Great film. Felt very Buddhist. I connected with the story better than with the overrated Eternal Sunshine -- the narrative felt much more compact and coherent on repeat viewings.

Everytime this thread surfaces, I am reminded of the great disappointment I experienced on seeing how Aronofsky botched this brilliant concept...

I finally saw it. Aronovsky, you're a genius!


I think it's the most spiritual, bold and romantic (!) experience in a long time to start, a big meditation on how death needs to be accepted as a part of life even if we're always tempted to think that one day we might find a real Tree of Life. As rational beings we are, we have that conscience, that death is the thing that links us all in the end, and we find it hard to accept that there's not a "cure" to it sometimes...

And there was a movie I thought in these last few minutes and while I'm typing this, and it's not The New World... it's Peter Weir's Fearless which I just saw a week ago or so, a very good and somehow overlooked movie that might not have a fan base as big or as loud as this movie (that movie is less "radical" too) but it's also worth every compliment. I guess it's because of the big "death vs. life" theme behind both movies.

... is a great film. Haven't watched it in over two years, but thanks for reminding me of it - I need to see it again. I can see the comparisons to The Fountain... interesting observation.

Roger Ebert, after being sick last year when it was released, has just gone back to write a review of The Fountain - - it's an interesting take on the movie...

It's funny, his review actually inspired me to work my way back through this thread. I simply could not believe that the majority of people out there who saw it didn't pick up on the fairly basic and straight forward plot line, so I wanted to see what KJers made of it (as we do tend to be rather astute film goers, if I do say so).

Ebert was right.

I'm not sure whats more frustrating, the pages and pages of people digging for something that isn't there, or the pages and pages of people saying "fuck this movie. makes no sense. F-."

You know, even if Ebert goes on streaks where he does things like give 6 perfect grades in one day or pump the next Haggis film, I still can't help but love him. No-one can write like him him and it's pieces like that which make his top billing deserved. He's dead on, the more I think of it.

I don't hate The Fountain, but it's one of those movies that proves pretty much every and any sci-fi movie can get its fanbase. You just need a) An out there story b) Flashing visuals c) Something to interpret out of it - Philosophy, religion, society, government, etc. And that's pretty much it. Fanbase assured, somewhere, some people.

Again, I don't hate TF, I just think Aronofsky inserted those 3 things but failed to connect the dots, it's messy, the movie doesn't really fit as one. The love story and Jackman's reaction to the disease is the most worthwhile part of the movie by far, I give the present scenes an A and the rest D. He should've just made the entire movie about that rather than create a wacked up sci-fi movie from that novel around it.

This is also totally spot on, especially the bolded part...

Thing is though, I don't think this movie is really that messy.

Like Ebert said (I think it was Ebert, may have been the other guy he linked to in his review), people went into the movie with a preconceived notion of what they thought it was going to be about, and they tried to jam the pieces in to fit that idea.

I think this movies rep as a clusterfuck of epic proportions is mostly the fault of an overzealous audience.

Now, via JoBlo.com, we find that Aronofsky (at where else, but darrenaronofsky.com) has released his own commentary track for The Fountain!

But I disagree with Ebert's viewpoint. It's always been obvious that the Conquistador is a character in Izzy's book, but 'Future Tom'? That's who is really open to interpretation.

We know there really is a Tree of Life in South America because of Tommy's experiments. As for Aronofsky's viewpoint, Devin Faraci pointed out that Tommy's line, "Death is a disease, and there is a cure, and I will find it!" line wasn't in the early screening he saw, and that Aronofsky put it back in to make the linearity of the future sequence clearer.

Personally, I think it works beautifully either way, but it's more emotional to think Tommy really is out there, alone, and he's finally accepting his own death and welcoming it.

It's odd: on one end of the spectrum I can understand and make many of the connections and symbolic meanings that may members have found or made, and then I can agree when others say that they might be finding these deeper meanings even if they aren't necessarily there. But to that I say that art is what you make of it. You can find any deeper meaning in any piece of truly good art that you want, because true art is timeless and without quantitative value.

I liked The Fountain. I didn't love it. Jackman was good; he truly stood out in his reactions to the respective deaths of Izzy, but other than that he was simply "good". Weisz didn't really do much for me. She was adequate, although her material wasn't as much to work with as Jackman (who, in turn, should have had more time to flesh). As for my idea on the meaning behind everything: I think every story is the real story; that is to say that the 1500 story isn't simply a story out of Izzy Creo's imagination, or that 2500 Tom is just a representation of the journey Tom is taking. I think all are real.

I don't remember the movie ever saying Izzy was a writer. When she first started talking about everything, I assumed she was a Historian. I watched the whole movie with that in mind, which really changes the perspective of her asking Tom to finish writing the book. I think Space Tom eventually does finish writing the book when, in his zen-like state as he's traveling in his magic bubble, he looks into the past of his own incarnate soul and sees Conquistador Tom about to perish at the hands of the Mayan king thing. His ability to see into that scenario changes how the Mayan king guy perceives ConqustoTom.

Of course, I just finished watching the movie about 20 minutes ago. I might need more time and another viewing to think that thoughts over.

As for a grade, I'm not sure. It was really amazing or anything. The emotional motifs and symbolism throughout he movie don't strike me incredibly strong. I'd say around a B+, maybe a really low A-.

That is relativism, and it's a fallacy.

How so?

It's not our job to create something inside a piece of art that the artist did not intend to be there. Using a relativistic outlook to interpret art is unfair to the artist, the piece, and even yourself to a certain extent.

Excellent enunciation of classic art theory, unfortunately you have received a failing grade on your participation in this thread due to a readily apparent lack of true perception of the subject at hand. Please report for remedial study with Professor O.B. Vious...

You have the wit of a 90 year old man, and I love it.

What you feel when seeing Monet's Impression, Sunrise is probably not what I feel. My feelings are now unfair to Monet and to me? Says who? How do you know that what I feel isn't what the artist intended? Why are your feelings fair?

A piece of art that has one message no matter who you are is great, but really shallow. One message. One interprtation. One meaning, and one way to think. Real art challenges the mind, either by forcing someone to consider a new way of thought or evoking a new emotion. That may be relativism, but art IS relative because everybody perceives what they consider art in a different way.

I liked it but thought it was flawed, with the primary flaw being the love story. When introduced to Izzy we know within 3-4 minutes that she is sick and that Tom is obsessed with finding a cure for her disease. The movie never shows us why Tom loves Izzy, just that he does, and he wants to find a cure. Using the sickness as a way of showing that they're in love was an easy way out for the film. It didn't earn the love angle, it forced it on us.

It's the type of plot point that a Rob Reiner film would use.

Conquistador Tom falls in love with Isabella because she tells him to wear the ring when he finds the tree. So are we to believe that he falls into a timeless love simply because of that one little instruction?

I'm not actually sure Tom truly loves Izzy until the end when he gives up his obsession.

Anyway, the visuals and the score triumph over the plot to earn a B.

I wanted to quote this statement by ID, because I think he's completely right. Art should be judged as its own entity, and if we take away more from it than the director intended, then all the more power to it. It's worthwhile to study career and life paths of an artist to get a background on what they were thinking when it was created, but the art itself should not be tied down to them, it should live and breathe on its own.

Still one of the most profoundly affecting movies I've ever experienced....

I'll probably watch this movie once every 3-4 years to keep its brilliance relatively fresh in mind.


Truth from my perspective: Darren Aronofsky and Clint Mansell both deserve the equivalent of roughly 100 inter-dimensional 'Nobel Peace Prizes' for their work on this film... twould serve as a symbolic debt of gratitude (albeit surely an insufficient one), owed to their collective contribution of beauty and wisdom to the universe, and humankind's experience of it...

(ancillary props owed to those who influenced the lives of these two men that inspired this work of art, and of course the Buddha itself, and everyone that has suffered before and since)


Just my thoughts.


.... 'Death is the Road to Awe'-inspired-goosebumps were the most probable cause for this post ....

I just couldn't get over the direct-to-video production values and feel of this thing. It never felt remotely cinematic in look, construction, or otherwise.

gorgeous visuals, visual and audio symbolism and even good acting cannot save a movie when ultimately, it ends up boring.

and i was left feeling terribly bored with the whole thing.

D

Maybe Aronofsky's original version was special. I think this was irrevocably damaged by the budget crunch/revised script. Everything felt...undercooked.