Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

One spy turns his nose up to Aronofsky's FOUNTAIN!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with a little bit of rain on the happy parade that were those first two reviews from the recent test screening of THE FOUNTAIN by Darren Aronofsky. Gatsby here didn't care for the flick and he's not shy on tellin' ya' it failed for him. I get the same kind of vibe from reading Gatsby's review that I get when reading someone's thoughts on why DONNIE DARKO isn't as good as people are saying it is. I'm not putting this reviewer down. It's a legitimate opinion and one I may very well agree with when I see the film. I hope not. I really want this one to be amazing. In that way I hope I'm right about the DONNIE DARKO comparison because I fuckin' loved DONNIE DARKO. Anyway, beware of spoilers. Here's "Gatsby."

Hey Harry,

Gatsby here, I wrote in previously with an Elizabethtown review that you published. I wasn't going to write in, but after reading the 2 reviews posted this morning, I had to say something. I was at the Fountain screening last night as well, and all I can say to Mega-Swarm and Filmburst is that we must've been at two different movies.

They told us this was the first screening, but judging by the looks of it, all the effects and music were complete, so this wasn't any type of work-in-progress. To frame what I'm about to say properly, let me say that all of the people I was with were VERY excited to see Aronofsky's new movie. We've all seen Pi and Requiem, and LOVED them. We expected a great movie.

To best sum up our reaction to the film, all I can say is that my friend leaned over to me in the middle of the screening and whispered, "Somebody's about to lose a LOT of money."

I feel bad about talking the film down because it really does ASPIRE to brilliance, it just fails to reach it.

Summary: There's 3 distinct storylines--1) that of Jackman and Weisz as a Conquistator and the Queen of Spain during the Inquisition, when she sends him after the Mayan tree of life as a method to free Spain from the grip of Inquisitors. 2) A modern medical story where Weisz is dying from a brain tumor, and Jackman is her husband, a medical researcher trying to find a cure. A process that uses material from a very rare tree in South America, and 3) a section of Jackman as a monk-like man floating towards the heavens in a bubble with a tree that gives him life and visions of Weisz as both the Queen and the tumor-lady.

I wanted to like this film SO BAD. But 5 minutes in, it felt like I was watching the longest, biggest-budgeted pretentious student film in history. The film is ONLY about an idea. And the ideas are interesting, but there is no drama on which to hang these thoughts.

The Conquistador story has the most interest, in fact, one of the things I learned by watching this film is that I would really enjoy a good Conquistador story. The medical drama is so thoroughly predictable and paint by numbers that it wouldn't equal a decent hour-long episode of a TV medical drama. And finally, the scene in the bubble--well let me say this. I WISH watching a man pull a piece of bark from a tree and suck on it was as interesting as watching paint dry.

I'm sorry I'm coming off so negative. All of us who went afterwards were talking about how bad we felt for not liking this film. In fact, on the review cards they had us fill our afterwards, there were a series of words they wanted us to chose from to describe the film, and weirdly enough, all of us chose Boring and Imaginative to describe it. So obviously something has gone seriously awry.

The filmmaking overall is actually pretty good. Great visuals--and the ending is cool as hell, with flowers bursting out of Jackman. There is another scene at the end however that is a little ridiculous. Conquistador Jackman eventually finds the tree and stabs it with a knife, causing semen-like sap to spew forth from the trunk. Jackman then begins to lap up the semen in a scene my friend compared to "Brokeback Fountain."

The whole film was shot in extreme close-ups on a really long lens, meaning that all you really saw for much of the film was eyeballs. And seeing a ton of tight shots in a row is sort of inherently boring--rather than bringing you into the mind's of the characters, it eventually creates a wall between you where you start to back away mentally for some breathing room.

All in all--a tremendous disappointment. I mean--I AM their target audience. I often like slow movies--Kiarostami's The Taste of Cherry is one of my favorites.

But the ideas in The Fountain are pretty unoriginal--Don't bury yourself in the search for meaning when it's there every moment right in front of you, blah blah blah. For a slow movie to be good, it's gotta be gripping. It has to offer you a reason to keep watching. It has to hold a mystery as to where you are ultimately going--and for anyone who has been to the movies a couple of times, The Fountain isn't going to hold that mystery.

For all those who might think I didn't "get it" --I got it. I get that he died by finishing her story by tattooing himself with ink from her pen. I understand the intellectual ideas at play. I got it all, the movie just didn't make me CARE about it.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

Gatsby



Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 31, 2006 7:04 AM CST

    Seriously - thanks a big fat fucking bunch

    by Samson_K

    For posting a review that seems to be just a huge big fuck off giant spoiler! Really - it makes the movie going process so much more enjoyable when you find yourself reading a review by Spoiler-Boy!!! And I'm not levelling the blame purely at the reviewer - I also think that the word EDITOR should mean that you do a little bit of EDITING now and again and warn your readers of the fact that a review has an inordinately high amount of spoilage!

  • March 31, 2006 7:07 AM CST

    And of course you did warn us

    by Samson_K

    And I am an enormous fuckwit! I do think that a spoilers tag in the heading would have been better though!!!

  • March 31, 2006 7:09 AM CST

    Which there is

    by Samson_K

    I might have had a stroke or something!

  • March 31, 2006 7:14 AM CST

    No

    by BatMeister

    Thank God he didnt get the batman gig

  • March 31, 2006 7:17 AM CST

    Samson...

    by brycemonkey

    can you remember your name? Can you recite the alphabet? Slightly concerned for you, but on the plus side I didn't read the review due to your posts ;-)

  • March 31, 2006 7:26 AM CST

    Interesting COmparison...

    by drew mcweeny

    ... by Quint, since I was one of the people who saw DONNIE DARKO at Sundance in 2001 and said at the time that I thought it was a mixed bag at best. I can see why some people love it, but I think the film is a lot less than the sum of its parts. Here's hoping I'm in the "loved it" camp on THE FOUNTAIN after how long I've been looking forward to it.

  • March 31, 2006 7:29 AM CST

    Brycemonkey - do you know where my house is?

    by Samson_K

    I can bizarrely remember what I had for my breakfast on this date in 1973 though - so Stroke's out Alzheimers is in!

  • March 31, 2006 7:44 AM CST

    Well in that case...

    by brycemonkey

    you still haven't paid me back that 50...(repeat every 1/2 hour)

  • March 31, 2006 8:05 AM CST

    I hope this reviewer is wrong

    by moviemaniac-7

    Since I love Aranofsky's work so far. But the Brokeback Fountain remark was worth it. If there are two movies I am looking forward to this year, it's this one and Southland Tales. Maybe the hype-surpassing-the-movie is also dripping into the more indie-movies (although with these budgets it's hard to call it indie anymore). I was used to it with big budget Hollywood summer flicks, but it would be a shame if this movie disappointed. The idea is good, now the execution...

  • March 31, 2006 8:19 AM CST

    I'm Jealous

    by LucienPierce

    I wish I could see THE FOUNTAIN right now! All I've seen is the teaser and visually the very little that the teaser showed, was outstanding. I'm beyond a fan of Aronofsky (Along with Fincher, Cameron, Tony Scott and a couple others) he is a man who I will mark as one of my inspirations in my burgeoning future film career (from my lips to God's ears) heh. I think we're just expecting too much perhaps, because of the impact he has had on contemporary film making. How often does this happen? I know I was terribly excited for Munich and that blew...and if Spielberg can screw up so can anyone else.

  • March 31, 2006 8:22 AM CST

    Donnie Darko

    by scratcher

    Any comparison to Donnie Darko is all it takes to sell me. Is DD perfect? NO. What I really like about it is that it TRIES. I feel the same way about I Heart Huckabees. Flawed yes, but ambitious in the right direction.

  • March 31, 2006 8:30 AM CST

    Peter North IS "The Fountain"

    by Karl Hungus

    Just curious but what impact has Aronofsky had on contemporary filmmaking, exactly? He's only made two films, both so completely unique (and not necessarily in a good way) that they don't invite imitation on any level. I admire Aronofksy for trying to do something different and meaningful but his art has never connected with me on a human level. It usually comes off as very stylish-yet-faux-intellectual pretension. Based on the numbingly tedius promo reel they showed at Comic Con last year, I doubt "The Fountain" will be any different.

  • March 31, 2006 8:43 AM CST

    Donnie Darko

    by pammybabe

    Donnie Darko was a film that I loved the first time I saw it and felt disapointed after watching it for the second time. I think it is because as a story it was only really worked whilst you were trying to guess what was going on. Once you were in the know it was a lot less interesting.

  • March 31, 2006 8:46 AM CST

    Tree of life and its nectar...

    by Octaveaeon

    Soma, ayahuasca, Tree of Life, Tree of Knowledge, Yggdrasil, Axis Mundi, Eleusinian mysteries, Mithraism, Shamanism, Ars Memoria, Kabalah, Alchemy. Answers and understanding are illusions, especially when one claims these before the world. Don't be so quick to judge, for even in flaws one can always find something of value...

  • March 31, 2006 9:38 AM CST

    Karl Hungus

    by KeSoze3

    You have a point. Requiem is one of my favorite movies ever, but it certainly failed to connect on a chracter level, i.e., "I feel like I know him". It was all about how well the audio and visual elements combined to create a mood that escalated throughout the movie until the viewer couldn't take it anymore. It was sex in reverse. Donnie Darko -- while it had more familiar characters -- also was more about a feeling, which is why it also is one of my all-time favorites despite a story that, in the end, was a little retarded. For The Fountain, was has been my #1 most anticipated movie for about a year now, I'm looking forward to it so much precisely BECAUSE I'm hoping it'll show me things I haven't seen before in a theater, that I'll feel feelings a movie hasn't made me feel before -- like that gasping post-climax release I got from Requiem. If the characters don't say witty things to each other, and the story is weird, or slow, it really doesn't matter to me as long as the film gives me something I haven't seen or felt before. And isn't that, after all, why we go see movies in the first place?

  • March 31, 2006 9:52 AM CST

    blasphemy

    by Russman

  • March 31, 2006 10:13 AM CST

    KeSoze3

    by Karl Hungus

    I hear what you're saying and to some extent, I agree. But going to movies, in my opinion, shouldn't JUST be about seeing something we haven't seen before, or feeling something we haven't felt before. I mean, before 1986, I had never seen a talking duck from another planet on film either. Look at "Hostel." It tried to push the (recent) boundries of horror and failed miserably because the gore didn't mean anything. If you're not invested in the characters or story, seeing or feeling something new is ultimately a hollow endeavor.

  • March 31, 2006 10:47 AM CST

    Hmm...interesting

    by Greatniss

    Gatsby, stop being too cool for school. A BROKEBACK JOKE? COME ON...DIE

  • March 31, 2006 10:57 AM CST

    Karl Hungus

    by Lovecraftfan

    I dont think I can possible disagree with you more. Everybody especially here keeps saying Requiem looks great but is devoid of real emotion. I couldnt disagree more. Requiem is heartbreaking because these are very real characters going through horrible things. Theyre pain is so real its almost hard to watch at times. The mother character especially is a painfully realized character and the other three are well-written too. The movie is not powerful cause it looks unique but rather character we like are going through horrible things. Requiem is one of the best films I have ever seen hopefully this is as good.

  • March 31, 2006 10:59 AM CST

    Donnie Darko is great

    by Lovecraftfan

    So its not perfect. Its also really well done with great vharacter dialogue and it perfectly melds a whole host of different theme s and tones. All around a great film that has a very powerful message at the end. Surprise surprise I disagree with most of you again.

  • March 31, 2006 11:31 AM CST

    Let's hope Gatsby DIDN'T get it

    by Stollentroll

    Otherwise this movie might turn out as a huge disappointment - a Kong-sized disappointment...

  • March 31, 2006 11:44 AM CST

    SPOILER WARNING. YOU WANKER.

    by Seph_J

  • March 31, 2006 11:44 AM CST

    SPOILER WARNING. YOU WANKER.

    by Seph_J

  • March 31, 2006 11:44 AM CST

    SPOILER WARNING. YOU WANKER.

    by Seph_J

  • March 31, 2006 12:43 PM CST

    Student Film, Takes One To Know One

    by The Bits

    That's the point your review let itself be known, your just a frustrated man, movies that are only about ideas that have no drama? What is it Jackman's character, writing and reading the whole time? I'm sure this movie is fine and will be interesting, so until I see it, I'll take your review as a pretentious uni-stooooooooooooooodent review and suggest your late for class, STooooooooooooooooooooodent!

  • March 31, 2006 12:58 PM CST

    ...and some people hate Stanley Kubrick's films.

    by Veraxus

    ...because some people just have no taste.

  • March 31, 2006 1:32 PM CST

    Aronofsky vs. Kelly

    by NeoCon

    I think the "Darko" comparison is valid because both of these film makers are following a very similar path. Both have huge cult followings with very little work to back it up as well as huge gaps between films. It's unfair to have such huge expectations of these guys. They have three (great)films between the two of them. I fear that their ambition and ego may get the best of them for a while before they settle down and become find their footing. It can't be good for a filmmaker to take so much time between projects. Richard Kelly absolutely destroyed "Darko" with his director's cut (Fireworks, Ocean Waves, and INXS??). We'll see about "The Fountain" but I fear that this film may be too ambitious and collapse under its own weight. I hope I'm wrong.

  • March 31, 2006 2:10 PM CST

    It took me a long time to warm up to DONNIE

    by zikade zarathos

    I can honestly say that I *like* it now, as opposed to actively disliking it and going out of my way to tell everyone so. About this review, I was about to write this reviewer off when he started throwing out words like "pretentious" (THE most overused word in film criticism today, BY FAR -- I think people have forgotten what it really means), but then he namedropped TASTE OF CHERRY, a movie I loved, so maybe he's right. Oh well, I still can't wait to see this thing.

  • March 31, 2006 2:37 PM CST

    Aint It Cool Spoilers

    by cornstalkwalker

    I always take a gamble reading parts of reviews here. I try and scan till I see a sentence that says something like "overall the film was good" or "that was worse than the smell of warm dog shit in the sun." I'm pretty sure the latter applied to this review.

  • March 31, 2006 3:01 PM CST

    bummer

    by circletimesquare

    i always loved pi, and i was looking forward to an amazing career arc for aronfsky. but, sometimes, being a starving film student focuses your energies... while being indulged with all the money you need results in over-indulgent crap. which, unfortunately, this movie sounds like. ah well

  • March 31, 2006 3:01 PM CST

    zikade zarathos- Oh my God

    by Lovecraftfan

    This is one of those rare times when I acutally agree with someone on this board. I love Donnie Darko so I eagerly anticipated his directors cut and was completely let down. His alterations took all the ambiguity out of the film and then somehow made it even more confusing since littlen was left up to your interpretation. I am optimistic but makes me worried about Southland Tales.

  • March 31, 2006 3:34 PM CST

    Re: Lovecraftfan & circletimesquare

    by NeoCon

    Lovecraftfan, I'm psyched that someone actually agreed with me for once. If Kelly never did a commentary explaining the movie and/or the director's cut. We would just have the movie and the websightt and it would be an even bigger cult than it is now. His explanation is actually weak. The things that happen on the screen don't mesh well. Circletimesquare, Good point about the hungry film student vs. the wealthy, successful filamaker. Quentin Tarrentino is the greatest example of that.

  • March 31, 2006 3:49 PM CST

    Economics as Inspiration

    by The Bits

    Who really cares? Ultimately, all movies get better with age, and some of the things you never noticed you like later and other things get relevant by accident. No one has seen this yet except people who get bummed out by learning too much. This movie better outright suck if any of this crap means anything and even if it doesn't suck--------either way, its imposssble for it to, requiem was just about drug addiction straight up, Pi is about numerological symbology as told by a math student, the low budget gave it nothing more than a personal element in the no name cast. the music in that movie played an enormous part, and the music would still sound new now, some artists are just interesting even at their weakest Aronofsky is no different

  • March 31, 2006 8:29 PM CST

    Le Fountain du Monde + scratcher

    by thebearovingian

    I read the reviews but you will not sway me! As SIGNS restored my faith so The Fountain shall rehydrate my soul! Come..drink from the Fountain, brother! hell yeah! Scratcher, I'm totally with you on I Heart Huckabees.

  • March 31, 2006 8:34 PM CST

    Christ... Just when I thought it was safe to read

    by r3sp3ctm3

    Spoiler. Great. Thanks. One less likely viewer for the movie. Brilliant post - shit-for-brains.

  • April 1, 2006 1:21 AM CST

    This Sounds Amazing

    by Its_Bill

    Man in period costume takes a messy facial from a tree. Man in lab coat frowns at a beaker, periodically glancing at a photo of his girlfriend hugging a big Labrador in happier times. Man in a bubble floats up into the sky interspersed with flashbacks where he recalls being a man in period costume blowing a tree and a man in a lab coat with a glass beaker. Man then eats bark. PRINT! Genius.

  • April 1, 2006 4:38 AM CST

    What kind of tree is it?

    by ILK

    Is it a Bukkake tree? Oh dear lord why did I just type that?

  • April 1, 2006 6:23 AM CST

    The graphic novel

    by Babyshamble

    looks really stunning, yet the story is suprisingly slight, I hope it's a bit more developed in the film. If the visuals are successfully realised this film's going to look incredible, if nothing else. I still can't wait for it, as far as the Darko comparison's are concerned, if the Fountain is half as interesting, complex, funny and unique, I'll be happy. The director's cut did suck tho

  • April 1, 2006 8:42 AM CST

    Lovecraftfan's persecution complex

    by scratcher

    Most of the posts on this Talkback have been pro-Darko (including Quint's intro), so your post makes no sense. I know that it's comforting to think that you have great taste and nobody appreciates what you like, but maybe you should find something more obscure. You could start a Berthold Bartosch fanclub, for instance.

  • April 1, 2006 11:44 AM CST

    everyone kelly fan ignores Domino

    by emu47

    and gosh, I wonder why...

  • April 1, 2006 12:04 PM CST

    FOUNTAIN SCRIPT IS AWFUL.

    by Stifler's Mom

    It reads like an incoherent hash of 2001, TIMELINE, and MISSION TO MARS. It's pretentious garbage. Suddenly, Brad Pitt seems much, much brighter.

  • April 1, 2006 12:36 PM CST

    I thought Gummo was better than Darko.

    by Doom II

    Just my 2 cents. Donnie Darko was good (even WITH Drew Barrymore in it), but Harmony Korine's Gummo was brilliant and never gets mentioned on this site when discussions about artsy indie films come up.

  • April 1, 2006 7:27 PM CST

    Donnie Darko

    by Neosamurai85

    I love the original DD but HATE the directors cut. When everything is not fully explained their is a surreal logic and space to take what you will from it and fill in the blanks. It worked fully on an emotional level for me. You can rationalize many of the things that go on, but it totally hit home with the way I felt as a teen at the time. Surrealism is great like that when done right. The director failed by trying to make sense of it. Then the real flaws in the logic started showing up. Peace.

  • April 1, 2006 7:30 PM CST

    The teaser kicked ass

    by Rupee88

    I'm not even going to read that because the teaser was so cool...I'm just going to hold onto that until the film is released.

  • April 1, 2006 7:35 PM CST

    Requiem for a Dream

    by Neosamurai85

    On the other hand I only saw the directors cut of RfaD and loved it. I think they had to cut a lot of character stuff from the theatrical do to nudity. I know Marlon Wayans really got cut. Over all though I agree with the few above that found emotional attachment to the characters. Peace.

  • April 1, 2006 11:52 PM CST

    Donnie Darko, meh...

    by KryptonsLastSon

    I saw the film several times trying to see why so many geeks thought it was the shit... And for all my viewing all I can say is it is very: meh... And yes I see the whole time paradox thing the director was going for and all the subtext. I also looked at that website which goes on to explain the movie in exhaustive, and boring, detail. But when you are required to read a website to understand what the director's/writer's message was, that just smacks of sloppy filmmaking, not a lazy viewer. It was just a very average teen angst story, with some sc-fi elements thrown in. I never cared much about anything going on in the film, probably because the main character was just so damned blaise and boring. But I'm intrigued by The Founatin, I'll reserve judgement until I see it on DVD.

  • April 2, 2006 6:20 AM CST

    OK, seriously

    by ChickenDelicious

    I know it's in the spoiler box... actually, it just shows up as "poile" on my screen. But if you're going to print a review that gives away that much of the ending, you owe it to your readers to EDIT. Or, don't print the review. Or, give us a little warning. The spoiler box is often used when there is something fairly minor given away... for something like this, you really need to warn us that major ending plot points are going to be discussed. This was just extremely irresponsible on the part of everyone at AICN, and especially Quint.

  • April 2, 2006 8:00 PM CST

    Meh. Meh. Meh.

    by radio1_mike

    I dunno what to think of this movie. I really dug Pi and Requiem. Ellen Burstyn was fantastic. So was the gameshow guy. But if Jen Connolly does not pop in to the last scene to a double anal pentration with Rachel Weisz-- well I'm outta here!!

  • April 2, 2006 10:35 PM CST

    Smug Alert

    by wahoorob1980

    Sheesh...some ah youse come off like the hybrid-driving characters in this weeks South Park episode.