So it looks like Darren Aronofsky's new movie is finally getting a release after about half a dozen delays. Being a big fan of his other work I was really looking forward to it even before the trailer, and this just made me want to see it more. Supposedly all the people that have seen it already claim it lives up to the hype it's been getting.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thefou ... large.html
Edit : forgot to say release date is Oct. 13th
The Fountain
Moderators: Abelard, Drolgin Steingrinder
-
Taison Earbiter
- Gets Around
- Posts: 152
- Joined: October 11, 2002, 12:39 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Virginia
The Fountain
Last edited by Taison Earbiter on July 22, 2006, 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The secret of being boring is to say everything."
-
Kithyen
- Star Farmer
- Posts: 264
- Joined: May 3, 2003, 8:31 am
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: Kithyen
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=7224
Release date's been pushed back.
On another note I'm hoping the comment this guy made about it being due to his review was in jest. Otherwise that's a helluvan ego.
Oh, and your poet Eliot had it all wrong:
THIS is the way the world ends.
Cortana
THIS is the way the world ends.
Cortana
-
Kithyen
- Star Farmer
- Posts: 264
- Joined: May 3, 2003, 8:31 am
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: Kithyen
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
Just saw this movie Sunday and wanted to wait a few days to put some things together in my head.
I think for the 96 min. running time Aronofsky did a damn fine job of dealing with the themes in the movie. Due to the short running time I was worried about certain things seeming rushed (Which some were) but all the scenes seem to fit well.
The special effects for the nebula scenes were nothing short of astonishing. Aronofsky was looking for a "timelessness" effect with the lack of CG and he got it.
The music is just perfect for the movie. Upon exiting the theater I immediately walked across the street to BestBuy and picked up the soundtrack. The music helps the movie along nicely.
However, the real gem in this film is Hugh Jackman. I had never seen him in anything aside from action adventure movies. If this doesn't get him an oscar nod than hopefully it'll at least open more serious roles for him as this film definitely proves he can handle it with ease. There are very few scenes in film that get to me in any emotional sense. This movie was chock full of them and most of them had to do with Jackman's performance. There was one particular scene where he's sitting on a bed that left a knot in my throat for a good while.
This movie isn't without it's flaws though. The few things that seemed rushed that I alluded to earlier include character development. The short running time kind of kills this aspect of the movie. Rachel Weisz plays her role well but we're really not given much past "dying wife with an interest in Mayan culture." Some of the sets seem claustrophobic especially in the 1500AD period. Whether this was intentional or was due to budget constraints is up for debate.
A lot of other things could be construed as flaws but they're probably more based on the particular viewer than anything.
Overall the split in reviews is probably going to be the general populace's opinion. It's a love or hate movie. I loved it.
I think for the 96 min. running time Aronofsky did a damn fine job of dealing with the themes in the movie. Due to the short running time I was worried about certain things seeming rushed (Which some were) but all the scenes seem to fit well.
The special effects for the nebula scenes were nothing short of astonishing. Aronofsky was looking for a "timelessness" effect with the lack of CG and he got it.
The music is just perfect for the movie. Upon exiting the theater I immediately walked across the street to BestBuy and picked up the soundtrack. The music helps the movie along nicely.
However, the real gem in this film is Hugh Jackman. I had never seen him in anything aside from action adventure movies. If this doesn't get him an oscar nod than hopefully it'll at least open more serious roles for him as this film definitely proves he can handle it with ease. There are very few scenes in film that get to me in any emotional sense. This movie was chock full of them and most of them had to do with Jackman's performance. There was one particular scene where he's sitting on a bed that left a knot in my throat for a good while.
This movie isn't without it's flaws though. The few things that seemed rushed that I alluded to earlier include character development. The short running time kind of kills this aspect of the movie. Rachel Weisz plays her role well but we're really not given much past "dying wife with an interest in Mayan culture." Some of the sets seem claustrophobic especially in the 1500AD period. Whether this was intentional or was due to budget constraints is up for debate.
A lot of other things could be construed as flaws but they're probably more based on the particular viewer than anything.
Overall the split in reviews is probably going to be the general populace's opinion. It's a love or hate movie. I loved it.
Oh, and your poet Eliot had it all wrong:
THIS is the way the world ends.
Cortana
THIS is the way the world ends.
Cortana
-
Fairweather Pure
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 8509
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:06 pm
- XBL Gamertag: SillyEskimo
My wife and I were both waiting for the opening story to finish and the plot to move forward, then the movie ended.
Counts as eye candy and brain deadening lack of plot.
Counts as eye candy and brain deadening lack of plot.
She Dreams in Digital
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
\"Led Zeppelin taught an entire generation of young men how to make love, if they just listen\"- Michael Reed(2005)
-
miir
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 11501
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:06 pm
- XBL Gamertag: miir1
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Definately loved it.It's a love or hate movie. I loved it.
The cinematography, music and performances (Jackman and Weisz) were outstanding.
I had to watch it a few times to really understand the concepts and parallels. The DVD extras are great.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
-
Sylvus
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 7033
- Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: mp72
- Location: A², MI
- Contact:
I have nothing to add to this thread, other than that my friend used to work at a convenience store/bodega type of place, and one of the products they had on the shelves was The Fountain combination douche/enema system. I can't read the title of this thread without giggling.
I thought you guys needed to know.
I thought you guys needed to know.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - Barack Obama
Go Blue!
Go Blue!
-
Fairweather Pure
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 8509
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:06 pm
- XBL Gamertag: SillyEskimo
I bought the DVD, much to my wife's dismay, lol. I've yet to watch it though. Apocalypto comes out today, so the Fountain will get another push back until I have nothing else to watch. I want to give it my full attention.
My wife actually wants to watch it again, with me, and see if she somehow was missing something somewhere the first time.
For those that were unaware, Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchette backed out when it was in pre-production and there was a scramble to recast before shooting began. Pitt dumped Fountain about 6 weeks before actual shooting in favor of doing Troy instead.
My wife actually wants to watch it again, with me, and see if she somehow was missing something somewhere the first time.
For those that were unaware, Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchette backed out when it was in pre-production and there was a scramble to recast before shooting began. Pitt dumped Fountain about 6 weeks before actual shooting in favor of doing Troy instead.
Last edited by Fairweather Pure on May 22, 2007, 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Kithyen
- Star Farmer
- Posts: 264
- Joined: May 3, 2003, 8:31 am
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: Kithyen
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
Yea, I remember reading somewhere that Brad Pitt and Aranofsky were having 'creative differences' so Brad Pitt left and did Troy instead and Blanchett soon followed. Aranofsky apparently did some rewrites for the script or reenvionsed it.. THe original script was made into a graphic novel. I kinda wanted to pick it up on Amazon to see how it compares with the current movie.Fairweather Pure wrote:
For those that were unaware, Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchette backed out when it was in pre-production and there was a scramble to recast before shooting began. Pitt dumped Fountain about 6 weeks before actual shooting in favor of doing Troy instead.
Oh, and your poet Eliot had it all wrong:
THIS is the way the world ends.
Cortana
THIS is the way the world ends.
Cortana
-
Keverian FireCry
- Way too much time!
- Posts: 2919
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:41 pm
- Gender: Mangina
- Location: Seattle, WA
-
Fairweather Pure
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 8509
- Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:06 pm
- XBL Gamertag: SillyEskimo
Re: The Fountain
This movie is very difficult to explain, so I'll just quote the Wikipedia summary.
"The Fountain takes place in three interweaving narratives that encompass the age of the Spanish conquistadors, the near-future period and a journey through deep space in an ecospheric starship."
Pretty vague, huh? Well, here's my description.
Hugh Jackman's wife, Rachel Weisz, has cancer and is dieing. Jackman happens to be a scientist studying tumor reduction. He's on the verge of breaking new ground and being able to save his wife. During her fight against her illness, Weisz has written a book based on the mythical/biblical/legendary Tree of Life that takes place during the age of the conquistadors. The movie flashes to these scenes from her book, the present, and the distant future.
(The future portion is open to interpretation. Who am I kidding? The entire fucking movie is open to interpretation. Anyway, I happen to think the future portion is Jackman's ending to the book.)
What the movie is really about: Life and death, beginning and ending, creation out of destruction, acceptance of our mortality, and the fact that we're all apart of something greater than ourselves. We're all connected in death and vital to the cycle of everything that exists, from flowers to the cosmos itself.
Yeah, pretty heavy stuff.
The genesis of this movie is said to have been when Darren Aronofsky saw the Matrix. He began thinking that anything is possible in cinema due to technology, so what if instead of big explosions and action, he took the genre in a different direction? He wanted his foray into Sci-Fi to break down barriers and redefine what the genre is capable of in much the same ways that Star Wars and the Matrix had done. While he flat out failed to achieve that goal, he most certainly succeeded in making one of the most ambitious Sci-Fi movies of all time, easily on par with 2001: A Space Odyssey. As a matter of fact, there is really no other movie to compare this to, other than 2001. Nothing else approaches the level of complex concepts that both movies try to convey. I say "try" because opinions are sharply divided on both films if they were able to get thier points across to the audience.
This movie was released on DVD 5/7/07. I've owned it for over a year, but just got around to watching it the other night.
My wife saw this in the theater with a friend of hers and they both hated it. They expected some sort of period piece romance with hopes of seeing a shirtless Hugh Jackman making sweet love to the stunning Rachel Weisz. What they got was more akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is to say, the exact fucking opposite of anything they would ever want to see.
I still remember my wife's description of the movie from over a year ago.
"When Hugh Jackman started drinking paint from a tree, I was pretty much ready to walk out. But it's probably something you'd like because it was really weird".
I bought it the day of release last year, but never made time to watch it. I bought it for several reasons, chief amongst them is the fact that Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, Below) wrote and directed the film. I happen to really enjoy his work and was eager to see his take on the Sci-Fi genre in much the same way I wanted to see Danny Boyle's "Sunshine". My wife's cryptic review also made me wonder what she meant by "weird" and also why she thought I would like it. I knew it was going to be a rather heavy film, and I tend to have to be in the mood to fully enjoy these types of movies. A year and lord knows how many movies later, I was finally in the mood.
Basically, if you couldn't stand 2001, then I don't think you'd be able to sit through The Fountain. If you did enjoy 2001, then you may find yourself with a new favorite movie to add to your collection. It's almost a companion to 2001 IMO. Even if you don't dig on the vast scope of the movie, anyone that loves art and cinema should find plenty to enjoy during the brief, 1.5 hour film. Once again, the same can be said of 2001. These are movies that were made by artists that almost seem to have been made for other artists.
Examples:
Each period in The Fountain is framed and defined by distinct design elements. During the conquistador period, triangles are the dominant shape. During the present, it's rectangles. In the future, it's circles and spheres. (I picked up on this element)
Hugh Jackman's character is always in darkness or shadow, while Rachel Weisz has a soft "glow" at almost all times. She seems angelic. (I noticed the glowing Weisz, but only picked up on the dark Jackman after reading about it in another review)
When confronting concepts so obtuse and vast, both Kubrik and Aranofsky chose to convey them in almost equally obtuse and vast ways. Remember the "Star Child" in 2001? Yeah, there are several of those moments in The Fountain.
The movie is almost more about the feeling it inspires, and less about the narrative that is actually happening on screen. Kind of like Donnie Darko? I guess my weird way of trying to explain this is comparing it to Tool’s album, Lateralus. The concepts are far out and deep. Where a band like Tool uses music to evoke feelings and emotions, The Fountain uses imagery along with it's soundtrack and fantastic acting to dig into an almost subconscious level to convey very powerful concepts and ideas. IMO, Alex Grey's art is a great example of what The Fountain achieves. I am in no way a religious man, but I admit to times when looking at art, listening to music, or being with my daughter where I feel a very distinct sense of being part of something greater than myself, almost as if I see my place in all of this. It's probably the closest to being truely spiritual that I'm ever likely to become. The Fountian picked at the edges of these feelings and reminded me that I do have them from time to time.
This movie deserves to be seen and discussed. Forty years later, 2001 stands as an undeniable classic despite the fact that many people still debate it’s true meaning and subtle undercurrents. I believe The Fountain will also withstand the test of time and be viewed as an equally rare movie that approaches the unapproachable, tries to explain the unexplainable, and takes it's audience to a place that very few movies or directors dare to tread.
10/10 - Brave and inspired film making
"The Fountain takes place in three interweaving narratives that encompass the age of the Spanish conquistadors, the near-future period and a journey through deep space in an ecospheric starship."
Pretty vague, huh? Well, here's my description.
Hugh Jackman's wife, Rachel Weisz, has cancer and is dieing. Jackman happens to be a scientist studying tumor reduction. He's on the verge of breaking new ground and being able to save his wife. During her fight against her illness, Weisz has written a book based on the mythical/biblical/legendary Tree of Life that takes place during the age of the conquistadors. The movie flashes to these scenes from her book, the present, and the distant future.
(The future portion is open to interpretation. Who am I kidding? The entire fucking movie is open to interpretation. Anyway, I happen to think the future portion is Jackman's ending to the book.)
What the movie is really about: Life and death, beginning and ending, creation out of destruction, acceptance of our mortality, and the fact that we're all apart of something greater than ourselves. We're all connected in death and vital to the cycle of everything that exists, from flowers to the cosmos itself.
Yeah, pretty heavy stuff.
The genesis of this movie is said to have been when Darren Aronofsky saw the Matrix. He began thinking that anything is possible in cinema due to technology, so what if instead of big explosions and action, he took the genre in a different direction? He wanted his foray into Sci-Fi to break down barriers and redefine what the genre is capable of in much the same ways that Star Wars and the Matrix had done. While he flat out failed to achieve that goal, he most certainly succeeded in making one of the most ambitious Sci-Fi movies of all time, easily on par with 2001: A Space Odyssey. As a matter of fact, there is really no other movie to compare this to, other than 2001. Nothing else approaches the level of complex concepts that both movies try to convey. I say "try" because opinions are sharply divided on both films if they were able to get thier points across to the audience.
This movie was released on DVD 5/7/07. I've owned it for over a year, but just got around to watching it the other night.
My wife saw this in the theater with a friend of hers and they both hated it. They expected some sort of period piece romance with hopes of seeing a shirtless Hugh Jackman making sweet love to the stunning Rachel Weisz. What they got was more akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is to say, the exact fucking opposite of anything they would ever want to see.
I still remember my wife's description of the movie from over a year ago.
"When Hugh Jackman started drinking paint from a tree, I was pretty much ready to walk out. But it's probably something you'd like because it was really weird".
I bought it the day of release last year, but never made time to watch it. I bought it for several reasons, chief amongst them is the fact that Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, Below) wrote and directed the film. I happen to really enjoy his work and was eager to see his take on the Sci-Fi genre in much the same way I wanted to see Danny Boyle's "Sunshine". My wife's cryptic review also made me wonder what she meant by "weird" and also why she thought I would like it. I knew it was going to be a rather heavy film, and I tend to have to be in the mood to fully enjoy these types of movies. A year and lord knows how many movies later, I was finally in the mood.
Basically, if you couldn't stand 2001, then I don't think you'd be able to sit through The Fountain. If you did enjoy 2001, then you may find yourself with a new favorite movie to add to your collection. It's almost a companion to 2001 IMO. Even if you don't dig on the vast scope of the movie, anyone that loves art and cinema should find plenty to enjoy during the brief, 1.5 hour film. Once again, the same can be said of 2001. These are movies that were made by artists that almost seem to have been made for other artists.
Examples:
Each period in The Fountain is framed and defined by distinct design elements. During the conquistador period, triangles are the dominant shape. During the present, it's rectangles. In the future, it's circles and spheres. (I picked up on this element)
Hugh Jackman's character is always in darkness or shadow, while Rachel Weisz has a soft "glow" at almost all times. She seems angelic. (I noticed the glowing Weisz, but only picked up on the dark Jackman after reading about it in another review)
When confronting concepts so obtuse and vast, both Kubrik and Aranofsky chose to convey them in almost equally obtuse and vast ways. Remember the "Star Child" in 2001? Yeah, there are several of those moments in The Fountain.
The movie is almost more about the feeling it inspires, and less about the narrative that is actually happening on screen. Kind of like Donnie Darko? I guess my weird way of trying to explain this is comparing it to Tool’s album, Lateralus. The concepts are far out and deep. Where a band like Tool uses music to evoke feelings and emotions, The Fountain uses imagery along with it's soundtrack and fantastic acting to dig into an almost subconscious level to convey very powerful concepts and ideas. IMO, Alex Grey's art is a great example of what The Fountain achieves. I am in no way a religious man, but I admit to times when looking at art, listening to music, or being with my daughter where I feel a very distinct sense of being part of something greater than myself, almost as if I see my place in all of this. It's probably the closest to being truely spiritual that I'm ever likely to become. The Fountian picked at the edges of these feelings and reminded me that I do have them from time to time.
This movie deserves to be seen and discussed. Forty years later, 2001 stands as an undeniable classic despite the fact that many people still debate it’s true meaning and subtle undercurrents. I believe The Fountain will also withstand the test of time and be viewed as an equally rare movie that approaches the unapproachable, tries to explain the unexplainable, and takes it's audience to a place that very few movies or directors dare to tread.
10/10 - Brave and inspired film making