no preconceived persumptions. I've written, pitched and loved Science Fiction for many, many years. More importantly I know what moves me. And frankly Harry while I agree with you that The Fountain is a well crafted and visually stunning Haiku. . .it deeply lacks a connection with the cave dwellers. I felt nothing watching this Shaman, felt nothing watching what were technically brilliant performances from top flight actors at the top of their game. Frankly, I was more easily moved and experienced more awe during a preview for In Pursuit of Happyness with Will Smith. Seriously, when this obviously poor man clutching his son dispossessed son in a filthy public bathroom forces his foot against the door to stop an intruder, tears streaming down his face. . . I openly wept. The Shaman of that preview presented in image and sound a simple morality tale of humanity versus the world that touched me in a profoundly human way. I wept and was one with the cave and my fellow theater goers/tribe. I wanted the same experience from The Fountain. It never happened. Don't get me wrong. I did not want a Love Story for the 2006 audience, "Death means never having to say your sorry!". What I wanted was simply to care about an obviously handsome and talented man and his beautiful wife who were ending, through death what was a deep and passionate relationship. I wanted to find meaning in Izzy's death that would transcend the pain and find wonder and redemption/sacrifice in her husband's valiant efforts and 500 year journey to find peace. Didn't happen. I wanted it to. But, walked out of the theater (by the way I sat through the entire picture, at least half of the audience I attended this film with LEFT before the closing credits) less engaged, less human than when I entered. So, I agree we should disagree Harry. It's a beautiful work that in my estimation missed the mark of connecting on the most human of levels. I didn't feel. And my ability to feel is the humanity that each and every artist especially in film must engage. Make my angry, make me cry I am an animal that revels in my ability to be manipulated by the Shaman. I will enter other caves with Mr. Aronofsky (sic) but not too soon.
Well, Shelby... by kintar0	Nov 26th, 2006 02:01:11 AM
if anyone ever wondered why your "written [and] pitched" sci-fi has been aparrently fruitless, they have only to read your post to learn the reason. A film made you feel less human, huh? Wow, you have some serious, serious emotional problems. If you honestly cried during the Pursuit of Happyness trailer, there truly is no hope for you. JDanielP, is that you? Is this me?
That you walked out of the theater... by readingwriter	Nov 26th, 2006 02:15:23 AM
..."less engaged, less human than when I entered" says a lot more about you than it does about the movie.
if you don't think this is genius...see it again by dragon-lord	Nov 26th, 2006 06:26:57 AM
Harry, you missed it. He finds the key to eternal life and lives for 500 years in order to reach Xibalba. It's pretty obvious that the seed he plants at the end is the tree that grows over her (remember the moses guide story). And he goes to the place he thinks she will be reborn, though, as we all know, he will die there...where he will finally rejoin her. You've seen it three times and yet you are still confused by a story I have seen just once. I'll cut you some slack because you still love it, and it's the first time we've ever agreed on a film. :) But I'll take ALL the levels the director intended, not just stop at yours (level 2). ;) Peace.
LOVED IT by white owl	Nov 26th, 2006 10:56:59 AM
damn right.saw it wednesday night with a half-packed audience and i think they all loved it as well. you know a movie is good, or at least incredibly thought-provoking when no one got up and left until about three minutes after it ended. including me. we all just sat there.. lost in the film. the way it is directed is fantastic. great movie, everyone must see it.
Since it seems a lot of by Gil Brooks	Nov 26th, 2006 11:39:42 AM
Since it seems a lot of people here have seen it, I don’t feel so bad going into spoilers. My interpretation is thus- Modern Tommy was the only literal thread in the film. His quest for a cure consumed him to the point of missing the obvious answers, and having the one he loved slip away. Even after Izzi died, he still quested for a cure, and an answer. Tomas’s story was Izzie’s view on how Tommy saw her and her condition- She was a queen that Tomas had devoted himself to, without question, and to go unwavering on a quest that would, in the end, consume him. Literally. That’s why the book was left unfinished- Izzi wanted Tommy to figure out this for himself, so he wouldn’t go down the same path. The future Tommy, to me, was a metaphor for Tommy’s internal struggle with Izzie’s death. He’s not really in space, being haunted by her ghost. The tree in these scenes is symbolic for his idea of her- something special, and dying, that has to be quested for. It’s not until the end that he realizes that Izzi appearing in front of him is really that voice in the back of his head, telling him that the answers were right in front of him- finish the book, see the path that you could go down, and use that to move forward without me. He finally realizes it, as he climbs the tree, jumps, and separates himself from it. This is in fact him letting go of Izzi. Notice the tree blooms as he goes into the star. That’s her living on, in the cycle of life, now that he’s moved on. Back in the literal world, he has given up his obsession, planted a seed over her grave, so she can live on. And so can he.
Finally saw this film last night... by rbatty024	Nov 26th, 2006 12:05:58 PM
and Aronofsky needs to be commended for doing something completely radical. That couldn't have been a cheap movie, and how he got it made I'll never know. My fingers are crossed that this does well this weekend so Aronofsky can make more tripped out sci-fi movies, or whatever the hell he has up his sleeves next.
Unfortunately rbatty024- by Gil Brooks	Nov 26th, 2006 01:06:11 PM
It's only made $5.4 millon since. Wed. But at least it's doing better than that horrible looking Tenacious D movie...
Finally... by Uncle Clay	Nov 26th, 2006 01:38:35 PM
after so long, a movie made for those with an IQ above 84. Thoughtful, interesting, and doesn't feel the need to explain everything to those who probably wouldn't even get the explanation. As I was leaving the theater yesterday, I overheard someone who said "fucking god-damn hippie movie, I hated it." Thus spake the epitome of the IQ of 84; one hopes he will enjoy Van Wilder 2.
Sorry, didn't love this movie by Cruel_Kingdom	Nov 26th, 2006 02:09:35 PM
I wanted very badly to love this movie. This movie felt very "Solaris" at times, and I love that movie despite the fact that so many don't. But every time I started to love this movie, I felt like Arnofsky alienated me again. I think this movie is beautiful, yet it fails big time in that it made me laugh unintentionally several times and most of the audience has no clue what the hell is happening on screen? Even when it's over, you cannot be sure. Sure, I'm all for ambiguous, but this movie is beyond ambiguous. This movie is pretensious and self-indulgent. And I don't want to hear that "only dummies will dislike it" argument, because I have a 169 IQ, have written seven published books (including a film text book), and found this movie distractingly absurd, frequently boring, and mostly just downright inaccessible. Art for art's sake is grand, but if the audience has no clue what the hell is happening, what is the point? Two hours of abstraction seems largely pointless. Every time the baldheaded Hugh Jackman raised his arms and flew into the sky I felt the urge to laugh. Sorry, this is a failed experiment to say the least. Nice try, Arnofsky. Better luck next time.
Cruel_Kingdom by dragon-lord	Nov 26th, 2006 03:43:30 PM
Your pretentiousness exceeds that of the movie you ignorantly condemn. I think the reason you've missed it is that you have clearly never truly loved and lost. Anyone who has been there and back again will see, even feel, the movie as the masterpiece of a "true love lasts forever" homage. I agree that there are missing scenes that could clarify it for everyone. I expect they were cut for budget, sadly. But if you don't "get it", see it again, or, more likely, go out of your self-important analytical box and truly love someone. If you do that, and then imagine losing them, you'll understand where the director and main character are coming from. What good does your IQ do you if you can't feel what it is to be human?
Zombie Solutions is brave! by dragon-lord	Nov 26th, 2006 03:45:09 PM
The bravest of retards, for evidence of his mental midget status is recorded here now for all to see. :)
Gil Brooks by dragon-lord	Nov 26th, 2006 03:47:56 PM
I find your analysis well reasoned and insightful, and clearly the film is intended to work on that level as well. :)
dragon lord, you are so wrong... by Cruel_Kingdom	Nov 26th, 2006 05:00:32 PM
I know loss, my friend. This is precisely why the moments of the film that did connect with me connected in the first place. The movies which resonate with me the most tend to be movies about loss (again, like Solaris). Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're wrong. I know the movie is supposed to be about loss, but it doesn't connect with me. Truth be told, the moment Jackman's character learns that he may have found the cure at the exact same moment Rachel dies almost caused me to cry. So your theory is incorrect.
Your name is dragon-lord by georges garvaren	Nov 26th, 2006 06:02:10 PM
should you really be commenting on other intelligence? Just asking.
Cruel_Kingdom by dragon-lord	Nov 26th, 2006 07:58:35 PM
A) I know loss B) I'm glad the movie did move you, but you made it seem it didn't C) My IQ is MUCH higher than yours, and I'm telling you, you missed it See it again.
Georges Garvaren by dragon-lord	Nov 26th, 2006 08:00:26 PM
My HANDLE/ALIAS is dragon-lord on this board. I'm not sure why you'd confuse a temp e-board handle with a real human name. If that's not a sign of YOUR lack of intelligence, I don't know what is. ;)
Just saw the movie a second time... by dragon-lord	Nov 26th, 2006 08:02:28 PM
I stand by my position that it is a work of genius, flawed by a weak A-plot (hence the missing scenes), but still one of the most truly romantic movies about love and loss ever made. And visually, it's a stunning tour-de-force.
Cruel re:loss by dragon-lord	Nov 26th, 2006 08:06:46 PM
I did not mean to demean anyone's pain, just that the hero's loss connected with the losses I have suffered. So, yes, THE FOUNTAIN moved me...completely. I'll take a million of these movies over 1 more Paul "this is a significant moment, really!" Haggis monstrosity. :)
can we all at least agree on the AWESOME soundtrack?! by dragon-lord	Nov 26th, 2006 08:15:37 PM
It's pretty damned great stuff, imho. :)
dragon lord sounds like a pretty smart name to me by Westonian	Nov 26th, 2006 08:40:04 PM
seriously....if someone is lording over dragons....he knows what the fuck he's doing.
The 'Review' by flashfast	Nov 26th, 2006 08:43:14 PM
Great review Harry. I was sure to see this before it, and feel better now since reading your mushroom laced opines. Great work.
Problem with Harry's review - only focuses on the past. by HappyHamster	Nov 26th, 2006 09:39:40 PM
(also put on my blog @ http://delolampkin.com/serendi pity/index.php?/archives/14-Th e-Fountain-Lots-of-movie-Spoil ers!.html) (I'm too lazy to proofread this too much today, so I apologize off the jump for gramatical errors :-) ). Saw an interesting movie at the theater today called The Fountain. It was made by Darren Aronofsky, the same guy who did "Reqiuem For a Dream"(read: a brilliant director). Afterwards, I read some reviews online such as Harry Knowles's review over at "Aint it Cool News and Roger Ebert's for the Chicago Suntimes. I'm not quite sure what I saw, but I'm pretty sure Harry's interpretation is "wrong". He gets himself into trouble by focusing so much on the book aspect of the story and the present timeframe, while virtually ignoring the futuristic aspects. In fact, the only sentence dealing with the future out of that review is this one: "If those memories 500 years in the future are real, then Hugh has lived for 500 years on a quest to die in the spot he knew Izzi believed she would be." And even this is "wrong". This is just lazy lip service to an aspect of the film that he otherwise ignores (though the rest of the review is great! :-) ). Roger Ebert goes over what we see on film, but doesn't give his interpretation of what happened (unlike Harry). Here's what I think happened: First I agree with Harry in part - the stuff in the past is fictional. The movie is wierdly shot so that it begins with scenes that are really chapters out of Izzi's book. However, the book itself isn't introduced until well after the movie begins. This is a nice loop-d-loop thrown by director/screenwriter. Anyway in the book, Tom's pursuit of a cure for his wife's cancer is paralleled by a Spanish Conquistidor's search for the Biblical Tree of Life for the Queen of Spain. Izzi never finishes her story - she leaves that for Tom (Big Point!). Anyway, Izzi dies in the movie. At Izzi's funeral, Tom becomes angry and yells at Ellen Bursten's character that "Death is a just another disease! It can be cured!". This is a Big Moment (capital 'B' and capital 'M'). This is the key point that Harry and Roger missed (and as far as I can tell, everyone else) - Tom finds the "cure" for death!. Future Guru/Yogi Tom is in actuality existing in the "present day" from the movie's perspective. The present-day Tom is actually existing in the past from the movie's perspective. The Conquistidor Tom is still a character in an unfinished book...which Izzi's memory/ghost continuously whispers for Tom to finish. So how'd that happen? Remember the cure for the brain tumor that Tom and his collegues discovered (though it was too late for Izzi). The cure came from a tree in Guatemala. I think after Izzi's death, Tom goes back to Guatemala, finds that "Tree of Life" and makes himself immortal. Warning: I'm now going to really go into speculation-land because this sequence of events is not explicitly covered in the film. The director leaves the audience to figure this out the stuff following Izzi's death on their own. Harry says future Tom is supposed to be 500 years into the future. Roger says it's a few thousand. Roger's answer seems more likely, but it's kind of beside the point. Tom lives a VERY long time and reaches a new level of englightment. The audience never sees this journey. We skip from Izzi's funeral straight to Tom floating in space, next to the Tree of Life he grabbed from Guatemala...heading straight for the Mayan Underworld/Heaven spoken of in Izzi's book and by Izzi herself - the nebula Chibalbon (I KNOW I'm spelling that wrong). I guess Tom figures if Izzi's book stumbled over the location of the Tree of Life, maybe she was right about the location of the Underworld/Heaven. So he uses his new super-powers/insights to pick up his Tree of Life, create a metaphysical spaceship, and travel to the nebula! The fate of the rest of mankind is unknown at this point. They could all be dead, they could all be at this higher enlightenment, or they might be doing something altogether different. During this time, Izzi repeatedly tells him to "finish it". At first, we (the audience) doesn't know what the hell she's talking about, but eventually we learn she's referring to the book. Future Tom STILL hasn't finished that thing (he's got serious procrastination issues)! He finally gets around to finishing the book when he reaches Chibalbon to rejoin his wife in the MayanUnderworld/Heaven. In a very dramatic scene in the movie, Future/Yogi/Guru Tom appears in place of storybook Tom who has been confronted by an "angel" with a flaming sword guarding the Tree of Life. Tom drinks the sap of the Tree and in turn becomes the Tree of Life. (Story ends) It's never explicitly revealed what Future/Guru Tom finds at the Chibalbon nebula (I may have to watch the movie again as I may have missed some clues at this point). He becomes awash in light and we are transported to the end of the story (just described) and we see an alternate present where Tom is given the choice of pursuing everlasting life or enjoying present with his wife...and Tom chooses the latter. Or seems to. In this alternate reality, Tom is handed one of those pricly tree seed thingamagigs by his wife (or her spirit). Presumably this is the seed for the Tree of Life, possibly the same one that Tom is floating around with in the future. Present-day Tom plants it at her grave and the movie ends. This is where the real mystery lies for me - was Tom handed that by his wife's future spirit? Did something wash over Future/Guru Tom to jump back to that critical point in the past? I suspect it's the latter, but a couple more viewings might reveal more. Anyway, that's my confused, rambling breakdown of The Fountain.
Lack of emotion = ignorant? by s00p3rm4n	Nov 26th, 2006 09:44:27 PM
There are some really fucking childish commenters in this board, for a film that tries so hard to feel intellectual. Anyway, I think it's ludicrous that some of you are calling people "ignorant" (and, more childishly, gay) for not enjoying or outright hating The Fountain. Just because you loved it doesn't make it good. Many people love the Eagles. Many people enjoy kimchee. Doesn't make it good. The Fountain was by far one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. But, to me, it felt entirely empty. Winston, I agree that Hugh reveals himself, but only to the extent that his character continually reveals one note - he's determined, and he loved her. That's not enough. Death is not a dramatic emotional change in a character. I know that's begging the formula, but hear me out. It's supposed to be a story about love conquering death that turns into a story about death conquering love. Sure. Grant that. What does that reveal about the human condition? What does that tell us about our lives, our loves? Nothing. It's some shmuck's wife dying and then him dying in a bubble. Call that a reducio ad absurdum if you will, but I demand a bit more of my characters than only their actions. We never get time to react, and neither do the characters. For once, I actually wanted a movie to be longer. Honestly, 15 or 20 minutes of more character work and it could've been Harold & Maude in Space instead of Love Story in A Bubble. (Spot the common thread between those two films and win a cookie!) Anyway, I hope no one thinks I'm "ignorant" for not basking in Aronofsky's utter perfection. I don't hate the guy and I didn't hate the movie. I just hate what it didn't do for me, what it could've done pretty easily. Oh, and I am gay, so feel free to leave that card in your deck.
Fountain by Cobbio	Nov 26th, 2006 10:04:56 PM
Thanks for the review, Harry. It was a good take on a thought-provoking film. I saw it last night and I completely understand why so many people laughed and guffawed after seeing it. But many scenes in the film stayed with me afterwards. Yes, the vagina tree sequences were a bit odd, I agree, ZombieSolutions. And yes, the floating in lotus position through space sequences were almost too earnest and serious for their own good. But with all that said, I still enjoyed the film. My take on it is far different from anyone else's here, which shows me that Aronofsky's film is capable of many, many interpretations. My take on it was pure science fiction, not metaphysics. To me, it played out a human distant orgin theory. The nebula was where the progenitors of humanity came from, a possible human-looking alien race. They landed on Earth millenia ago and set up a system whereby their offspring would be able to check back in when a certain level of technological competence had been reached. I know this take might sound wacky to people with cycle-of-life interpretations, but we all saw Jackman spinning through a nebula 500 years in the future. In my mind, there's no other interpretation besides Jackman completing his futuristic goal. I respect anyone's alternate view of Aronofsky's story, though. It's certainly a wide-open landscape. I'm not sure if I'd call "The Fountain" a "masterpiece," as others here have done, but I certainly enjoyed the distant origin theory playing out in a very dramatic and personal way. Maybe I'll consider it a masterpiece at some point soon.
It might be tolerable on acid... by NapoleonDynamite	Nov 26th, 2006 10:07:29 PM
..it might even seem deep in the same way that Pink Floyd seems deep when you're on acid. Personally, I thought it was pretentious, mock=profound, atsy-fartsy, pothead masturbation. The milk-sap coming out of the tree is an awkward, unintentionally laughable image. Wolverine turning into a tree even more so. The ending is obtuse and unsatisfying, the love story is tiresome and played and the underlying "message" is really nothing but a trite platitude ("live for the moment" basically -- how fucking inspired). I probably would have been really impressed when I was a pretentious, 19 year old stoner.
HappyHamster... by NapoleonDynamite	Nov 26th, 2006 10:11:35 PM
The seed-pod thing she gives him symbolizes the book, which in turn symbolizes...I don't know, memories, consciousness, the NOW? Some shit like that. I'm still not exactly sure how that ties into the pussy-tree, though.
dragon-lord, by georges garvaren	Nov 26th, 2006 10:27:15 PM
you're the equivalent of a urinary track disease - you make me piss my pants. I honestly thought your given name was Dragon-lord and that you lived in some magical land where dragons are plentiful and need constant overseeing by a strong, knightly figure such as yourself. Do me this favor, before you die, please send a self-addressed envelope to me detailing where your burial plot is located so that I may visit your corpse - along with my dedicated posse of fellow dragon loving, kingdom dwelling, fairy dust sprinkling, templar’esc knights - so that we may give you the respectful burial that a courageous solder of the roundish table deserves. May the one and true King bless you, brave knight and please take due care in your many dragon related adventures as I hear them bitches can burn.
s00p3rm4n by Mr. Winston	Nov 26th, 2006 11:01:37 PM
I hear you. Though I loved this film I can understand the reasons why it might not mix with someone else - it's one of the reasons I'm telling some people to see it right away and others not to waste their time. And I'll be totally honest with you: if I thought for even one second that the Scientist (2005) story was even remotely literal I wouldn't have liked this story at all and I would have thought it was QUITE pretentious. In fact, I would have thought it was a waste of time. Rather, I took some clues from the stories that made me look at the film in another way. And while I agree with you that Jackman's character works on one note for much of the film, I don't think this it's totally pervasive. My feeling is that there is a large emotional range for both Tom and Izzi built into the characters that they create for each other. It's not that death brings about an emotional change in a character - it's that it's a catalyst to reexamine a life. One could argue as to whether or not this happened for them in this film. For me it did.
Saw it Thanksgiving morning. Hated it. by McGsStepson	Nov 26th, 2006 11:05:15 PM
Just really pretentious crap in my opinion. I "got it." I just did not "like it." The story within a story is borderline insulting AND a joke and this film should no way ever be mentioned in the same sentence as 2001.
saw it this afternoon. Loved it. by oisin5199	Nov 26th, 2006 11:48:25 PM
I gotta say I can't remember if I've ever had such an intense, transcendent experience watching a film at the theatre. My jaw was on the floor and my tearing eyes popping out of my head for the final scenes. It will take me a while to process all the layers of meaning and image. And 'getting it' isn't just about understanding the plot. It's about unpacking the imagery and understanding and experiencing the emotion behind it. There was this very interesting 81 year old man sitting behind us who was weeping during the film and he told us afterwards how he understood the film and about losing someone that you're so connected to. As I begin to unpeel the layers behind this emotional onion, I'll probably have more to say. But I think an appreciation for the hermetic, particularly the relationship between microcosm and macrocosm, and the esoteric, particularly the alchemical and the balance between the masculine and feminine archetype certainly allows for a rich perspective on the film. I do think this is a genius film that transcends (there's that word again) the genre and I'm not afraid to say so. Is there such a term as ritual cinema?
a few more thoughts. It's not about Love. by oisin5199	Nov 27th, 2006 12:14:46 AM
I think that people who are going on about this movie being about eternal love, especially Zombie Solutions' childish thumbing his nose at the concept of love in general (and how's that working out for you by the way? I'm sure you're just fine with your plastic girlfriend) are completely missing the point. This movie is NOT about love. It's about fear. Tommy's despearate actions are out of fear, of losing his loved one. But ultimately it's a fear of death. And not just Izzie's. His OWN. When he finally comes to the realization in the bubble and says 'I'm going to die' he starts to get it. It's all about our own mortality. I would argue that his separation from the bubble at the end is not just letting go of Izzie, it's letting go of his attachment to his fear of death. When he violently penetrates the Tree with his knife, he's overtaken and has to separate himself from that urge to take life. Thus, the receptive lotus posture. And I'm definitely in the camp that takes neither the past or the future scenes as literal, that he lives for thousands of year or anything like that. They are both metaphors for the journey one has to take in dealing with death - when someone we love dies, we mourn them but we also mourn ourselves, our own mortality and our own attachment to this world. To me, I can see the 2001 comparisons, but whereas 2001 dealt more with a broader cultural sense of death and rebirth (or moments of intense evolutionary change), this film focuses on the more personal journey through death (2001 was more macro, and the Fountain is more micro). And let's face it, you can't call anything the 2001 of today because of the different times - today, the cinema (and music, for instance) market is so saturated that it's next to impossible for a single work to have such a huge cultural impact as works did 40 years ago. One last thing - you gotta give Aronofsky props for bringing together the Kronos Quartet and Mogwai for an incredible soundtrack. Who would have thought to bring those two together? But what a perfect match.
Impressions from trailer by adeepercut2k	Nov 27th, 2006 12:51:09 AM
I HAVE NOT WATCHED THIS MOVIE, PLEASE DON'T PILE ON THIS POST...i.e. no offense intended. But to me, from watching the trailers, it seems like a "guy's" film on love. Kinda like the way there's conquistadors and sickness to be 'fought' and some weird sci/fi tossed in. Are there any other characters involved in the story? Or is it just the two? Seems like a sappy 'guy's love story.' I don't know, I guess I just have to go see it. P.S. to Georges...why would you say fuck Solaris...have you seen Tarkovski's film/s? I mean it's not his greatest film, I find Stalker and Nostalgia to be his stronger films. Or did you read the sci/fi novel and expect a more sci/fi film?
oops... by adeepercut2k	Nov 27th, 2006 12:54:03 AM
I meant Stalker, Nostalgia, AND Mirror
Westonian by dragon-lord	Nov 27th, 2006 12:54:31 AM
Cracked me up. Thanks, mate. :) Whereas Georges seems out to lunch. How else were we supposed to interpret your earlier post? ;)
Oison5199 by dragon-lord	Nov 27th, 2006 01:00:30 AM
Pretty friggin good post. People are afraid to love, because they are afraid to lose it. And why shouldn't we? I have truly loved and horribly lost and while I wouldn't trade those wonderful moments for anything in the world, I wouldn't wish the death of a soulmate on my worst enemy. I think 2001 screwed up its ending, but they are two entirely different films. Your micro vs. macro contrast is a good one.
the 81 year old man gets it... by dragon-lord	Nov 27th, 2006 01:05:38 AM
...and so will anyone who is (un)lucky enough to outlive someone they truly, deeply love more than themselves. Transcendent is indeed the word for this...and the music is what places you there in preparation for the imagery. See this even once in a theater just for the final scenes. You will never forget that moment for as long as you live. I promise.
zombiesolutions rules!!! by wolvenom	Nov 27th, 2006 01:08:26 AM
Personally, I have trouble believing that this films achieves a total illumination on the human condition and some all knowing powerful catharsis through existentiallism by plumbing through themes of life and death (like some of you people are saying it does).... I agree with zombiesolutions that this movie is for the starry-eyed college kids with their belief in 'soul-mates' and stoners. Anyone who has lived for any fucking time on this planet knows for a fucking fact that there is no such thing as a 'soul-mate' and biology is is where its at. To tie in the theme of 'love' with 'immortality' as aronofsky is doing with this film is boring. We all know that sex organs, chemicals, and interpersonal relationships are what makes babies,... not some idealized 'love' that is the key to understanding the purpose of life. I would like to think that the meaning of life is more than making babies and fucking. Atleast 2001 didn't pull in that droopy eyed listless lovey dovey bullshit into its highly intellectual and provactive attempt at explaining our existence.
It's about love, death..and obsession. by HappyHamster	Nov 27th, 2006 01:52:38 AM
When Tom sees his wife dying, he becomes obsessed with "curing" death, even after his wife dies. Note his rant at Ellen Burstyn ("Death is a disease and can be cured!"). Tom succeeds in his quest to cure death and outlives to reach a new level of enlightment/evolution (see my original post). This is very similiar to the Star Child in 2001. Tom is able to reach Heaven in his physical form (and just in time since the Tree of Life dies right as he gets there!). It's implied that he becomes reunited with Izzi, though this isn't quite explicitly shown.
dragon-lord understands: TOM finds eternal life! by HappyHamster	Nov 27th, 2006 02:04:29 AM
Very few people seemed to get this - the stuff at the end is "real". Tom cures death (via the Tree of Life that saves that baboon) just as he set out to do. He uses that tree to live until he reaches a new stage of enligtenment. And then he goes looking for his wife in...Xiabiala? That sounds much better then the word I used (http://www.aintitcool.com/tal kback_display/30805#comment_13 27466) - Chibalbon. :) Just for my information, where are you guys getting this "500" year gap thing from? It seems to me that Tom was around for FAR longer than 500 years.
wolvenom & Oison5199 by Mr. Winston	Nov 27th, 2006 02:48:58 AM
Responding to this, wolvenom: >>Personally, I have trouble believing that this films achieves a total illumination on the human condition and some all knowing powerful catharsis through existentiallism by plumbing through themes of life and death (like some of you people are saying it does)....I agree with zombiesolutions that this movie is for the starry-eyed college kids with their belief in 'soul-mates' and stoners.
I'm sorry what's your point mr. winston? by wolvenom	Nov 27th, 2006 02:56:21 AM
That my grammar is a bit fucked up? I'm sorry english isn't my native language fuckhead, but i stand by what I said.
No by Mr. Winston	Nov 27th, 2006 03:27:16 AM
In fact I wrote three paragraphs after that. I don't know what happened to them. Let me try to recreate and hope they get posted this time. And perhaps you might try to calm down a little, yeah? In responding to the quote from my previous post, I want to point out that I don't believe anyone thinks that this film is about the totalitarian human experience and isn't supposed to speak on a bunch of different existential levels. It's about one man and the pain and fear that radiate from his love for a woman - and his insane drive to keep her from dying. In fact, I think it's incredibly shortsighted to claim that this is TRYING to be more than that. What I've come to realize is that most people who dislike this film (and especially those to really hated it) appear to be enraged that Araonofsky WASN'T trying to be more philosphical or expound about the profundity of the Universe. He was merely trying to say something about the human condition on a personal scale, on an intimate level. And the moviegoers who can't grasp this are taking it out on the director for not giving them basis on which to build or deconstruct their ideas of how the Universe works. That, I think, is incredibly sad. You created an interesting hypocrisy when you claimed that human beings are driven solely by biology. That's a point that's not only horribly overstated but scientifically indeterminate at present. True, we know much about our physiology and the chemical reactions within our bodies (and many are quick to claim the ever-so-popular model that the feelings of "love" can be created on a biochemical level by eating chocolate). At the same time, we know next to nothing about consciousness and what makes the human brain catalyze those chemical reactions. We know the source, but not much about it. My point therein is that there's nothing to "get" about this movie. It's not a state on the nature of the Universe or a scientific and philosophical extrapolation of the human condition. It's an examination of one man who's genuinely special in that he IS able to feel so much for another person. And it's a further exploration of how that tears him apart - and how he comes to grip with the realization that he has no control. Others have tried to make it much more than that, and they seem to be the ones dissatisfied with their experience. So point all the fingers (and call all the names) you want, wolvenom. I'm not inclined to justify my tastes, especially to someone with such juvenile tendencies. Oison5199, I think you hit on an important chicken/egg situation with the themes in this movie. It's not that it's NOT about love or it IS about the dear of death - it's about all of them. Love is able to exist because there is death and there is a terminal quality to this life, and fear exists on that plane because death begets an emotion that strong. It's all-inclusive. And I think your simply-stated idea about 2001 and THE FOUNTAIN being a macrocosm and microcosm of the same basic principles, respectively, was rather brilliant. I will stand by my belief, however (and I think you feel the same) that the two films are only very loosely related.
The tree goo look liked cum... by Cruel_Kingdom	Nov 27th, 2006 03:28:32 AM
Just sayin'.
By the way... by Cruel_Kingdom	Nov 27th, 2006 03:30:12 AM
Why does someone have to be labeled as stupid just because this movie doesn't resonate with them?
Can I Ask a Serious Question? by Mr. Winston	Nov 27th, 2006 03:45:32 AM
I don't want to get too off-topic here, but something was bugging me... Some of THE FOUNTAIN's haters have referred to Aronofsky as a pretentious hack, even when they admit that they liked some of his earlier films. And Uwe Boll gets a lot of (deserved) negative action here, but he's not trying to be a serious filmmaker either. At least not profound or artistic, anyway. Then there's Michael Bay. And sometimes Kevin Smith. And others. How come no one ever mentions perhaps the most pretentious and hackly director working today, Gus Van Sant? He's awful. I mean he's fucking awful. Unless a script falls into his lap (GOOD WILL HUNTING was incredible and FINDING FORRESTER was at least serviceable) this guy is an absolute train wreck. Have you seen ELEPHANT? LAST DAYS? Fucking GERRY? I mean...a shot-for-shot remake of PSYCHO? There are ways to speak about the infinite emptiness and sadness in humanity without actually showing ten minutes of labored, wordless walking on film. And yet no one ever mentions the fact that he's absolutely humped all the bad habits out of Stanley Kubrick's ever-rolling-over-in-grave corpse. So...someone explain that to me. Especially in light of the absurd discussion that Aronofsky was trying to "copy" 2001; Van Sant's been Xeroxing Kubrick for years and no one ever mentions it.
Cruel_Kingdom by dragon-lord	Nov 27th, 2006 04:31:19 AM
I think I would label you as a neanderthal because of your post calling the tree sap "cum". Your homophobia/fantasies are showing through. That completely shattered any pretense you had of actually being engaged in a discussion that is clearly beyond your grasp. :(
Bravo Winston by dragon-lord	Nov 27th, 2006 04:35:30 AM
You're right on the money on the list of REAL hacks. I think the ending for THE FOUNTAIN is vastly more successful that Kubrick's mess at the end of (his otherwise genius) 2001 or Spielberg's mess of an ending(s) for (an otherwise genius) A.I. If this is where this director is at by his third film...I'm REALLY looking forward to where he's going to be in a few films from now. :)
See! HappyHamster gets it! by dragon-lord	Nov 27th, 2006 04:39:59 AM
Is "georges" going to equate his IQ with his handle, or is he going to run off in another non-sequitur tirade? The world yawns in anticipation.
Wolvenom is never been in love by dragon-lord	Nov 27th, 2006 04:44:04 AM
I mean really, deeply, "I can't fucking believe the two of us are so perfectly matched in every way, I can't breathe when you're gone" LOVE. I hope you find that. And when you do, you'll understand that biology's only the half of it...maybe less. :)
Fountain sucked! by Dazzler69	Nov 27th, 2006 06:37:53 AM
Don't bother with this movie. It's not even a rental. Only good parts are the past shots with the medieval shots which is 10-15 mins tops. Wait for an edit for youtube. It's like a big long music video with no idea what's it's about.
It is you who do not understand, Dragon-lord by Cruel_Kingdom	Nov 27th, 2006 08:11:14 AM
that I don't give a shit, you arrogant little piss ant. I'm a homophobe because I think the tree goo looks like cum? Are you freaking kidding me? If you think I'm a homophobe, why don't you ask your dad? I'm sure he will paint you a different picture. Bwahahahahaha! How's that for neanderthal, you arrogant douche bag? The only thing I find with homoerotic undertones is your blatant sucking of Arnofsky's tree of life.
This movie was a noble failure by BobParr	Nov 27th, 2006 08:19:21 AM
Harry's interpretation was interesting and does explain the confusing, choppy ending. But so what! In some ways it hurts the movie even more. When did Hugh Jackman have this massive, intricate fantasy of immortality? I guess this is supposed to be an "Owl Creek Bridge" type of thing where the whole thing happens in an instant. Enough of that shit! From what I read it was a more straight forward, less romantic (sappy) movie when Brad Pitt was attached. Then Aranofsky fell in love and became a huge pussy and made a Sci-fi chick movie. AICN will continue to claim to love this movie because this is a movie that they are SUPPOSED to like. I'm sure they were bored to tears watching it in the theater.
Re- Dragon Lord and tree cum by BobParr	Nov 27th, 2006 08:27:04 AM
DL, It was white and sticky and Hugh Jackman was playing with it between his fingers before swallowing it up. Do you think maybe it was supposed to look like cum? The tree bringing life and all. Why even bothering arguing a point when all you can do is call somebody some kind of "phobe" or "ist"?
Why all the "stoner" hate? by Billyeveryteen	Nov 27th, 2006 09:36:01 AM
You don't need to be high to enjoy 2001, or The Fountain, or The Wall. I just choose to be.
wow, you people really need to get out of your heads by oisin5199	Nov 27th, 2006 09:59:32 AM
I still think that trying to interpret this film literally is a big mistake. I think we get a big clue when Aronofsky says 'it's not science fiction' - if he had written a movie about a guy who comes up with a cure for death and lives 1000 years and travels around space in a snowglobe, then that would be scifi. If you want to go the literal route, at least you might interpret the scenes in the future as Tommy's vision of the final chapter of Izzie's story. Doesn't the repetition of the phrase 'finish it' indicate Tommy's constant reminder that Izzie wanted him to finish the story (thus finishing his attachment to his fear of death)? And doesn't the fact that the movie ends with the 'real' Tommy planting a seed on his wife's grave indicate something? I guess you could argue that this doesn't prove anything because of the non-linear structure of the film, but even then, it's a weak argument. You have to go into this movie with your senses open and experience it as an emotional and spiritual event. If you're not willing to do that - if that's asking too much of you as an audience member, then you'll probably hate this film. And Wolvenom - you seem to have not read my earlier post. Love does NOT conquer all here. In fact, the opposite. This isn't What Dreams May Come. Yes, I've lived long enough to know there's no such thing as soulmates - at least not the sugary concept that pop culture has fed us. But 'love' is just a metaphor for bonding, chemical, alchemical, biological, what have you (which is why there was so much fractal imagery. Again, micro/macro.) And if that's not amazing and mystical and magical, I don't know what is. What happens with futureTommy is that he is able to break away from the bond of love (what held him in the tree bubble) and proceed onwards into eternity. Love is an attachment and the eastern religion imagery, the mandalas and lotus position, certainly seem to indicate a move towards non-attachment. Even if soulmates don't exist, it's certainly a great idea worth exploring as a metaphor for our condition. There's no such thing as organic spaceships, but they're in the movie too. But again, the point of the film (imo) is to transcend the notion of soulmates to be complete in one's self.
What's with the hate? by Mooly	Nov 27th, 2006 10:29:54 AM
I can see why some people wouldn't like the movie, and why critics would be divided. It is too wierd for a mainstream audience, but too mainstream for the cult crowd to follow. I can even understand some of the people who say the movie is boring. I really enjoyed the movie but felt like the repetition was causing some drag in the middle. However, what I don't get is the people who find the movie confusing or hard to follow, or those who say it's just bad. The movie is well made, beautiful to watch, emotional and probably the best performance so far of Jackman. I felt the movie was quite easy to understand. You have a tale of love, loss and obsession. You also get visual portrayals of the characters interpretation of what is happening. In Izzi's version, whcih she writes down, the hero is obsessed and willing to die for a quest that is neither realistic or believable. In Jackman's version, the hero is obsessed and willing to travel to the stars, but really is just running away from truth and reality. One could possibly interpret the future reality as Jackman actually overcoming the disease of death and traveling into the future to save the tree which provides eternal life...but I doubt it. I too believe this is a fiction. A metaphorical version of how Jackman views his quest. It is no doubt that Izii's version is violent and barbaric while Jackman's version is seen as science fiction, or more peaceful considering his obsession with science.
knowthyself by Mr. Winston	Nov 27th, 2006 12:20:19 PM
"To say that this part of the story isn't real is really to miss the point entirely." One could also say that you've taken too literally a few obvious pieces of symbolism. One could also say that it's YOU who missed the point. Try not to speak in absolutes.
Future as a metaphor. by Mooly	Nov 27th, 2006 12:29:20 PM
I agree with Harry's take. First of all, it is clear in the future version that Hugh believes the tree is his wife. However, he keeps himself alive by feeding on the tree. Why would the tree he planted on his wife's grave be a tree of eternal life. In the real world the wife says that planting a tree on the grave means the person will become part of the tree and a part of anyone/anything that feeds from the tree. There is never any suggestion that the tree is THE tree of eternal life. I believe the future world is Jackman's version of what is happening to counter his wife's story. The tattoo rings on his arms represent the amount of time wasted chasing a cure that he could have spent with his wife in her time of need. His feeding on the tree to sustain himself represents his selfishness for wanting her to live. IN the real world he ignores her and what she believes while in the future he feeds off of her to sustain himself. As a result his selfishness does nothing to help his wife and only seems to make her death come that much quicker for him. Finally, the future Hugh being tormented by memories of his wife telling him to finish it clearly point back to her wishes for him to finish the book she wrote. However, he is ingoring this wish insisting her doesn't know how it ends. In reality he just can't accept that it WILL end. The point when the tree dies is the point where Hugh finally realizes his folly and the time he wasted and all his mistakes. At this point he essentially becomes enlightened, finishes her story (appropriately for what he has learned) and everything ties together as he tries to make ammends for the mistakes in his past. In the present he says death is a disease and he will find a cure. But at no point does he say the cure will be for her. It is about his own fears and his own obsession. An obsession that we can only assume he realized was stupid when he planted the tree for his wife, or when everything ties up in the movie.
Finally, I agree 100 % with Harry by hktelemacher	Nov 27th, 2006 12:59:23 PM
And I don't think any of what Aronofsky does here is simplistic or hamfisted. It's not subtle, but in making the film play out as a kind of puzzle to be put together he allows/forces the audience to conclude as to the themes on their own. Does it take a particular kind of genius to decipher what he was trying to say? No, it's easy and obvious, but I don't think he ever spells things out -- hence, all of the debate as to what was real and what wasn't. That's not the big picture. Harry's correct though, the only stuff that was "real" within the reality of the movie were the contemporary segments, the past and future parts echoed and reflected them in symbolic, hyperbolic and entertaining terms. Cynics hate this movie because it's a big wet kiss about denial and acceptance and not Kubrickian precision cold sci-fi. I don't think it's a mess by any means, not even a "noble failure" -- it was a success that, of course, split the audience right down the middle and made no money. Classic in the making, right? At the risk of dropping in a Harry-esque "I have a girlfriend!" plug - my girlfriend did in fact sob through the last twenty or so minutes - so it tugs those strings for sure. Of course, she also cried at the WE ARE MARSHAL trailer so that could discredit that. Little detail - I like that Tom tattooed rings on himself like a tree, and that the quest for the tree quite literally consumed the conquistador Tom. And see, I don't find those images heavyhanded. I think Kubrick, Tarkovsky and especially Jodorowsky (it shares a great deal with his comic book work) would be entertained, if not accepting.
Symbolic, yes! Symbolic for shittiness! by Cruel_Kingdom	Nov 27th, 2006 01:14:40 PM
Symbolic for half-assed pseudo-intellectualism. Symbolic for boring and laughable. Yes, the film is filled with metaphors...
Vagina Tree: Ode to Rachel Weisz's stems, buds & flower by wolvenom	Nov 27th, 2006 02:22:27 PM
I figured it out. This movie is basically Reqiuem for a Dream' all over again. Except instead of drugs and addiction, its love and addiction. I have felt 'love' before. I even believed in the notion of a 'soulmate' at one point in my life. The relationship devastated me when it came to an end. Then I took some courses in psychology about the nature of the brain and emotions. One of my professors likened the chemicals that induce love to the chemicals in cocaine that produce the high. The feelings I got after the relationship was over were more closely related to a feeling of withdrawl from a drug addiction. 'love' and cocaine both work most of the same chemicals of serotonin, dopamin, norepinephrine etc. When you are given a strong dose of those chemicals long enough, you begin to get this 'notion' of love. Its like how a heroine addict may testify to how they feel they have a love affair with the needle. The going to get the drugs, the ritual, and the effects are to them more than just a chemical reaction. It helps explain why people with more addictive personalities have more trouble getting over a relationship than people with less addictive personalities. So in conclusion this movie is nothing but a confused aranofsky attempting to explain his addiction to rachel weisz's vagina tree.
Hey... by Godardwhowhatnow	Nov 27th, 2006 02:30:08 PM
That ZombieSolutions guy is an asshole! Wow!
Knowthyself by Mooly	Nov 27th, 2006 03:16:55 PM
Maybe people make things symbolic because very few people actually are able to create truly random thoughts without reason or meaning behind them. In fact, I would argue that not even YOU believe your own arguement as you yourself attempt to find meaning in the event you claim is non-symbolic and random. I would also add, that there are too many connetions and comparisons in the movie between the future tree and the present wife...words he says to her, the hairs rising as he nears, etc. So I think this contradicts the view that the future tree is the tree of life that he went and found. And as I've said before, if the future tree was the one he plants himself

Talkbacks

Harry contemplates and celebrates Darren Aronofsky's THE FOUNTAIN!